Michael Oren has an op-ed in Thursday’s NY Times about the Bibi-Biden flap. While a comprehensive dissection would consume many times the length of the original, my attention was drawn to a very narrow issue that appears in the following sentence: "Previous withdrawals, from Lebanon and Gaza, brought not peace but rather thousands of rockets raining down on our neighborhoods."
Let’s leave aside Gaza, which is quite deserving of its own counter-analysis, and focus on Lebanon. It is widely believed that upon Israel’s "voluntary" withdrawal in 2000 from territory it had been illegally occupying in southern Lebanon for about two decades, Hezbollah repeatedly fired rockets into northern Israel, eventually resulting in the 2006 bombing and invasion of Lebanon. Oren describes this bombardment in his current op-ed, and when Gaza started 15 months ago, Ethan Bronner wrote an article in the Times stating that the 2006 Lebanon war began after "an Iranian-backed Islamist group [Hezbollah] was lobbing deadly rockets into Israel with apparent impunity and had captured an Israeli soldier in a crossborder raid."
Anyone who remembers rocket barrages from Lebanon into Israel in the six years between 2000 and 2006 is delusional. It just did not happen. There were a handful of incidents in that direction over those six years, and more deadly ones in the other direction. Israel launched its 2006 invasion allegedly in response to the "crossborder raid" alone. To be sure, after Israel’s invasion, Hezbollah launched retaliatory rockets aimed at civilian communities in northern Israel, but it was not raining "thousands of rockets" (Oren) or "lobbing with apparent impunity" (Bronner) before Israel initiated the large-scale hostilities.
This brazen rewriting of history is in turn reminiscent of Israel’s June 1982 invasion of Lebanon that took an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 Palestinian and Lebanese lives. There continues to be a widespread fictional recollection that that invasion also was launched in response to rocket fire from Lebanon (from the PLO). The truth is that a cease fire had been in place for nearly a year, and had been scrupulously honored by the PLO while the Israelis occasionally tried to provoke a casus belli to justify a long-planned invasion. When Israel’s ambassador to the UK was shot in London, and not by the PLO, Israeli PM Begin proclaimed that the cease fire had been violated and ordered a massive invasion led by Defense Minister Sharon. I distinctly recall that historical revision started right away. Later that same month of June, 1982, I heard from two separate people, one a friend and one a rabbi, that the rockets had finally stopped threatening Israel.
In the years since, I have followed this factoid and it can be surprising who still gets it wrong. For example, in his book with the A-word in the title, Jimmy Carter mistakenly (I presume) says that Israel had invaded Lebanon to stop the rocket fire. Other claims to this effect are not so surprising, like this one from the ADL website: "In June 1982, after the continued shelling of northern Israel by Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) forces based in Lebanon, Israel launched a full-scale invasion of Lebanon."
This is not insignificant. Israel repeatedly manages to alter history in its favor, resulting in common acceptace that Israel won territory in a 1967 "defensive war" and that Arafat ordered the second intifadah in 2000 to win through terror what he could not negotiate at Camp David. On the other hand, Palestinians are often unable to gain public recognition of actual realities, such as the massacres that precipitated the Nakba and Israel’s shamefully discriminatory treatment of its own non-Jewish citizens. Oren’s false comment, which I am sure passed by the paper’s staff unnoticed, reflects the carefully cultivated assumption underlying mainstream discourse, that Israel is perpetually forced to defend its populace from attack. Even many who criticize Israeli "excesses" believe that there was a legitimate reason to initiate military action. It is especially significant when considering last year’s Gaza offensive, which in many ways mirrored the Lebanon "war" two years earlier. Israel’s insistence that it was finally responding to incessant rocket fire from Gaza gets a much-needed but undeserved boost if people believe that its similar offensive against Lebanon two years earlier was in reaction to similar provocation. Oren’s and Bronner’s casual references to historical fiction are insidious and contribute mightily to this false narrative.
And Germany invaded Poland due to Poland’s predatory actions at the border; Germany was merely acting in self-defense.
Now, things in palestine are getting much better…pro-palestinians arguments are slowly improving these days…they are not anymore reflecting nor projecting blind fury nor insaneous genetic animosity against the Israelis, otherwise they will never gain a single inch of territory. At least they are now in an improved platform – attacking objective with ‘legitimate’, ‘justifyable measures!’…(almost approaching the same platform of the Israelis). In this attitude I can see ‘leaks of rationality’ and temperance seeping in… well, I salute that approach…worth listening… now well see who can handle better the contentions…
But on the other hand, as the pro-palestinian ideologues improves their approach they are forced to shed-off their ‘badge 0f honor of militancy’…they will not enjoy anymore the ecstacy and honor of fighting like David against Goliath but the boring confrontation of Goliath against Goliath….
The other day, I saw a poster at the Daily Kos repeat the old lie that “Arabs attacked Israel” in 1967.
It’s like a Wack-a-Lie game, they just keep popping up.
I spend some time on the Huff Po forums and there are a few posters who are repeatedly claiming Israel fought a defensive war in 1967, despite the fact that Israel attacked first, with the knowledge Nasser had no actual intention to attack. Anything that deviates from the Israel-as-eternal-victim is rejected outright.
Sumud, just use these quotes in future when discussin the 1967 war:
“I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.” Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
“The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” Menachenm Begin.
“the thesis according to which the danger of genocide weighed on us in June 1967, and that Israel struggled for its physical existence is only a bluff born and developed after the war.” General Mattityahu Peled, a member of Israel’s general staff in 1967
Thanks Shingo, I’m familiar with those quotes and have pointed them out repeatedly to the Israel-as-eternal-victim propagandists. The most strident at HP blew a fuse after I made it a policy of correcting him every time he mentioned the ’67 war. He resorted to excuses like “It’s a lie” and “I was in the IDF in 67 and the fear Nasser would attack was palpable” – neither of which convinced anybody of anything, except that he was a dogmatic and deeply biased. I think you probably know the sort..
Yes I know the sort.
These blowhards really REALLY hate it when you use Israeli sources against them. They become completely unhinged. I had the same experience on another thread re rocket attacks leading up to the 2008 war. When I debunked the lie that Israel were responding to attacks with Israeli government records, they went into a complete meldown, trying all kinds of tactics from wishing me good health in my life to suggesting that unless I spoke to the people of Sderot, I would never know the real story.
They’re losing it aren’t they?
“‘It’s like a Wack-a-Lie game, they just keep popping up. ”
It’s worse than that, because even when you debunk them, they repeat it anyway.
On the Truthdigg blog, one Israeli shill made the predictable claim that Israle reponded to rocket atatcks in 2008. Even after presenting him with satistic from the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism agency that proved otherwise, he just said that those numbers couldn”t be trusted and that the Jews(not the Arabs) in Sderot and the West Bank knew the facts.
He never did explain why the Israeli government would play down these numbers.
And Israel wonders why her reputation and credibility is in tatters. Not only are many of her acts reprehensible, the lame hasbara gang are so obviously deploying untruths.
The considerable opposition to the war, within Israel at the time, insisted that the ’82 Lebanon war was a “war of choice”. I don’t remember at exactly what point the Begin government named it “Operation Peace for Galilee”, but the intention was clealry to perpetuate the idea that it was all about the katyusha rockets. Sharon and Begin clearly had different goals, but even Begin’s initial goals went well beyond the katyushas – just as the goals of Olmert’s war went well beyond the capture of Israeli soldiers or the firing of a small number of rockets.
Phil, I disagree with your statement that “Oren’s false comment, which I am sure passed by the [NYT] paper’s staff unnoticed..” Instead, I propose that the NYT hews faithfully and deliberately to the narrative that Israel acted in self-defense. If the comment accidentally slipped by the paper’s staff, then the question naturally arises as to why the errors are always in one direction. When you cited Ethan (“my son in the IDF”) Bronner making the same supposed “mistake”, you underline my point.
In the NYT, it is not an accident that Palestinians have “militants” and “terrorists”, while Israel has “commandos”. In the NYT, Israel never has “terrorists” or “militants”. This is the policy of the NYT.
Let me propose a project for MondoWeiss readers: go back to the NYT archives and find out when the NYT started to refer to “Palestinians”. It is my impression that before some date they were called “Arab refugees” but not “Palestinians”. After all, the word “Palestinians” implied that Palestine was inhabited before it became “Israel”, while “Arab refugees” could be from anywhere in the Arab world. If anyone takes this on as a project, find out how faithfully the NYT stuck to the official name of the refugees. And when did the change of policy occur? My guess is sometime in the 1970′s, but that’s just a guess.
Again: it’s not “error”, it’s policy.
When Push Comes to Shove: Israel flouts U.S. diplomacy with an attack on Beirut | Time 1982
Thanks for posting that, it’s a good article. Reading it a few months ago I was struck by just how little things have changed in the 3 decades since ’82. One thing I notice absent from discussion today: the provision the US supplied arms to Israel can only be used in a defensive capacity – anyone know if that is still part of the deal?
As an aside, I was a young kid in 1982 and footage of a decimated Beirut on TV is really the first memory of war I have. Time ran a cover story on the 2006 attack on Lebanon and the moment I saw the pictures – shelled concrete buildings – it triggered a flood of memories of that footage from a quarter century earlier.
>*One thing I notice absent from discussion today: the provision the US supplied arms to Israel can only be used in a defensive capacity – anyone know if that is still part of the deal?*
US to double emergency equipment stored in Israel
Emergency stockpiles in Israel meant for storing US army equipment in Middle East opened in Israel’s favor during last Lebanon war
I believe it is, and recall that being an issue when Israel sprayed cluster bombs in southern Lebanon in the days leading to the cease fire. Many of the bomblets were unexploded and killed a number of civilians after they returned to their homes. Even el Dersh weighed in against Israel on this, burnishing his credentials as a “legitimate” critic of Israel when it is “appropriate”. There was an issue as to whether Israel had used the weapons, acquired from the US, for defensive purposes as required. If I recall correctly, Israel conducted its own investigation, and after exhaustively examining all the evidence, it concluded that it had used the cluster bombs properly after all. Phew. Another close call.
Actually, I too was struck by the 1982 article’s emphasis on that aspect, which seems to have been taken more seriously then than now. And thanks, Bob, for the link. It is fascinating and enlightening to see how contemporaneous events were presented in years past.
RE: “the provision the US supplied arms to Israel can only be used in a defensive capacity – anyone know if that is still part of the deal” – bob
SEE – US: Israel Likely Violated Cluster Bomb Agreement During Hezbollah War, defencetalk.com, 01/31/07 (excerpts) WASHINGTON: The Bush administration has told Congress that Israel likely violated U.S. arms export agreements with its use of cluster munitions against Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon last year. The State Department says a preliminary report on the issue has been sent to Congress….
…..A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Washington said the weapons were used to counter unprovoked Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israeli population centers, and that Israel acted as any country would have in self-defense….
…Spokesman McCormack stressed that the report, prepared by outgoing State Department arms control chief Robert Joseph was not a final judgment. He declined to speculate on what punitive action, if any, might be taken against Israel if a violation is confirmed…..
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to defencetalk.com
Aren’t the genocidal, existential threat, thousands of rockets a favorite kvetching point for some of our Ziocaine habitues here? No doubt Richard Witty, Julian, Yoni, and the rest will be here to ‘splain it to us.
Israel’s problem with the northern border is not that Hezbollah is raining rockets over the border, but that Hezbollah has rockets that it can potentially fire over the border when Israel aggresses against Lebanese sovereignty. So the rockets are not so much a threat to Israel, as a deterrent against Israel’s acting with impunity against its neighbors. That is what Israel finds unbearable.
“[A] new study showed that the firing of the antiaircraft missiles was not random, but came as a response to the IAF’s violation of Lebanese airspace. “A comparison of IAF flight data with the data on the firing of the antiaircraft missiles shows a direct relationship between the violations and the firing,” wrote Daniel Sobelman of Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies.
Sobelman studied Hezbollah activities over the past four years and concluded that the Shi’ite organization actually wants to preserve the status quo created in the north after the IDF’s departure from Lebanon. He found a clear contradiction between Hezbollah’s declared ideology, which calls for the destruction of Israel, and the restrained policy that it actually implements, which is based on rules of behavior that have crystalized between it and Israel.
These rules are the name of the game, according to Sobelman, and Hezbollah follows them. The most important rule is “action-reaction,” that is, Hezbollah responds to Israel’s “aggressive acts.” Among these are overflights of Lebanese territory, border crossings into Lebanon by IDF troops or targeted killings of the organization’s members in Beirut. Thus, the firing last month at the two IDF soldiers who climbed the antenna of a fortification in the north came as a response to the killing of Hezbollah operative Ghaleb Awali. Two other incidents in which IDF soldiers were killed by Hezbollah occurred after IDF soldiers crossed the border fence…”
- Hezbollah plays by the rules; By Reuven Pedatzur, Ha’aretz, 16 Aug 2004.
link – link to tinyurl.com
Bookmarked. It’s hard to believe how many facts are hidden in plain sight. Thanks for citing this article.
I completely agree with your conclusion, Diane. Israel doesn’t want an end to violence but a monopoly on violence.
Thanks for the article, David. The “monopoly on violence” is fundamental to Israel’s approach to the “peace process” – taken for granted by US and European negotiators – whereby the Palestinians must be “demilitarized”, cede control of borders and airspace, etc.
Israel presents itself (and this approach has been embraced by western governments and media) as the responsible party, that can be trusted with everything from white phosphorous to nukes, whereas Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, etc. are all nutso terrorists who must not be allowed to possess weapons or use them under any circumstances (except for prposes of internal “policing” on Israel’s behalf). Monopoly on violence. Well said.
Aluf Benn wrote an op-ed for Ha’aretz, since deleted, pointing out how peaceful the Lebanese border was with Nasrallah in charge. link to imra.org.il
It’s since been denounced as an embarrassment, but on the contrary, it provides evidence that the “Hezbollah rockets” are entirely a canard.
Excellent post, David. It is my impression that it is precisely a LACK of provocation that most irritates Israel. Rocket fire from Gaza had essentially been non-existent for 5 months prior to the Gaza invasion.
link to afreeman.com
Don,
I don’t think Israeli leaders are bothered (usually) by the lack of provocation from Lebanon. Diane put it very well: Israel’s problem with the northern border is not that Hezbollah is raining rockets over the border, but that Hezbollah has rockets that it can potentially fire over the border when Israel aggresses against Lebanese sovereignty.
It is a combination of Israel preserving its “freedom of action” and genuine concern about the buildup of less-than-friendly firepower on its borders – even if the leaders/groups that hold that firepower wield it responsibly. This is a long-standing Israeli security “conception”. It is what was behind kicking Fatah out of Lebanon and behind Israel’s war against Hizbollah, and it is what is behind Israel’s current approach to Iran. It is also a recipe for disaster – not least for Israeli security.
Thanks, Schmuel. That is a very helpful reply (in terms of my understanding, at least).
RE: “Israel repeatedly manages to alter history in its favor…” – SAMEL
MY COMMENT: Yes, From Time Immemorial! (By Joan Peters)
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
P.S. FROM AllExperts.com:
Norman Finkelstein on From Time Immemorial
Joan Peters wrote the book From Time Immemorial.
Norman Finkelstein (1953) claimed to examine it in detail and alleged that the book was a “monumental hoax”. A “history and defense” of the state of Israel, Peters’ book has been effusively praised in mainstream United States media sources. Finkelstein’s charges initially roused little attention in the U.S. According to Finkelstein, “By the end of 1984, From Time Immemorial had…received some two hundred [favorable] notices…in the United States. The only ‘false’ notes in this crescendoing chorus of praise were the Journal of Palestine Studies, which ran a highly critical review by Bill Farrell; the small Chicago-based newsweekly In These Times, which published a condensed version of this writer’s findings; and Alexander Cockburn, who devoted a series of columns in The Nation exposing the hoax….The periodicals in which From Time Immemorial had already been favorably reviewed refused to run any critical correspondence (e.g. The New Republic, The Atlantic, Commentary). Periodicals that had yet to review the book rejected a manuscript on the subject as of little or no consequence (e.g. The Village Voice, Dissent, The New York Review of Books). Not a single national newspaper or columnist contacted found newsworthy that a best-selling, effusively praised ‘study’ of the Middle East conflict was a threadbare hoax” (Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, pp. 45-6).
However, after a number of reviewers in the British and Israeli media supported Finkelstein’s criticisms, a few U.S. journals began publishing more critical reviews of the book. In the magazine Foreign Affairs, William B. Quandt described Finkelstein’s criticism of From Time Immemorial as a “landmark essay” and a “victory to his credit.” Book review: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, William B. Quandt, Foreign Affairs, May/June 1996
The controversy that surrounded Finkelstein’s research caused a delay in his earning his PhD at Princeton. Noam Chomsky, a friend of Finkelstein, wrote in Understanding Power that Finkelstein “literally could not get the faculty to read [his thesis].” According to Chomsky, Princeton eventually granted Finkelstein his doctorate only “out of embarrassment,” though they didn’t “even write a letter for him saying that he was a student at Princeton University.” (Understanding Power, New York, 2002, p. 245 [1])
SOURCE – link to en.allexperts.com
I once perused the Peters book for about ten minutes and found it to be utter trash. I was interested to see how she dealt with some of Israel’s most embarrassing historical moments. The Deir Yassin massacre? She explained it away twice in virtually identical language in completely different sections of the book. The Bernadotte assassination? She made no mention of it, and her only mention of him was a quote that she claimed dated from 1949, the year after he died. That’s all I can remember, though I am familiar with her general thesis, mostly from the Finkelstein critique.
Saul Bellow and Barbara Tuchman were among the luminaries who lavished praise on this book. Did they really read it? It was then that I concluded that the Israeli/Zionist narrative of dispossession of a native people is so unsympathetic that supporters will greet any theory justifying it as manna from heaven.
Finkelstein deserves some sort of recognition for wading into this shit as deeply as he did. Such feat is way beyond my capacity.
I also saw Peters on youtube (I think) in an interview dating from the 1980′s. In an idiot contest between her, Palin and Bush, she would slaughter them. My God, did she look stupid.
In one of Dershowitz’s books, he actually blames Finkelstein (and Cockburn and Chomsky, I believe) for criticizing Peters so harshly that she withdrew from public writing, thereby depriving the world of her insight.
RE: In one of Dershowitz’s books, he actually blames Finkelstein (and Cockburn and Chomsky, I believe) for criticizing Peters so harshly that she withdrew from public writing, thereby depriving the world of her insight.” – Samel
MY COMMENT: Thats so sad. The poor martyr! Such a great loss.
When the book was first published, there was a phenomenal buzz even before it’s release. I was very curious as to how she could have possibly managed to find “credible proof” to support her historically absurd premise. Nevertheless, I forced myself to wait until the book appeared in the ‘card catalog’ of our library system (certainly not at my urging, I dared not even inquire about it), and then I literally laughed my way through it. Funniest thing I’ve ever read! The illogic was truly stupefying. It reminded me of some memorable Monty Python skits. Was she truly “blinded by THE LIGHT”* or just co-opted?
Of course, many of Israel’s most ‘foaming at the mouth’ rabid supporters consider it to be the Inerrant Gospel/Holy Grail! I’ll bet it’s second only to ‘The Good Book’ for the likes of “Reverend” John Hagee.
* high on Ziocaine™
RE: “Saul Bellow and Barbara Tuchman were among the luminaries who lavished praise on this book. Did they really read it?” – Samel
MY COMMENT: I imagine they knew better than to actually read it. It might have given them qualms. Better to just rely on the AIPAC “Condensed Version” and ‘do the deed’ required of them.
Saul Bellow was never the same for me. That was a real loss!
Here’s another fiction from the OpEd as pointed out by AlterNet that should be added to Oren’s litany of fictions:
“PS: One technical note: In a New York Times op-ed, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, claimed that “consistently, Israel has held that Jerusalem should remain its undivided capital and that both Jews and Arabs have the right to build anywhere in the city.” Wrong. Writing in the generally conservative Jerusalem Post, Larry Derfner reminds us that “by Israeli law, Arabs are effectively prohibited not only from building new homes but even from buying old ones in the Jewish parts of the city. Meanwhile, Jews can buy and build in the capital wherever they want.””
link to blogs.alternet.org
daly – You are right. I wish I didn’t have a day job and could be compensated for time spent picking apart this op-ed. I especially detest the pretense that Arabs and Jews have equal rights under Israeli authority. What chutzpah. My only disagreement with AlterNet is that this is hardly a “technical note.” It is actually a core principle of false propaganda.
Thanks for rubbing it in David. MRW noted in a comment recently that it can’t be good for Israel that a lot of unemployed people now have the time to look into these issues and I would second his comment. The process of unraveling of the truth about Israel resembles the unraveling of the truth about the Iraq War. The fact that both of these cases involve the same cast of actors, down to and including the New York Times and the Washington Post, is really disturbing.
Oops. I mean unraveling the lies.
And even Avigdor Lieberman has said that if Arab Israelis can’t live wherever they wish in Israel, it is an apartheid state.
Israel has been playing these games for years; Oren and Brunner’s lies about rockets raining onto Israel are only part of the story.
In 1978, when Israel first invaded Lebanon up to the Litani river, I put an advertisement in the London ‘Times’ asking for volunteers to work on archaeological digs at Beaufort Castle, a prime target of the IDF, since someone, 700 years ago, built it on a commanding high point above the Litani. I gave the telephone number of the Israeli embassy for replies.
At that time Israel was claiming its initial efforts on West Bank settlements were just ‘archaeological digs’.
I had a visit from a couple of Mossad heavies, pretending to be from the London police, and was persuaded not to play such jokes again.
Remember when the US started the bombing of Serbia in 1999. For the first week or so there was no clearly stated reason. Then it became, we are doing it because the Serbs were driving the Moslems out of their homes and the territory. Of course, ethnic cleansing did not begin until after we started bombing, but to this day ask an American why we bombed Serbia, it was because of the ethnic cleansing.
Thank you, Syvanen. I thought I was the only one who thought this way. I was a pariah during that 1999 war for actively excoriating everything we were doing there. But, then, I am the only one if knew who read David Binder’s NYT reports from the region starting when Tito died in May, 1980. I grew up steeped in what happened to Serbs and Greeks during WWII from my friends’ parents. (Also, Ukrainian, Polish, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Romanian, Bulgarian, etc). Their parents never ever discussed WWII except at the dinner table, and I heard the stories then.
Carla del Ponte vindicated my position in her 2009 book, but Americans still believe the crap they were fed.
Americans got a taste of possible war victory with the first Gulf War, and after Vietnam they all felt they needed it, so they loved that we were going to bomb a little country back to the stone age. Milosevic was just such as easy mark. And American sympathy for Albania was beyond me. I was 17 when I tried to get into Albania: it had been closed for 400 years. (The destruction of the pre-Giotto (12th C) icons and artwork in Kosovo during the 1999 war just killed me. It was more important work than Giotto’s.)
My father fought with Yugoslavs during WWII and that connection always perked my interest in staying informed about Tito’s Yugoslavia. I saw clearly the propaganda that was being directed against the Serbian people as soon as Yugoslavia began to break up in 1992 or so. That was considered a humanitarian war because a liberal Democrat pursued it. We have made a little progress since then — at least Obama’s war in Afghanistan is not being sold to us as a humanitarian war.
It was amazing who they started demonizing to get that pipeline from the east across Kosovo to the Adriatic.
Excellent analogy, syv. MRW, I too thought I was crazy for believing that Serbia’s ethnic cleansing of Kosovo was a reaction to the bombing campaign, not the cause of it.
Domestically, what is interesting about that “war” are the Dems who lined up in support of Clinton’s campaign, and even better, the Repub (and talk radio) criticism of Clinton. This criticism made perfect sense to me, but a few years later, these very same people excoriated those who dared to criticize Bush on Afghanistan and Iraq.
This editorial is jam packed with fluff and crap. My favorite is :”Israelis have demonstrated remarkable flexibility as well as generosity to any Arab leader genuinely offering peace.”
About the 82 invasion of Lebanon I recall that there was initially a thrust to go to the head of the Litani River to stop diversion projects by the Lebanese
but Sharon “disobeyed” orders and proceeded to Beirut. Was he a loose cannon or did he have special secret orders. I suspect the latter.
David Samel, good piece. What you write about Lebanon 1982 is exactly as I remember it. I was at a private dinner in Manhattan when Teddy Kollek’s son told the host that Sharon was going to attack Lebanon In a couple of months.
Interesting recollection you have. I remember looking through a book written by Argentine journalist Jacobo Timerman, who emigrated to Israel after he was released from hellish imprisonment and emigrated to Israel. As I recall, Timerman told about how the coming war against Lebanon was building for many months, and they were just waiting for an excuse.
David Samel, yeah it was late March 1982, just before Passover. The host was a great friend of Ben Gurion’s and that’s how the subject came up, because the host was telling Teddy Kollek Jr. (christ, he was big) how Ben Gurion thought Sharon a ‘gangster’, and how he didn’t have a chance in hell of becoming PM.
Did you catch Rosenberg’s piece (today?) about the 1982 war?
link to tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com
RE:”looking through a book written by Argentine journalist Jacobo Timerman” – Samel
SEE: A Great Hero is Gone, By Molly Ivins (11/15/99)
…As a teen-ager, he became a passionate Zionist, but he was never a man of party…The junta finally illegally stripped Timerman of his citizenship, took all his property and deported him to Israel. Timerman arrived shortly before Israel’s war against Lebanon, which culminated in the hideous massacres of civilians at Sabra and Shatila. Of course, Timerman spoke out against the atrocities and wrote a scathing book, “The Longest War.” He also wrote, with his usual piercing vigor, against the Israeli torture of Palestinians.
Naturally, this made Timerman, the lifelong Zionist, highly unpopular in Israel. He left the country…
ENTIRE EULOGY – link to albionmonitor.com
ALSO SEE – link to richardsilverstein.com
Fine piece, David.
In the internal Israeli narrative, the 1982 war was Israel’s first elective war. Whereas, the 1983 and 1967 – and even 1956 – wars are still sacrosanct and held as wars of self-defense, the 1982 was in Lebanon was – and still is – seen as the first time the government used violence as a tool of policy. The 1982 war is the archetype for 2006 (Lebanon) and 2009 (Gaza).
Israel’s Oscar-nominated movie Waltz with Bashir came out a year after the last Lebanon war. It is set in the present but is all about the trauma of war. Similar to how M*A*S*H set the action in the Korean War to speak to the generation of the Vietnam War.
Since the liberal Zionist camp perceives the 1982 war as a debacle and morally corrupt, and it is the most recent major Israeli war, this topic can be useful in opening up the conversation about recent Israeli agression.
In reviewing Waltz with Bashir, Gideon Levy wrote that it is “nothing but charade”.
However, it must also be noted that the film is infuriating, disturbing, outrageous and deceptive. It deserves an Oscar for the illustrations and animation – but a badge of shame for its message.
link to haaretz.com
Great article Dave,
Thansk for producing the specifics of what took place in 1982. I recall reading a similar articel from Alex Cockburn when the 2006 war broke out, but was never able to find it. He reported that he’s looked at the UN reccords of border incidents leading up the 192 war and that no rockets had been fired.
Apart from the 1973 war in which America saved Israel from destruction with the massive military airlift, the only one not ordered or approved by the US was the 1956 Suez War and this was obvious by the way the US stepped all over Israel, the UK and France for it. It has been clear sailing for Israel with American blessings and military aid in 67, 82, 2006 on Gaza and on Lebanon, 2008 on Gaza and what is being discussed here, the Israeli fiction about the war on Lebanon of 1982 that all indications point to a war called up or at least approved by Alexander Haig. Israel does nothing without American approval, whether waging wars or building settlements on occupied lands. Extracts from Andrew Killgor about this in the Middle East Reprt in 1985:
Hirsh Goodman, brilliant military analyst of the Jerusalem Post, confesses to bewilderment over Israel’s 1982 Lebanon war? So unwise was that war, Goodman writes in a recent edition, that even 50 years from now scholarly researchers will be astounded by its stupidity. A Jerusalem Post editorial expresses similar bafflement over how Israel could have blundered into such a war, while nevertheless opposing a judicial commission of inquiry into its causes.
…Americans of course are also wondering how it was that upon withdrawing from Lebanon Israel carried back 700 Shi’a and other Lebanese as hostages for quiet borders without considering possible consequences of such a flagrant violation of international law.
…Israelis mourn the loss of more than 650 of their own youth in Lebanon, but the death there of 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinians receives little notice.
…for nearly a year the PLO had made no trouble on the Lebanese border; that Israel was already in a secure position; and that U.S. interests in the Arab World, even the lives of its officials, would be endangered if we supported Israeli aggression against a friendly Arab country.
…Look back at Ariel Sharon’s discussion with Alexander Haig in Washington two weeks before Israel attacked Lebanon on June 6, 1982. Despite Haig’s denials, many are convinced the Secretary of State approved at that time the Israeli Defense Minister’s plans to attack.
link to washington-report.org
Avi,
I think Gideon Levy got it wrong on this one. I just watched Waltz with Bashir again, this time with a group of, mostly Jewish, people. They were shocked. They didn’t leave walk away with a “propaganda” message. Many of them grasped for the first time how awful war actually is; they were deeply disturbed. This stuff is self-evident to us but was news to them. The group were shocked that the Israeli army had collaborated in the massacre of Sabra and Shatilla.
Gideon Levy was writing in the aftermath of the Gaza War and was speaking to an Israeli audience. He berates Folman for not speaking out against that war. I don’t think it’s fair to judge the movie by the filmmaker’s comments. Waltz with Bashir was made in the aftermath of the 2006 Lebanon War. The reason Folman “waited 20 years” to talk about 1982 was because it’s really about 2006.
The compassion the movie shows for the teenage boys that we send into battle – in Israel and everywhere else – allows us to accept our responsibility as a society for the wars that are done in our name. I wouldn’t confuse that with “patting ourselves on the back.” That’s not how I, or the group who watched it with me, saw the movie.
Avi, you didn’t say whether you had seen Waltz with Bashir yourself. What did you think?
Elliot,
My impression of Waltz with Bashir was similar to Levy’s. The condemnation of Israeli complicity is extremely weak, and there is a clear division between the “good guys” (the journalist Ben Yishai and his high-ranking military source, ordinary soldiers) and the “bad guys” (Phalangists and Sharon). The war itself is never questioned, and sympathy is focused on Israeli soldiers (and in a very incidental and objectified way on the Palestinian residents of the camps). Your audience was shocked because they are appallingly ignorant and biased about a subject on which they advocate and to which they contribute. They may have been shocked by Israeli complicity in the massacres (old and obvious info – how ignorant can they be?), but were not shaken to their core because the movie was really about sensitive Israelis, Holocaust trauma and how Israel works as “the only democracy in the Middle East”. In that sense it was comforting to them, reassuring, ego-massaging – and excellent propaganda.
I saw it myself and my feelings were mixed. I agree with Levy and Shmuel’s criticisms, but can also understand that the film could be educational for someone totally immersed in the pro-Israel narrative. The trouble is, it educates and misleads simultaneously. But it could be your friends were so shocked by what truth did come out they wouldn’t even notice the misleading stuff (which they would take for granted).
This problem comes up all the time in American politics (and probably Israeli as well and come to think of it, maybe in all societies on one point or another). A set of lies is told which has nothing at all to do with the facts, but it makes group X feel good about itself. Then someone comes along and tells a half-truth–even the half-truth is shocking enough, and the teller of half-truths is lionized by some as a courageous person and condemned by the propagandists for X, and also condemned by people who want the whole truth. To the casual observer it can seem quite confusing and what a lot of people end up doing is thinking that the truth must lie somewhere in the middle, which often means embracing half-truths.
Tom Friedman is an example–he’s a human half-truth writing machine. The fact that he expresses any sympathy (no matter how attenuated) for Palestinians makes him pro-Palestinian in the eyes of some (including well-intentioned liberals I know). He’s a fairly sickening apologist for some of the worst Israeli crimes, but in America you’d only know that if you are sort of obsessive on the issue.
“what a lot of people end up doing is thinking that the truth must lie somewhere in the middle, which often means embracing half-truths.”
On second thought, that’s too optimistic. What happens is that people who insist on the whole truth are regarded as extremist lunatics. “Respectable” opinion splits between half truth tellers and total liars, with quarter truth coming out as the centrist position.
I’m not even joking. I think on human rights issues it works this way all the time, at least in the US.
For another example, think of the Bill Moyers interview with Judge Goldstone. That was about as pro-human rights as you ever get in the mainstream in the US and yet the discussion (due to Moyers’ framing and Goldstone went along with it) was slanted against the Palestinians in that it ignored the blockade and treated the Gaza War simply as a severe Israeli over-reaction to violence initiated by the Palestinians. All the Israeli violence before the war–ignored. The blockade–ignored. The US attempt at overthrowing Hamas–ignored. Yet this program would have been seen as being on the extreme pro-Palestinian edge of respectable opinion. To even tell part of the truth about Israeli crimes you have to frame your account in omissions and lies.
Donald and Shmuel,
The context is important. Given the abysmally low level of information most Americans have on Israel/Palestine and the host of negative messages that are reinforced by the MSM anything that increases awareness, educates, touches emotionally is a positive in my books. There’s nothing negative in Waltz with Bashir that most people don’t believe already and there’s plenty to chew on. I’d call that 90 minutes well spent, certainly not propaganda.
I’d ask you, how much success have you had educating people by putting out the whole picture at once? My guess is you get into a fight or people just shut down. People take one or two steps at a time. As I see it, we can sit here talking to each other (and in this case judge others), or work with people where they are now.
I think that some compassion for these teenage boys is not only a smart way to access the issue but is also reasonable. Can you say with certainty that you would have behaved differently at their age?
Finally, a movie is also not an opinion piece. If its scope is limited it isn’t a half-truth.
Elliot,
I agree that education generally has to be gradual and suited to the listener. One doesn’t necessarily have to do it however, with large helpings of active disinformation (whether the audience believes those things already or not). Compassion is a good tool, but compassion limited to one side reinforces racism and the very attitude that prevents people from seeing the truth about I/P. What did they actually learn from this movie? That the Sabra and Chatila massacres happened (a very long time ago)? That they were not actually perpetrated by Israelis? That the Israeli high command provided minimal logistic assistance and allowed them to go on for three days? That this policy was not accepted by all Israelis, even within the high command? That Israelis today are not afraid to confront their past?
How will whatever knowledge they have gained change their views, lead to further education? It strikes me as a dead end. The entire topic is so “safe” for Zionists and Israelis as to be virtually meaningless in terms of real education and understanding – while, on the whole, reinforcing their positive images of Israel and Israelis.
The fact that they are abysmally ignorant makes it worse, not better. They leave the screening thinking they actually know something.
As you may have noticed, the movie really pissed me off. All the more so because it is so bloody well done.
Pingback: Percocet vs lorcet for pain.
Pingback: Valium multiple sclerosis.
Pingback: Adipex dangers.
Pingback: Phentermine.
Pingback: Best online casino gambling.
Pingback: Difference between oxycodone and morphine.
Pingback: Meridia diet pill.
Pingback: Percocet.
Pingback: Cialis.
Pingback: Cialis.