A Talmud maxim says "Know how to reply to godless" ("Da ma tashiv
l'apikores"). This article by my countryman Gabriel Ash teaches exactly
that: how to reply to usual claims of philosemites. 

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Ash24.htm
 
Israel, Lebanon: Defense Against the Black Arts
by Gabriel Ash
 
 
In the wake of my last article, Dissident Voice received a polite and
well written “letter to the editor.” The letter, while not claiming any
originality, was an exceptionally well packed string of apologetic
“talking points.” Since every writer who strays from the party line
probably receives scores of similar letters, I thought it would be of
some benefit to the community to unpack it publicly. 

Following is a line by line commentary. 

  To the Editor, 

  Gabriel Ash ("Israel Terrorism", July 18) did not say that the capture of
  the two Israeli soldiers and the killing of eight others was effected
  during a raid that violated an internationally recognized border. 

I did say exactly that, adding that, “Israel should not enjoy the
defense of principles it doesn’t respect.” Israel, since its inception,
has never declared its borders. Its so-called borders are “armistice
lines” which reflect the result of military conflict. The only reason,
for example, that Israel’s border with Lebanon is where it is, and not
on the Litani river, is the dogged resistance of Hizbullah, which forced
Israel to retreat to that border. Nevertheless, Israel has repeatedly,
since 1948 till today, sent its soldiers and agents to act behind
international borders, and has never accepted any legal limitation on
its forces. The list is too long to cover here, but we can mention a few
major signposts: the Qibya massacre (1953), the Suez War (1956), the
attack on Samua (1966), the 1967 War, the Litani operation (1978), the
1982 war, and of course, the ongoing occupation of the West Bank and
Gaza since 1967 to the present. To focus on Lebanon, we know that Israel
planned to occupy Southern Lebanon already in the early '50s, but raids
on Lebanon started in 1968, and haven’t stopped since. Israel helped
plunged Lebanon into the civil war, bombed villages in Lebanon
repeatedly since 1968, killing thousands of civilians all the way to the
massacre in Qana in 1996, in which 106 Lebanese refugees perished inside
a U.N. compound. Israel maintained an oppressive and murderous
occupation of Lebanon, in defiance of the U.N. Security Council, for 18
years, in which 20,000 people perished. Since leaving Lebanon, Israeli
fighter jets have repeatedly violated Lebanon sovereignty, and Israeli
military units have infiltrated Lebanon at will. In February 2006, for
example, U.N. investigators confirmed that Israeli soldiers shot and
killed a teenage shepherd inside Lebanon. [1] According to Israeli
propaganda logic, Lebanon should have razed Haifa to the ground in
retaliation. Borders mean almost as little to Israel as the life of the
civilians behind it. So yes, in solidarity with the nine thousand
Palestinian political prisoners languishing in Israeli jails, Hizbullah
did breach Israel sovereignty. It may have been reckless or
shortsighted, but it was in no way unjustified. Jewish religious law
applies perfectly: “He who steals from a thief is not liable.” 

  By any definition Hizbullah committed an act of aggression, which by any
  standard is an act of war. No country can tolerate such breach of its
  sovereignty without responding accordingly. 

I did not expect Israel to tolerate an act of “aggression” from
Hizbullah. After all, Israel doesn’t tolerate even peaceful
demonstrations against its crimes. It beats, shoots and kills peace
activists and non-violent protesters [2], Israel doesn’t even tolerate
people caught living with their families while not being Jewish. Perhaps
if Israel were a less intolerant place, it wouldn’t need to tolerate
aggression. As for “responding accordingly” see below. 

  Israel is no exception. The Beirut airport and the Beirut-Damascus
  highway were hit so that Iran and Syria could not send any help to
  Hisbullah, as they have been doing for a long time, supplying it with
  some 12,000 rockets of different kinds. 

How many rockets, shells and deadly aircrafts does Israel possess, most
courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer? Why shouldn’t the Lebanese own the
military means necessary for deterring an Israeli attack, especially
since Israel attacks Lebanon with the regularity an addict injects
heroin? 

  And as usual with terrorist groups, the Hizbullah always hides among
  civilians. The rockets are hidden in houses in which civilian families
  live. 

First, Hizbullah is a Lebanese political party, a militarized resistance
movement and an effective and appreciated provider of social services.
There is some speculation that Hizbullah may have been involved in some
terrorist operations. But on the other hand, to be called a “terrorist
group” by the U.S. and Israel, the two leading providers of global
terror, is a badge of honor. As a reminder, Israelis had elected as
prime ministers Shamir and Begin, both leaders in the pre-state
terrorist groups that murdered Palestinian civilians, foreign diplomats,
and anti-Zionist religious Jews. They also elected Rabin, the ethnic
cleanser of Lydda and Ramle, and Sharon, the commander of the Qibia
massacre and the ogre responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacre.
Terrorism credentials are a qualification to higher office in Israeli
society. [3] 

Second, Hizbullah doesn’t “hide among civilians.” As an organic Shiite
organization, it is based in Shiite areas, just as the Israeli military
is based often in Jewish areas. The Israeli Chief of Staff “hides” in a
bunker at the center of Tel Aviv. Does that make Tel-Aviv a legitimate
military target? According to Israel’s logic, the answer is yes.
Israel’s nuclear facilities “hide” in Dimona. Are the residents of
Dimona a legitimate military target? Moshav Meron, which was hit by
Hizbullah, sits atop a military installation. Why does the Israeli
military hide among civilians? (For good measures, the Israeli military
is also hiding behind Palestinians.) And as for the rockets hidden in
families houses, that has all the credibility of an Israeli army say-so.

  When a Katyusha rocket is fired at an Israeli city, it is aimed only at
  civilians. 

First, that is certainly not true. Hizbullah has also targeted military
installations in or near Israeli towns. [4] Second, Hizbullah, let us
remember, responded to Israeli bombardment and killing of civilians by
firing on Israeli cities. Is that morally justified? No. But if one
thinks Israel has the right to bomb civilians, it follows that Hizbullah
has the same right, indeed a greater right, since it is responding to
Israel’s attacks. Israeli Foreign Minister Livne justifies Israeli
murder of Lebanese people because “Terrorists use the population and
live among them.” [5] Everyone who ever visited Israel knows that
Israeli soldiers are present in large numbers in almost every town. They
live among the population, and according to Livne, that makes Israeli
towns legitimate Katyusha targets. 

Now, I don’t think Livne believes that. Apologists and “friends” of
Israel cannot perform the mental operation of abstracting the terms,
“Israelis,” “Arabs,” “Israeli army,” “Hizbullah,” from the formal
structure of their argument. They don’t see that a sentence such as “X
has/doesn’t have a right to kill Y under condition Z” would be either
true or false regardless of whether X=Israeli and Y=Arab or the other
way around. That is because, for them, “Arabs” and “Israelis” are simple
not interchangeable terms. The word that describes this habit of the
mind is racism. 

  Israel does its best to spare as many civilians as possible. 

Of all Israeli “Hasbara’s” (propaganda) talking points, this is the most
obscene. Let’s begin with the current war. There are over 300 Lebanese
civilians killed already (the body count is probably obsolete by the
time you read this), including whole families, and a large percentage of
children. There is no evidence that even a handful of Hizbullah fighters
were among the killed. Israel bombed scores of villages and densely
inhabited neighborhoods in Beirut and Tyre. Among the important military
targets Israel bombed were a Greek Orthodox church, a milk factory and
food and medical supplies convoys. Nor are Israeli leaders trying to
hide that they are targeting civilians who have no connection to
Hizbullah. Israel’s Chief of Staff explained Israel’s careful vetting of
targets, for example, with the statement that “nothing is safe.” Indeed,
Israel even bombed Christian neighborhoods. 

“Trying to spare as many civilians as possible” is a pretty meaningless
incantation. What does it practically imply? Let’s assume fighters and
civilians are present in the same area. How many civilians does Israel
consider acceptable to kill in order to get a fighter? 10, 100, 1000? Is
there any example of a target that was spared because of the presence of
civilians? Since Israel bombs dense residential neighborhoods (not to
mention Gaza, the densest human habitat on earth), the answer is clearly
no. “as possible” means, “we bomb whatever we want.” There is no
difference between indiscriminate bombing and “targeting” civilians. 

“To spare as many civilians as possible” not only fails as a meaningful
expression of respect for civilian life, but is also a lie. Israel
kills civilians as a strategy, not only as a by-product of military
operations. The strategy of attacking civilians is not new. It was first
enunciated in the fifties by Moshe Dayan, as the policy of “retaliation”
against civilians. Dayan, (unlike the moral friends of Israel today)
honestly admitted that Israel’s retaliation policy was “neither moral,
nor justified.” He said that “the method of collective punishment has
proven itself - as of now - as effective.” [6] After fifty years there
should be some doubt as to how effective collective punishment really
is. But it is clearly as unjustifiable and immoral today as it was when
Dayan first adopted the Nazi doctrine of fighting the resistance with
retaliation against civilians.

Dayan is long dead, but the record proves that Israel never gave up the
use of collective punishment against civilians, which consists in both
targeting civilians directly and recklessly endangering civilians, as a
means of pressure (again, the definition of terrorism). Dozens of books,
articles and reports have been written on the subject, by academics,
journalists and human rights organizations. Few of them unfortunately
ever get reported or quoted in the mainstream media. The latest summary
comes from Norman Finkelstein’s book, Beyond Chutzpa, from which I quote
at random the following Amnesty International report referring to the
year 2002: “The Majority of people killed were taking part in
demonstrations where stones were the only weapons used... A large
proportion of those injured and killed included children. Bystanders,
people within their homes and ambulance personnel were also killed.” [7]

And closer to Lebanon, here is what Human Rights Watch said about
Israel’s “Operation Accountability” in 1993, another massive Israeli
assault on Lebanon in which 118 Lebanese civilians were killed: “It is
apparent from public statements that... civilians were seen as a crucial
strategic element of the operation….Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin
declared: "We want Lebanese villagers to flee and we want to damage all
those who were parties to Hizballah's activities." For both these goals
of Operation Accountability, Lebanese civilians were the focus. "Israel
planned to drive Lebanese civilians north to Beirut in order to force
the Lebanese government to crack down on Hizballah, and to punish the
villagers for allowing Hizballah to operate in their midst. On both
counts, Israel was in grave violation of international humanitarian law
which prohibits the targeting of civilians." According to HRW the great
majority of the victims where civilians. 

There are dozens of such quotes for any given year in Israel’s history.
Anyone with minimal reading skills can collect enough data to shock
their conscience, provided that they have one. 

Getting back to current events, Olmert announced that he will not stop
pounding Lebanon until Israel achieved its goals: these include the
removal of Hizbullah’s rockets from South Lebanon, return of the captive
soldiers, and international pressure on Lebanon to implement Security
Council resolution 1559. The last two of Olmert’s three stated
conditions for a cease-fire are political and cannot conceivably be
achieved by the destruction of any number of military targets. Hence,
according to the Prime Minister’s own formulation of Israel’s official
reasons for bombing Lebanon, the mass murder of civilians is taking
place for the purpose of putting pressure on Hizbullah’s leaders, the
Lebanese government, and the “international community.” By his own words
Olmert is an international terrorist. 

  Israel left Gaza, to the last inch, more than 10 months ago. Since then
  more than 800 Qassam rockets have been fired at Israeli towns from
  there. In the month of June alone, 89 rockets were fired at the town of
  Sderot. Again, like any other country, Israel had to respond. It should
  have acted as soon as the first rocket landed. But better late than
  never 

These 800 “rockets” are crude steel tubes that caused less than a dozen
casualties. That’s a dozen too much. But during the same period, Israel
fired ten times as many real, sophisticated, U.S.-made heavy artillery
shells into Gaza, killing at least eighty people, including a whole
family doing a barbecue on the beach. [8] How should Palestinians
respond? 

Now, why is Gaza still fighting? Contrary to the talking points, Israel
did not end its occupation of Gaza. It redeployed its soldiers to the
perimeter, without ever ending its full control over the life of Gaza’s
inhabitants, their infrastructure, airspace, borders and economy.
Furthermore, Israel’s leaders have openly stated that the purpose of
their redeployment in Gaza is to secure the Israel’s extensive land
robbery and settlement policies in the West Bank. David Bloom wrote a
finely-combed analysis of Israel’s real “convergence” plan and why it
presages no ending of the occupation. 

Hamas’s leaders have repeatedly and publicly committed to end the
violent resistance and accept Israel within a two-states division of
Palestine. The elected Palestinian leader, Ismail Haniyeh, stated the
conditions: 

“[R]ecognition of the core dispute over the land of historical Palestine
and the rights of all its people... reclaiming all lands occupied in 1967;
and stopping Israeli attacks, assassinations and military
expansion... Statehood for the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in Arab East
Jerusalem, and resolving the 1948 Palestinian refugee issue fairly, on
the basis of international legitimacy and established law.” 

Hamas does not demand anything beyond the international legal consensus
expressed in countless UN resolution. Israel is now bombing and starving
the civilian population of Gaza because it does not want to end the
occupation and resolve the conflict in good faith. It wants to continue
to deny Palestinians their internationally recognized rights, and is
ready to kill any number of them until they submit. 

  The writer, apparently does not like Israel. 

Having lived a big chunk of my life in Israel, I dare say that’s an
understatement. But we are not debating personal taste, are we? (I also
don’t like Brussel Sprouts, but I don’t criticize them.) We are
discussing crimes against humanity. What annoys Israel’s “friends” is
that some refuse to bow to the golden calf of eternal Jewish victimhood
and dare point the finger at the real thug in the Middle East. 

  That of course is his privilege, but Israel will continue to defend
  itself, whether the writer likes it or not. 

Israel will continue to commit new crimes in the defense of old crimes.
I expect nothing less. Shakespeare captured the essential dynamics that
leads from Illegitimacy To Ever Expanding Criminality in these
perceptive lines from the Tragedy of Macbeth: 

"For mine own good, 
All causes shall give way: I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far, that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
 
  It is amazing to see a "progressive" left winger support one of the most
  regressive fundamentalist Islamo-fascist groups around. 

Let’s begin with the obvious. Israel can no more justify its crimes by
describing Hizbullah as “islamo-fascist” as by complaining about Ghengis
Khan’s bad hygiene. Murdering civilians is the issue here, not
Nassralah’s political theories. To combat political theories, words, not
bombs, should be used. 

Nevertheless, calling Hizbullah Islamo-fascist is a classic
sand-in-the-eyes defense. Hizbullah is a complex phenomenon, with
regressive as well as progressive aspects (and let us not forget that
Hizbullah was effectively created by Israel.) I share neither
Hizbullah’s vision of Islamic society, nor its cult of martyrdom. On the
other hand, Hizbullah is also committed to political pluralism and
democracy, and is probably the least corrupt major party in Lebanon, and
the one that does most for public welfare and social and political
equality. These qualities make Hizbullah among the most progressive
political forces in a reactionary Middle East. And last but not least,
defeating the Israeli army and forcing it out of Lebanon was certainly a
moment of progress -- progress for liberty and for human rights. 

No doubt Jewish Israeli women enjoy more freedom than what
fundamentalist Islam accords; heck! they even serve in the army. Yet
portrayal of Israel as a “progressive” regional force that deserves
progressive sympathies is simply bull. Feminism did not advance in
Southern Lebanon thanks to Israel’s “enlightened” occupation, just as it
did not advance in Iraq thanks to U.S. “boots on the ground.” Armies and
wars are not progressive forces; they are the most extreme and
regressive expression of human inequality and injustice, and therefore
the most urgent target for left-wing and “progressive” resistance. [9]
And Israel, as the third most militarized society in the world after
North Korea and Eritrea, and the second most unequal and second most
corrupt regime in the developed world, is not a progressive “light unto
the nations.” [10] There are, to be sure, progressive elements in
Israeli society, but the state in no way represents them. [11] We should
support progressives elements in Israel, not the state of Israel. Israel
is a militaristic, chauvinist and racist society, in which
discrimination and abuse of minorities, and not just Palestinians, is
rampant, legal, and often state sponsored. [12] Israel is not a beacon
of progress. It is not, as the White European racist wannabe Herzl
imagined it, “a rampart of civilization against barbarism.” It is a
cautionary example of the way Addiction To War And Faith In Force
degrade a society and corrupt every other value it wanted to have. Just
read the morning news. 

Gabriel Ash is an activist and writer who writes because the pen is
sometimes mightier than the sword and sometimes not. He welcomes
comments at: g.a.evildoer@gmail.com. 

REFERENCES
 
[1] Please, if you find Israel’s apology for the incident, e-mail me.
Indeed e-mail me if you’ve seen any reference of the event in the U.S.
media. I couldn’t find any. Two weeks later, Israeli soldiers shot and
wounded another shepherd. In December 2005, Israeli gunboats attacked a
Lebanese fishing boat in Lebanese water. Another shepherd was killed in
April 2003 and another was kidnapped and interrogated by Israeli
soldiers in July 2004. In January 2001, Israel wounded a 13 year old
shepherd some three miles inside Lebanon, apparently in a helicopter
attack. In addition, Israel had laid about 130,000 mines in southern
Lebanon according to U.N. estimates, and refuses to hand over maps of
minefields to the Lebanese authorities. (In fact, on one occasion Israel
gave a Ukrainian U.N. unit wrong maps - so much for valuing human life.) 

[2] Here’s a sample:
 
* www.antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=5796
* www.bilin-village.org/photos_repression_en.php
* www.aloufok.net/article.php3?id_article=1551
* www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7463
* www.rachelcorrie.org/
* www.tomhurndall.co.uk/
* http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/people/45.shtml
* http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/7/2310
* www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=415851
* http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3775.shtml
* http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en
 
[3] For more on Israeli terrorism:
 
* Livia Rokach, Israel’s Sacred Terrorism.
* Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle, covers most of the history of Israel’s meddling in Lebanon
* On Sharon’s responsibility for Sabra and Shatila.
* More on Shamir and Begin.
* On Lydda and Ramla.
 
[4] See http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14006.htm and 
www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9333
 
[5] Quoted by the pathologically balanced Steven Erlanger.
 
[6] Benny Morris, Israel’s Border Wars, p 203 (Hebrew Edititon)
 
[7] Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah, p. 101
 
[8] www.dissidentvoice.org/June06/OConnor27.htm; 
For the Gaza Barbecue massacre, see NY Times June 14, 2006.
 
[9] Can a militaristic society promote women’s rights? Only in the mind
of Israel’s apologists. See, for example,
www.ifor.org/WPP/article_disarm.htm; Cynthia Enloe, Maneuvers: The
International Politics of Militarizing Women's Lives;
 
[10]Militarization can be measured by a number of ratios. I refer to the
number of soldiers relative to population. In per capital defense
spending Israel is the world leader. Last data is from 1999:
www.state.gov/documents/organization/18738.pdf.
 
[11] Here are references to a few progressive Israeli groups. 
Support them, not Israel:
 
www.newprofile.org/default.asp?language=en
www.blacklaundry.org/eng-index.html
www.taayush.org/
www.challenge-mag.com/
www.squat.net/antiwall/
http://gush-shalom.org
 
[12] A couple of sources about the abusive legal system:
 
* Raja Shehada, Occupier’s Law
* See also Adalah
 
Some examples of racist attitudes: “The poll found that more than
two-thirds of Jews would refuse to live in the same building as an Arab.
Nearly half would not allow an Arab in their home and 41% want
segregation of entertainment facilities… 40% of Israel's Jews believe
'the state needs to support the emigration of Arab citizens'…63% of
Jewish Israelis consider their country's Arab citizens a 'security and
demographic threat to the state'. Some 18% said they felt hatred when
they heard someone speaking Arabic, and 34% agreed with the statement
that 'Arab culture is inferior to Israeli culture'.” See also Dan
Rabinowitz, Overlooking Nazareth; "Racism in Israel"; and Gideon Levy,
Haaretz, May 26 2003.