From its very early days, Zionist thoughts are divided into two major schools. The heavy-handed school, which adopts military solution toward any of the regional disagreements and conflicts. This school was initiated by the revisionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky. In 1923 Jabotinsky published two articles headed the "Iron Wall". In the papers Jabotinsky argues that the Arab would never accept the existence of a Jewish state, hence, the Jews must "erect an iron wall of Jewish military force". Following this very philosophy, Zionism must enjoy an overwhelmingly superior base of power that will reduce any Arabic tendency for resistance.
The other school is the school of reconciliation presented by moderate Zionist such as Moshe Sharet. This school tends to believe that all the regional regimes and political forces are capable of accepting the existence of the Jewish state. Therefore, according to Sharet, all available diplomatic efforts should be spent in order to achieve reconciliation with the Arab World.
These two conflicting ideologies are apparent from the very early days of Zionism, Furthermore, soon after the declaration of the state of Israel they turn into a harsh political debate. In practice, Ben Gurion, the first Israeli PM clearly adopted Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" philosophy. On the surface, this move appears to be a bizarre political move since Javotinsky's philosophy, represented very much the rival political thoughts to Ben Gurion 's own party. An analysis of the Israeli maneuvers and operation mode in the 1948 war provide us with a clear picture of the Israeli endorsement of a clear military option alongside a denial of any diplomatic solution.
In order to implement the miltary option that is a result of the "Iron Wall" philosophy, Ben Gurion instructed the IDF to adopt an offensive military doctrine, a doctrine which will provide the region with a mighty presentation of the Israeli overwhelmingly military superiority. The doctrine is based over two basic presuppositions:
1. Any confrontation between the Arab and Israelis must take place
over Arab land. In other words, the Israeli offensive must brings the
battle to the Arab territories before the battle even starts 2. Because of the relatively limited financial means of the Israel,
any confrontation must bring victorious results in the shortest possible
time. In other words, The Israeli army must impose the most devastating
damage over its Arab enemies.
The Israeli military and political leaders were soon to define a criterion which measures the success of the Israeli arm forces implementation of the offensive doctrine. This criterion was defined as the IDF "force of deterrence". It is a scale that determines the Arab unwillingness to fight. Less encouraged the Arab to fight, higher in scale is the IDF's "force of deterrence".
For Ben Gurion and his followers it was a must to provide the Arab world
with a clear Israeli determination for militant solution. Any given battle
must be ended with a clear cut Israeli victory, more than that the Arabs
must regard any confrontation as if it leads them toward a clear
self-defeat. The measure of success of the Israeli offensive mode is a
function of the reduction of the Arabs willingness to fight. This mode
of
Israeli military pattern was evidential from the early stage of 1948 war,
a war that provided the Palestinian civil population with the Israeli
clear
violation of any human code. The war was ended with more than 700.000
Palestinian refugees and armistice between Israel and it neighbors that
was regarded by the Arabs as a clear military defeat.
Already in the early fifties Israel has managed to improve the offensive doct rine one stage further. I am referring here to the retaliation mode that was characterized by a sever lack of proportion. According to Ben Gurion, any lost of Jewish life must be retaliate in an overwhelming scale and measures. Following Ben Gurion, Arabs must learn that Jewish blood value is far higher than their own. In order to achieve the best possible results, a young assertive, aggressive and ambitious commander named Ariel Sharon was called for action. He was asked to form a small special commando unit that will present the Arab enemy (innocent civilians usually), with a the full scale of Israeli conviction and determination to win in any condition.
In 1953, following a murderous attack of a mother and her two children by Palestinian inflitrators that passed the Israeli Border near to the Jordanian village of Quibya. Sharon's and his commando unit now named "the 101", were called for action. Sharon was ordered to penetrate to the village of Quibya, to blow as many houses and to inflict as many casualties on its habitant. Sharon was the very right man for the Job. The raid was a complete success. Very much like Jennie refugee camp that was completely destroyed over its inhabitant, Quibya was reduced to pile of rubble, more than fifty houses were destroyed. 61 civilians, most of them women and children had been killed. UN observer that visited the site came to a clear conclusion that the villagers were forced to stay in their houses while those were blown over them. The Quibya massacre raised an international condemnation including an anti Israeli resolution in the UN Security Council. In a debate within the Israeli government Moshe Sharet the moderate foreign minister, called to issue an official statement expressing regret over the action. Ben Gurion the PM had a different idea, In a radio broadcast the day after, he denied IDF involvement in the raid, he lied and blamed the action on Israeli villagers that retaliate beyond endurance. As we know Sharon's military career was not affected at all, as a matter of fact, very much the opposite. Sharon and "the 101" turned to be the symbol of the new Hebraic military man, a murderous soldier that attack beyond the enemy line, a soldier that represent the ultimate devotion to orders even if it means divorcing himself from any familiar concept of mercy and humanity. Not only that Sharon career was not affected, in practice, he was seen as the most promising Israeli young officer. In military terms he became a shining meteor, his promotion within the army ranks was the fastest possible. It won't be irrational to assume that this sort of swift promotion came to encourage other young officers to follow Sharon's and "the 101" murderous pattern. Historically, the Quibya massacre was first in a chain of retaliation raids conducted by the Israeli army. Those raids shaped the Israeli offensive philosophy into a new form of murderous art. A pattern of thought that led to an endless confrontation with the Arab world but furthermore, it contributed toward a continuous transformation of the Israelis into a ignorant society. A society that is concerned solely with its own interest while denying any of the Others.
When we scrutinize the Israeli political history, we can clearly see that from an Israeli internal political perspectives, the offensive doctrine enjoy two major advantages: First, it communicate with the Arabs in the only language the Arabs understand, i.e. violence. Second, It provokes a strong outraged condemnation among the international community, something that is translated within Israel into an immediate political gain.
Regarding the first one, it is hard to believe but the vast majority of the Israeli people do believe that the Arabs understand violence only. Therefore, along the history of Israel we can see very little diplomatic tendency toward peaceful solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Even the Oslo negotiation was taking place within a very specific historical circumstances in which the PLO was facing a political and financial disaster (following the support of Sadam Husien in the Golf War). If this is not enough it was clear that from the very first stages of Oslo implementations, The Israelis used the military threat as a mean of pressure against the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian people. When we overview the personal biography of the Israeli cabinet members in the past and at the present, we find out that the vast majority of them are ex-military men. It is clear that only a state that decide to live on the sward and deeply believe in military solution, can put so many generals in its cabinet and PM seats.
Referring to the second advantage might be a bit embarrassing. Evidently,
Israeli Prime Ministers love to be condemned by the international
community. It is obvious that Israeli leaderships learned how to transform
foreign
condemnation into a clear political gain. Undoubtedly, in Israel, any
foreign criticism of Israel is conditionally interpreted as a "gentile
pathological Anti -Semitic behavior". Every Israeli leading politician
learns how to use this very tool in his very first days in office. The
main pattern was delivered by Ben Gurion: "It doesn't matter what
the gentile
says, what is matter is what the Jews are doing". Within such an
ignorant
statement the Israeli PM managed to provide his voters with an instant
remembrance of the history of Jewish persecution, it pushes the Jewish
people deeper into their safe haven of complete segregation that leads
toward the denial of the outer world. Moreover, since in Hebrew, the word
gentile (goy) is a clear devastating derogative, Ben Gurion's call to
ignore the gentile clearly leads Israelis to celebrate their superiority
over the
rest of the human kind. It must be clear that Ben Gurion statement is
a
call for Israelis to unit behind their leadership and to reject any sort
of foreign criticism. To conclude this point I would claim that in the
case
of Israel, the offensive doctrine leaves the international community
completely helpless. On the one hand, lack of criticism is taken by the
Israeli
public as an approval or a sign of weakness. On the other hand, any international
condemnation leads eventually toward a growing of public support toward
the political leadership. This fact might explain the Israeli politics
continuos shift to the right. But it explain the international community
lack of
means against the Israeli oppression and atrocities.
If we review Sharon's military and political career we find out that he
follows his mentor, Ben Gurion religiously. Clearly, Sharon adopted the
offensive doctrine as a single mode of behavior both in political and
military terms. As mentioned before, Sharon was the leading figure in
forming and shaping the Israeli retaliation raids and commando attack.
This strategy leads to the Israeli deep commando penetration into the
Sinai
desert in the "Suez Operation" (1956). Under Colonel Sharon
recommendation
Israeli paratroopers landed in the 'Mitle Pass' at the heart of Sinai
desert in order to cause heavy loses to the Egyptian army. In practice,
the
battle cost too many Israeli lives, within short time Israel had to pull
back its
forces from Sinai. In total, the operation was regarded as waste of human
lives. In 73 war, General Sharon lead is brigade across the Suez Canal,
again, the battle cost too many Israeli lives. Within the battle Sharon
refused his higher command to show restrain. Sharon believed that Israeli
soldier on the western bank of the Suez will bring the Egyptian on their
knees. In practice it pulled some heavy international pressure. Soon,
Israel had to withdraw its forces. Furthermore, The cease-fire talks lead
to
peace talks (1977) in which Israel had "lost" Sinai completely.
In Lebanon war (1982), Sharon, the minister of defense, leads the cabinet to believe that the Palestinian issue can be grounded forever by a military assault against the PLO in Lebanon. Clearly, he is determined generate a light conflict, a mini war, with the Syrian in order to wipe the Syrian forces out of southern Lebanon.. As we know already, the Israeli offensive doctrine does not differentiate between Arabs. In the eyes of the "Iron Wall", Arabs are all the same, you kill as many as you can. From the very early stage of the Lebanese campaign it was clear that Israel is drawn into a vicious civil war between the different Lebanese ethnic and religious groups. As predicted by some Israeli intelligence expert, within short time after the invasion of Lebanon the most terrible massacre of Palestinian refugees in Sabra and Shatila took place. The devastating massacre was carried out by Christian militias that got the approval to enter the camp from the Israeli high command. While Israeli forces were not involved directly in the massacre itself, Israel was clearly responsible for any atrocities taking action within its invaded territory. As expected, The massacre was extremely condemned by the international community. In Israel, the left movement "Peace Now" managed to bring thousands of people to the street to demonstrate against the government. In a speech to the Israeli parliament, reflecting upon the left opposition to the Lebanese campaign, Menachem Begin the PM, complained that, "gentiles kill gentiles and the Jews are blaming each other". Again and again we face the same Israeli right wing pattern, Begin used the international outraged reaction in order to delegitimate the Israeli left. In other words Menachem Begin clearly, blamed the left for collaboration with the "gentiles" against the Jewish Sharon.> Again we can see that an Israeli offense that generate an international> outraged response is turned within Israel into a political weapon against any left opposition and human call. It is important to mention that following the international outraged to Sabra and Shatila events and thanks to a very strong left campaign, Menachem Begin agreed eventualiy to a public inquiries into the events. The comity found Sharon unequipped for ministerial duties. In the short term it regarded as a victory of sense. In the long term it was regarded by the right wing as an approval for Sharon conviction to the "Iron Wall" philosophy. In other words it made him ready to be the Israeli Prime Minister when time comes..
The result of the Lebanon war are not yet cleared since the war is not
over. What we can say for sure is that it took the Israeli forces almost
twenty years to get out of Lebanon. Undoubtedly , while being in Lebanon,
Israeli army has managed to lose its "power of deterrence".
The Israeli
army, the most equipped army in the middle-east found itself completely
defeated by the Hizbulah, a small devoted group of gorilla fighters. In
the shades of the growing Israeli defeat in Lebanon, the Palestinian people
within the occupied territories have started to redevelop their
nationalistic aspirations. Eventually in 1987 this aspiration had matured
into a Palestinian uprising, The first Intifada.
Since Lebanon war the Israeli "power of deterrence" deteriorated
continuously. Clearly, the IDF never managed to establish a successful
fighting skills to confront the Lebanese civil resistance. If this is
not
enough, following the Oslo accord the Israeli civilian faced a growing
threat of terror inside Israel. For the first time the Israeli history,
Israeli civil population found itself within a war zone. This fact is
very crucial to understand. Within the Israeli self-image, It is the Arab>
civilians who are supposed to die, definitely not Israelis. In the Israeli
eyes, Jewish civilians are not supposed to die in the conflict because
of two main reasons: 1. It remind them of the holocaust in which Jews
were
dying only because the are Jews. 2. It is very much against the idea
"offensive doctrine". As we remember, Israeli got used to the
fact that
any confrontation with the Arab world is always taking place over Arab
land.
Suddenly, the confrontation have started to take place in the center of
the Israeli cities. This fact was regarded by most of the Israelis as
a
catastrophe and completely unacceptable. In the light of the Palestinian
terror, a very strong right wing slogan was brought along: "Let the
IDF
win" which means. Let us raise the "power of deterrence",
let us get back into
our offensive doctrine. Let us pass the war from our city centers into
the
Palestinian towns. Let us make sure that we destroy the Palestinian will
to fight. Let us get out of control, let us get mad. Let us erect again
the
"Iron Wall" Who is the right man for the job? No doubt, Mr Ariel
Sharon.
The master of offensive doctrine. Israel most celebrated war criminal.
Arik,
who proved to be the man who does not know no mercy. We have to admit
The
Israelis were right, it took Sharon just about a year in office to commit
the great massacre in Jenin.
It is a must to scrutinize the Jenin events within the offensive
prospects. The operation in the refugee camp was, 'more or less', the
embodiment of
what offensive doctrine is all about. It was taking place on an, more
or
less, enemy land. It was, more or less, very fast and it was, 'more or
less' , a "clear cut" victory. Apparently, the 'more or less'
is crucial. Jenin
is not an enemy land. It is an Israeli invaded territory. Strangely enough,
it appears as if the Israeli colonial forces are the first colonialist
to
destroy and demolish their own colonies. Clearly, it took the Israeli
a
bit too long to confess that the battle in Jenin was over. Clearly, the
might
of the Israeli armed forces was not enough to brake the spirit of the
very
few determined Palestinian freedom fighters Last but not least, if it
was a
clear victory. But at the same time, it is very unclear who is the
winner. Is it the Israelis? I would not say so, as T. Larsen the UN envoy
to the
middle east put it: "in Jenin Israel has lost its moral ground".
For such
a clear statement Mr. Larsen became a persona non grata in the Jewish
state.
If anything, it is clear that after Jenin, After presenting the Israelis
with real fierce fighting, the Palestinians are determined to fight more
than forever.
I will try to follow the Jenin battle and to analyze the Israeli decision
making in the light of the offensive paradigm. On the morning of April
3rd
Israeli ground forces entered into Jenin refugee camp and from the very
early moment it clear that this time the encounter some fierce Palestinian
fighting. The Israeli high command naturally provided some more support.
More tanks and helicopter gun ships were sent to support the battling
ground forces. At this point it is important to mention that it is very
unusual
to use tanks and helicopter gun ships in highly populated arias but within
the Offensive doctrine, the end (victory) is far more important than the
means
(war crimes). At the meantime, Israeli commanders on the ground are
getting under sever pressure to complete their mission. They use heavier
weapon
and fire, they care less and less about who is getting killed as long
as they
are Arabs. Clearly, as a result, more civilians get hit, the scene on
the
ground start to look a bit anaesthetic. The Israeli high command decides
to seal the aria. Press and rescue forces are not allowed in. Now the
forces
on the ground are working against time. They must provide a clear-cut
conclusion. Naturaly, they decide to wipe out the all aria that is
suspected to be a "pocket of resistance". In doing so they kill
many civilians,
mainly old and disabled people that could not run away. When the battle
is over
jenin is a slaughter house, the streets are the most horrifying seen man
can think of. Civilian crops are all over the place, many Palestinian
are
wounded blooding to death. Still, red cross and rescue forces are not
allowed in. The Israeli must decide whether to be Human and to save those
who can be saved or whether to try to conceal the evidences of an
unacceptable shocking inhuman crime. Naturally, following Sharon's
overwhelming history of crimes against humanity, a decision is taken to
bulldoze the center of Jenin refugee camp. The Israelis turn it into a
"Palestinian Ground Zero". Occupied houses are destroyed over
their
habitants. Very much like Quibya slauther fifty years earlier Sharon
commits in Jenin a very similar crime. Although the similarities are very
obvious,
the are still some light differences that should be elaborated. In Quibya
Sharon was a platoon commander, In Jenin he an elected prime minister,
he
committs is crime in the name of the all Israeli people. As expected,
as
soon as International criticism was heard, Sharon defines the current
battle as the "existential war of the all Jewish nation". So
from now on,
accor ding to Sharon, the massacre in Jenin was done not only in the name
of the Israelis but in the name of the all Jewish people. If this is not
enough, Sharon declares that he is conducting a holy war against terror.
We must remember that this kind of approach aims at the American population,
Sharon becomes American messenger, or at least American platoon. As we
can
clearly see, both world Jewry and American administration prevent
themselves from criticizing Sharon publicly, hence, we can conclude that
Sharon is
committing his war crimes both in the name of the Jewish people and the
American nation unless prove different. Unless some major Rabbis will
stand up and firmly denounce Sharon atrocities significantly, unless the
American administration will decide to stop to support the Jewish state.
Unless
these two happened soon we can clearly believe Sharon that he is acting
in the
name of the Jewish people and the American nation.
Clearly, we can see that in Israeli eyes, Sharon is the right man for the job. He is the embodiment of everything Israel is about. He is offensive, murderous and righteous. Sharon proved again that he himself acts as an "Iron Wall". The real and only question that is left for us is whether we want to live in a world in which Israel, a criminal offensive state, is accepted among the nations.
<<Back to Politiks