GREAT
NEWS!
While
Ms. Komey's outrage may be righteous, her future as a political
pundit seems cloudy, at best: if
the polls are correct, it looks like Sharon – known
as "the Bulldozer" for his policy (while minister of "infrastructure")
of destroying Palestinian homes to make way for Israeli
"settlements" – will flatten Ehud Barak and emerge
at the head of the Israeli government at a crucial time
in his nation's history. They tell a story about Sharon's
early career that helps to put his expected election victory
in perspective, and gives us an idea of what makes the incoming
Prime Minister of Israel tick: As the head of "Unit 101,"
the notorious terrorist squad, Sharon and his fellow thugs
were camped out on a kibbutz near the Syrian border, having
been ordered not to make a move unless provoked. One day,
Sharon ran into the headquarters, yelling "Great news! They've
just killed the guard!"
A
MORAL MONSTER
The
history of this man as a moral monster – as the mass
murderer of Palestinians while a Haganah
terrorist
in the 1950s, as the man who presided over the massacres
at Shatilla
and Sabra, as the ethnic cleanser who forced the resettlement
of 160,000 Palestinians from East Jerusalem – is
already well-documented, and I won't belabor the point here:
Alexander
Cockburn's recent article in the New York Press,
spotlighted on Antiwar.com last week, covers those bases
quite well. In any case, the crimes of Ariel Sharon are
well-documented on the Internet, and I want to make a different
though related point about the man they are calling "Arik,
King of the Jews" – that his triumph represents a growing
Israeli anti-Americanism.
SHARON'S
ROOTS
Having
reached the apex of his military career after the Yom
Kippur War of 1973 – after having been disgraced
in high military and political circles for refusing to follow
orders and continually placing his soldiers in danger for
his own glory – Sharon joined Menachem
Begin's Gahal
coalition, a merger of the old Herut
with the Liberal
party, and with three smaller rightist parties later
merged to form the Likud
bloc. The party traces its origins back to the radical
Revisionist Zionist movement of Ze'ev
Jabotinsky, founded in 1925. In opposition to the secular
and universalist conception of a Zionist state envisioned
by the Labor
left, Jabotinsky and his right-wing followers upheld a more
down-to-earth philosophy of blood and soil clearly influenced
by the rise of European fascism. Jabotinsky sang the praises
of Mussolini, as did other Revisionist leaders: the Revisionist,
as
one writer put it, "maintains that the state is the
highest expression of a people."
THE
COLONIZERS
Jabotinsky
regarded Palestinians as "alien minorities" who, in a future
Jewish state, "would weaken national unity." Their transfer,
if not accomplished voluntarily, would "have to be achieved
against the will of the country's Arab majority. An 'iron
wall' of a Jewish armed force would have to protect the
process of achieving a majority," according to the Revisionist
leader. To Jabotinsky, the Palestinian Arabs were a subhuman
people who had contributed nothing to civilization: it was
up to the Zionists to "push the moral frontiers of Europe
to the Euphrates," he wrote. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine
was a precondition for the success of the Zionist project,
and the difference between the Israeli right and its Laborite-socialist
utopian adversaries was that the former did not mince words
or in any way shrink from this task. While the other Zionist
leaders dithered and tried to conciliate their opponents,
both in Israel and the West, Jabotinsky disdained incrementalism
and boldly maintained that the Jews had the right to take
the land of Israel, granted to them, of course, by G-d.
In 1923, he summed up the Revisionist ideology and program
succinctly and presciently: "Zionism is a colonizing adventure
and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed
force. It is important to build, it is important to speak
Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to
be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing
at colonization." This is a policy that the heirs of Jabotinsky
in Israel, with Sharon at their head, intend to reaffirm.
THE
IRGUN
The
merger of numerous right-wing parties under the banner of
Likud, in the early sixties, represented the culmination
of a developing trend: the consolidation of a majority program
around a somewhat watered-down version of Jabotinsky's original
vision of a Greater Israel. Menachem Begin, the leader of
the largest Likud component, Herut, had been the leader
of the terrorist Irgun,
an offshoot of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement. The Irgun
carried out numerous attacks on civilians – British,
Jewish, and Arab – in their struggle to "liberate"
Israel, planting bombs in Arab markets and other public
facilities. On July 22, 1946, they carried out their most
spectacular raid when they blew up the King David Hotel,
killing ninety-one people. While the Irgun was outgunned
by the British, as Michael Palumbo, author of The
Palestinian Catastrophe: The 1948 Expulsion of a People
From Their Homeland, points out:
"The
government in London, however, feared that the Americans
would retaliate against a firm anti-terrorist campaign by
holding up a much-needed loan. The British army was not
allowed to use the tough tactics required to halt the Irgun
and Stern Gang. Execution of captured terrorists was rare,
house searches were limited and roundups unusual."
SHARON
SAYS NO TO DEMOCRACY
Begin
and his fellow post-Revisionists, Sharon among them, were
determined not make the same errors that forced the British
out of Palestine. They maintained Jabotinsky's vision of
a Greater Israel sustained by military power and a strident
nationalist vision that, even today, echoes the admiration
of their founder for the swaggering authoritarianism of
Il Duce. "Our forefathers did not come here in order to
build a democracy but to build a Jewish state," brayed Sharon
in answer to his liberal critics [Menachem Shalev, Forward,
May 21, 1993]. The incompatibility of Zionism and liberal
democracy has long been recognized by the Palestinians and
some elements of the Israeli left. That this is now openly
proclaimed by the soon-to-be Prime Minister of the Jewish
state is a development that Israel's friends in the West
did not foresee.
THE
BULLDOZER
The
foreign policy of a Sharon government will carry out the
Revisionist program of a Greater Israel, with an accelerated
program of "settlements" surrounded by Israeli military
facilities. We all remember his plan, as Begin's minister
of agriculture, to "Judaize the Galilee" – driving
out the Arab Israelis, whom he denounced as "foreigners"
– and his scheme to colonize the Sinai. As Flore de
Preneuf pointed
out in Salon,
"More
than any other politician, Sharon has been the engine behind
Israel's thinly disguised annexation policy. Whatever ministerial
portfolio fell into his hands, Sharon made sure to direct
massive state funds toward building houses, roads and water
pipes that would consolidate Israel's grip in the occupied
territories. Not for nothing have Israelis nicknamed Sharon
'the bulldozer.'"
FROM
THE NILE TO THE EUPHRATES
But
it isn't just the occupied territories that will be annexed,
and the inhabitants expelled, because the rationale for
a more aggressive expansionism is religious: "In the same
day the Eternal made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto
thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt
unto the great river, the river Euphrates." [Genesis 15:18]
Zionists cite the Bible as the source of their view that
the actual borders of Israel must extend from the Nile to
the Euphrates, and that will be the operative principle
of Israeli foreign policy under the heirs of Jabotinsky.
This presents certain problems for Israel's amen corner
in the US, which, slightly queasy at the prospect of an
outright nutcake at the Israeli helm, is now putting out
the "Nixon-to-China" line, which goes something like this:
only a hardliner like Sharon could sell an agreement to
the troublesome Israeli right-wing, while still maintaining
his nation's security. Besides, they assure us, once he's
in power, he'll be forced to moderate his position. Whether
this is an outright lie, or else represents wishful thinking,
matters little: it is, in any event, a crock.
SEIZE
THE TIME
After
all, it isn't as if we have no knowledge of how he might
act once in office: as Israeli Foreign Minister, in 1998,
days before he was scheduled to negotiate with the Palestinians
over the final status of the occupied territories, Sharon
"urged Jewish settlers to seize more land in the occupied
West Bank," the BBC reported. He declared that Israelis
"should enlarge existing settlements because everything
they did not occupy would revert to Palestinian control."
In a speech to one of Israel's far-right parties, Sharon
exhorted his audience to seize the time: "Everyone should
take action, should run, should grab more hills," he told
the political gathering. "We'll expand the area. Whatever
is seized will be ours. Whatever isn't seized will end up
in their hands. That's the way it will be...That's what
must be done now." [BBC 11/16/98]
COLLISION
COURSE
"Whatever
is seized will be ours" – this is the principle of
Zionism in practice, particularly of the Revisionist variant
upheld by Israel's far-right, and it has been the underlying
premise of Israel's foreign policy since its founding in
1948. Kept in abeyance by the political predominance of
the Labor party until recently, this overriding expansionist
impulse puts Israel on a collision course with the United
States, which has every interest in averting another all-out
Arab-Israeli war. An important factor in the rise of Sharon
is his often flamboyant anti-Americanism, which thrills
Israel's right-wing nationalists, who see more clearly than
anyone in the US that the interests of Israel and its chief
benefactor diverge. They cheered Sharon's
letter to then-secretary of state Madeleine Albright,
in which he defended his outrageously provocative visit
to the Temple Mount:
"I
wish to emphasize, Mrs. Secretary, that Prime Minister Barak
has already stated very clearly that every Israeli citizen,
be it Arab or Jew, has a right to visit any place which
is under Israeli sovereignty. The united city of Jerusalem,
which you are all very familiar with, as well as The Temple
Mount, are under full Israeli sovereignty. Neither I, nor
any Israeli citizen, need to seek permission from the PA
or from any foreign entity to visit there or any other site
which is sovereign territory of the State of Israel."
I
PAID FOR THAT COUNTRY!
Who
are you Americans to tell us what to do in our own country?
A reasonable enough question for anyone to ask – except
when it comes from a citizen of Israel. Paraphrasing
Ronald Reagan, the answer is: we paid for that
country! From 1949 through October 31, 1999, American taxpayers
have subsidized Israel's socialist economy to the tune of
nearly $92 billion – and, in spite of phony promises
that Israel is reducing its dependence on US aid, aid to
Israel is steadily increasing if
you count the hidden subsidies.
ISRAEL
VERSUS AMERICA
In
any superpower-client state relationship there is bound
to be a certain amount of resentment, slowly building up
over time, and in the case of the US and Israel these tensions
will have reached the breaking point with the ascension
of Sharon to power. During the campaign, he denounced Barak
for accepting "the American idea of handing over sovereignty
of a large part of the Old City to the Palestinians, offering
them control of the Temple Mount, an office for Arafat and
free access without Israeli inspection!" Those evil Americans,
always plotting to sell out Israel's interests. In a
remarkable article in the Jerusalem Post [February
21, 2000], Sharon underscored his distrust and even contempt
for those unreliable Americans, who could be counted on
to "restrain" Israel in a crisis. Arguing against any sort
of formal alliance with the US as a shield against potential
Arab aggression, Sharon depicted the US as an adversary:
"A
defense treaty will neither deter nor halt limited terrorist
activities and minor infringements of the law. The US will
not wish to be involved in such incidents, but will instead
press Israel to show restraint. What would Israel do, for
instance, if, while bound by a treaty with the US, the Syrians
one night introduced small antitank forces into the demilitarized
zone in the Golan, or if Hizbullah attacked a northern border
community, or an IDF outpost? What if there is a Hizbullah
attack within Israel, or against Jewish and Israeli targets
in the Diaspora (as is already planned)? Is Israel willing
to defy the US if the superpower demands restraint, so that
it can avoid direct confrontation with the Arab countries
that are becoming its allies? Even more serious, from the
moment that Israel fails to retaliate after the first infringement
because of US influence, new rules will apply that will
permit both the Syrians and the terrorist organizations
to erode the Israeli deterrent and apply constant pressure
for further concessions. Jerusalem, water, negotiations
with the Palestinians, and other issues will all be pressed
upon Israel even after signing an agreement."
Sharon
believes that Israel, too entangled with the US, will be
defeated by the eventual betrayal of its protector, and
fears the day that "Israel would cease to be a strategic
asset and would become instead a burden, with Congress and
public opinion pointing an accusing finger at us." With
his own imminent election as Prime Minister of Israel, that
day may soon be upon us.
CLIENT
STATE
Something
more than mere resentment of America was a
major theme of Sharon's campaign; "Once, when we were
few and weak in military and economic terms, we acted like
an independent country," he has written. "Now that we are
many and Israel is strong, we have almost become a client
state. Our leaders receive call-up papers, telling them
to report to an army base in the US where they will have
two months to reach an agreement." One could almost admire
such an independent spirit, if only it wasn't financed by
American taxpayers – and the source of endless trouble
from the Arab world. In any case, one can only agree with
Sharon's contention that Israel is a client state of the
US, and that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
There is, however, one way for this to be resolved to the
benefit of both nations, and that is to put an end to the
client state relationship between the US and Israel. This
means putting an end to military and economic aid to Israel,
effective immediately – after all, we wouldn't want
the Israelis to feel in the least bit "restrained."
