Back to
Opinions Page
Militarism and moral decay
PARIS
The power of the weak lies in a
people's acceptance of suffering. The weakness of the strong is that a
disproportionate use of force against the weak eventually corrupts their
own society.
The
recent air attacks against the Palestinians in Gaza, using helicopter
gunships and F-16 fighter aircraft and producing the inevitable
"collateral damage," have actually been a demonstration of Israeli
weakness.
The
attacks led nowhere that the majority of Israel's society wants to go.
The daily newspaper Maariv described the message they delivered: "Israel
has gone mad."
Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon claims to see blinding light at the end of the
tunnel. A "victory" over the terrorist infrastructure is only weeks
away, and Israel is about to be liberated from fear. He says the new
Geneva draft peace settlement, developed by former official Israeli and
Palestinian negotiators, is mere political plotting by disloyal
Israelis, "encouraging terrorism."
Yet
few, even in the military command, can believe that aerial bombing will
stop Palestinian suicide bombings. The latest, in Haifa on Oct. 9, which
served as justification for the new Israeli offensive, killed 21. It was
committed by a 27-year-old student lawyer with no known connection to
Islamic Jihad, which claimed responsibility. Her brother and cousin had
recently been shot dead by Israeli soldiers.
Sharon has always publicly professed two convictions: First is that
Israel must expand into the occupied territories. He sponsored the
colonization movement after the 1967 war, and on Thursday his government
confirmed a decision to build 300 new West Bank housing units, despite
its "road map" commitment to halt colonization.
The
second conviction is that military force prevails. "There has never been
room in the Middle East for pity or mercy," he told an Israeli audience
Tuesday, adding, "every sign of weakness only invites new aggression."
A
commentator in Yediot Ahronot, Israel's biggest-circulation daily,
asked, "Is it conceivable that some among us now consider the entire
Palestinian population our target? Then there is no longer any limit."
The
mission of civilian repression has deeply affected the Israeli military.
Martin Van Creveld, a military sociologist at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, writes that "the morale of the army has never been so low."
The
military command has no strategic vision, he said. "Nothing it has done
to defeat the intifada has worked."
There
is a grave lesson in this for the U.S. Army in Iraq, which now teeters
on the wall separating liberation from repression.
The
official claim is that it is fighting attacks from remnants of a
defeated regime and other enemies of democratic reform. Yet the number
of daily attacks on U.S. forces has been rising.
Liberation has turned into a security problem. Force protection is
sought by tracking down attackers, with penalties for the communities or
tribal groups from which the "terrorists" come. Collective punishments
have begun. Punitive destruction of crops and orchards of peasant
communities has been carried out to force delivery of the names of
relatives or fellow tribesmen thought to be members of resistance
groups.
The
American presence is criiticized by many for blocking the Iraqis from
taking control of their own affairs, whatever the obvious risks of civil
disorder and conflict. But one undeniable reason for a prolonged
occupation is to maintain U.S. control over Iraqi oil production and the
economy. This may serve the interests of corporations notoriously well
connected with the Bush administration. But it is not an American
national interest.
Least
of all is it a national interest for the U.S. occupation to go down the
Israeli road. Surely, that must be obvious.