The Comment Factory

I write this following piece in response to Noam Chomsky’s “…On Israel, US, and Gaza”, as well as “Israeli propaganda has succeeded in presenting this war as an attack on Hamas. It is actually an attack on civilians”, by Matt Kennard, among the many other like-minded articles offered on these pages. In fact, I write mostly out of distress at the fact that no opposing views are presented. I will, if not humbly enough, try to give some balance.

Firstly, to give my background which has been important to the formation of my views, I am, alas, an Israeli. I am also, so help me God (if he’s there), a Zionist. By this I mean plainly, “I believe in the right of a Jewish State to exist”. “Zionism”, under the constant attack of the anti-Israel slander campaigns, is taken by some to mean either, “Everything wrong in, or done wrong by, Israel”, or alternatively, some inexplicable Jewish-Nationalist world-wide conspiracy concocted with the sole purpose of disenfranchising, harming, and subjugating the Arab people of Palestine (or as Chomsky eloquently calls them: “the indigenous population”).

Such views are indeed convenient to those whose political goals are expedited by them. In truth, Zionism has many shapes and faces, as anyone who reads the original and contemporary writings will soon find. There was a marked difference between the Zionism of Echad Ha’Am and Martin Buber, and that of Weizman and Ben-Gurion, and further still to that of Jabotinsky.

In my view, it is as much a duty of Zionism to promote and ensure the honor, dignity, and welfare of our local Arab neighbors. This view has foundations in Zionist writings; tragically, however, this perspective is seen less and less on the ground today. I strongly believe in the need for a two-state solution and the dismantlement of the West Bank settlements. I want the best possible life for every Arab, Druze, Muslim or Christian in our environment – as good as I could hope for myself. I have lived in Israel, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and the UK, and in the process have made many international friends, including Arabs and Palestinians, whom I love dearly. I have no hatred or anger towards them — “the indigenous population” — and it has never been suggested to me that I should.

All this, so far, is only to convince you anti-Zionist and skeptical readers, that what I write is not propaganda, and should not be attributed to some “well-oiled machine” of Israeli PR. Some of you will, no doubt, dismiss me as just that, or at least call me “brain-washed”. And that is a shame, because it is you that I need to appeal to, not the indifferent masses on the streets of London.

The anti-Zionist/anti-Israel camp is always remarkable in its ambiguous attitude to knowledge, and its presentation. It takes events and actions out of context, erases relevant ones in a thread, comes to conclusive statements on insufficient information, or simply fabricates information (eg. the “Israeli propaganda has succeeded in presenting this war as an attack on Hamas. It is actually an attack on civilians.” Is there any credible evidence for this, apart from your somewhat irrelevant speculation? More on this later).

Noam Chomsky, along with such colleagues as Norman Finkelstein, and Ilan Pappe, are guilty of all these offenses (and, surely, they are tired of being accused of this). There is no doubt that Noam Chomsky is a towering intellectual figure, who revolutionized linguistics and had a huge impact on this branch of science, I would never dream of disputing that. However, I feel it is my moral obligation to contend that Noam Chomsky is as much an expert on the Middle East as George Bush is on dentistry. I would make similarly harsh claim against Finkelstein and Co. Some Chutzpa!

***

Let us examine what it is Chomsky says in “…On Israel, US, and Gaza”:

“What He Said: “Hamas has so far sustained a very heavy blow from us, but we have yet to achieve our objective and therefore the operation continues”.

Ehud Barak, Israeli Defense Minister, January 6th 2008. What He Meant:….”

This presentation of the information is in itself biased, and startlingly arrogant. Not what Chomsky “BELIEVES” Barak meant, but what Barak DID mean. How do you know? Do you know him personally? Have you spoken to him about it? Have you got transcripts of conversations to that affect? If so, where are they? And if you are merely speculating, are there no other plausible avenues of thought that would explain Barak’s statement?

Could it be, perhaps, just maybe, that Barak, as Israel’s Defence Minister, wants to ensure that the reality that emerges after this operation/war is over, is one in which 1 million Israelis (thereabouts, and growing) do not live under threat of about 1000 rockets a year (a rough average) launched by a Islamic-Nationalist Organization, sworn to Israel’s destruction (in its own words)?

That is a much more significant threat than any Western country faces. Would it not seem possible that it would bother Barak, as an elected politician? Anther more glaring, still minute, fault Chomsky offers us is this: “…the occupied Gaza Strip — and there has not been a day when it hasn’t been occupied”. Well, this is easy enough to explore. The definition of occupation, in this context, is: “the seizure and control of an area by military forces, esp. foreign territory.” The alert reader will agree that this is the kind of occupation that is happening in parts of the West Bank. However, Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and no military or civilian Israeli presence was left in Gaza after that. Yes, there was a “siege”, but this constitutes control on the surroundings of Gaza, not the Strip proper, and as such does not amount to “occupation.” This is why the military term “siege” does not exist under the aegis of the military term “occupation”.

The reasons for, and merits or demerits of said “siege” can be looked at later. To labour the point, Hamas established government institutions in the Gaza strip, from a cabinet, through a police force, to a paramilitary army. Therefore – not under Israel’s control. So far, these are common errors of knowledge, instruments which are used by all salesmen, propagandists, and demagogues throughout history.

These are as ridiculous as Norman Finkelstein’s assertion that Haaretz is the most influential newspaper in Israel, when he wanted to give force to an article he was quoting from it (It is a plain fact that Haaretz is by far third in its circulation, and while commended for its journalism is considered the refuge of left-wing “elitists”). Indeed, the main fault with the anti-Zionist/anti-Israel/anti-American school of thought is its basic world-view, which is infested with malicious all-powerful, faceless global forces and conspiracies.

These are divided mainly between the “Zionists”, and the “American Corporations/government”, who are sometimes merged into one “evil” global force (I give full credit to opinions not based on these views that come to similar conclusions – but these are far and few between). There is indeed concrete evidence of CIA sponsored coup attempts in Cuba, or vote-rigging in West-Germany, among other things, but this view goes far beyond. Indeed, beyond the many unfounded claims of CIA coups throughout the world (Chile springs to mind), this view accuses Zionism of a far-reaching conspiracy to settle Palestine, violently expel and massacre the “indigenous population”, then provoke the Six Day War, attack Lebanon in 2006 as a provocation, and of having “programs of takeover” for the West Bank and Gaza (despite statements and actions to the contrary).

Well let me tell you a secret – the world does not operate by conspiracies, by faceless and unstoppable forces that determine world events. Anyone who has ever witnessed the functioning of any political body – form a soap opera script, through the local City Hall, up to the UN General Assembly – can see that. All men are limited, short-sighted, and narrow-minded. They all make mistakes in judgment, and are prone to personal influence. World events, just like personal events, are determined by an endless tangled web of small random and chaotic events – which add up to a multiplicity of larger events, and so on. Even the biggest decisions are made at 3 o’ clock in the morning by a tired official behind a desk who is half asleep. If human beings had the organizational abilities conspiracy theorists attribute to them the world would either be a 1984 or a pure Utopia.

Furthermore, there is only a very thin, often overlooked, red line between such conspiracy theories, and others that expound how “the Holocaust was a Zionist hoax”, or that “the Mossad carried out the 9.11/7.7/Mumbai attacks” etc. Therefore we must be very, very careful what we attribute such certainty to. Let us take the Six Day War, a very complex event, as the classic example. Chomsky and Finkelstein hold (like the official view of the Arab dictatorships) that Israel planned all along to launch this expansionist adventure, in line with its conspiracy plan, and they weave this thread through a series relevant and irrelevant documents.

Finkelstein (quoting Tom Segev) says that, “In the third week of May, 1967, the IDF officer corps stated that, come what may, it will use the opportunity to …occupy… the West Bank.” Benny Morris, it should be noted, discredits that. Let’s explore this further. The Israeli military historian, Meir Pa’il (also former Knesset Member, and head of IDF branch of Combat Theory) recounts in his book “Humane Military Leadership”, how in 1957, as Lieutenant-Colonel and commander of the 51st Golani infantry battalion, he was summoned to a meeting of officers in Jerusalem, among them (future Chief of Staff) “Muta” Gur, and headed by (future Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon. The aim of the meeting was to formulate a plan of attack on the Jordanian positions on Ammunition Hill, to connect Israel proper with the Israeli enclave on Mt. Scopus.

Pa’il and Gur offered two alternative plans, and Sharon, as commander of the 35th Paratrooper brigade, was to choose the most expedient one. No doubt, one could immediately shout, “Eureka!”, as Finkelstein would, and claim this account as “proof” for the conspiracy. But, the attack of 1957 never took place, because the government never saw a need for it. All armies make plans for likely, or unlikely, eventualities. There must have been dozens of battle plans thought up for Ammunition Hill between 1948 and 1967, until it was eventually fought bitterly on the night of 5th-6th of June ‘67.

The American army still has, in its drawers, plans for the invasions of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba, or for a nuclear attack on the USSR. All this shows is that it is an army that is well-prepared for any eventuality. Israel had no territorial buffer to absorb an offensive; it was outnumbered and outgunned, against enemies that sought to “push it into the sea”. The IDF commanders knew that their only choice in a likely event of a war is to move forward, as was done successfully in ‘48, and ‘56, and to do so artfully. It simply made plans that were realistic for the circumstances.

Still, “In the third week of May, 1967, the IDF officer corps”, for all politics is concerned, could have stated that its aim is to put a donkey on the moon. As a military body it has no connection with the political decisions of the democratically-elected government of Israel. Finkelstein and co. also leave out an incredibly complex chain of events, which led to the war:

1) A fake KGB intelligence report claiming a threat to Syria. Syria appeals to Egypt for help.

2) Nasser mobilizes, declares war, lays a naval blockade on Israel, and moves his army to maintain his position as “Savior of the Arab World” – he also blackmails King Hussein into joining him.

3) Israel mobilizes, Eshkol (at Rabin’s request) sends two delegations to the US to ask for help, to avoid war (first Eban, then Amit) throwing the country into panic.

4) The US tells Israel it must not “go it alone”, and attack first, and that the US, and NATO, cannot assist.

5) The USSR tells Nasser he must not attack first.

In this chain of events (which we have overwhelming evidence for) we see every player acting in his own self-interest, in response to his perception of the situation. If King Hussein had not been limited by his personal weakness and chose to abstain from war, the entire history of the West Bank would have changed. No need for “Zionist” conspiracy, or an “American corporate hegemony” conspiracy. Events were triggered arbitrarily and independently of each other.

Similar complex chains of events are found in ’48, ’73, or ’06 and never do we find clear evidence of this conspiracy, except for some rash conclusions which are come to through the manipulation of data. That is the most striking difference between Israeli accounts of history (academic in an open democracy), and Arab (or even “new”) accounts (product of dictatorships and extremist “liberation” movements): The Israeli version always presents a dynamic and complex chain of events: victories, defeats, mistakes, desperation, reversals. Also, one account can be used to verify another. The Arab account only asserts the existence of an “all-evil” “Zionist military machine” that is accused of “crimes” – there is hardly any dynamics, and allegations are founded on very rickety and limited evidence, if any. Why are all the above points regularly missing in any Chomsky, Finkelstein, or any of that camps account of events?