
From Challenge # 77 January-February 2003
editorial
Manipulations
The
anticipated war on Iraq has penetrated the Israeli election campaign. Not
as in Germany, where Gerhard Schroeder's opposition to war
saved him from defeat at the polls. Quite to the contrary, Ariel Sharon is
counting on the winds of war to deliver him a handsome victory.
Not
long ago the sky seemed the limit for Sharon. The Labor Party quit his
national-unity government, but this only seemed to bolster him. In the
contest for the Likud leadership, he thrashed Binyamin Netanyahu. Surveys
showed the Likud winning 40 seats of the 120 in the Knesset, compared with
19 in the last parliamentary elections (1999). His relationship with US
President George W. Bush was blooming. And fewer suicide bombers were
getting through.
Then a cloud appeared. On December 8, the Likud's Central Committee held
primaries to determine its list of candidates for the Knesset. Strangely,
several unknowns won places near the front. Of the top 40, 19 were
newcomers. A police investigation is turning up evidence of massive
corruption, such as would make even Arafat blush. The Likud primaries were
"crimaries," in the phrase of Amir Oren. (Ha'aretz Jan. 1, 2003).
As if Israel did not have enough on its hands, a new specter has arisen:
that the members of Israel's next government will owe their seats to
organized crime. (See
box.)
Sharon is attempting to appear above it all, but the line of illegality
may end up pointing to him. He urgently needs an issue to unite the
country behind him. The upcoming war is a natural.
It
is not surprising, then, that tidbits coming from well-placed sources have
occasioned a countrywide obsession with gas masks and smallpox. The Hebrew
daily Yediot Aharonot led the way. On December 20, its weekend
issue bore the huge headline: "US sends 1000 soldiers with rockets to
Israel." Under this came a subhead: "On January 15 Israel will go on a
high alert, 'Red Hail' – Then will begin the countdown to America's
assault on Iraq." For the next ten days, Israel's civilian institutions
were told to prepare for a chemical attack. Soldier-lecturers went to the
schools and described the effects, instilling hysteria among the pupils.
People began to complain that it was a bad time to hold elections.
Thus, while America and Europe settled down to a cozy Christmas, the
citizens of Israel lined up for their masks.
Even if Sharon was tricking the public, he will definitely win points at
the White House, which seeks to persuade a recalcitrant world that Saddam
is the anti-Santa. For the present, only the people of Israel take the
message seriously.
Sharon is by no means alone in manipulating national opinion. Bush faced
congressional elections in November 2002. By beating the war drums in
September, he diverted attention from financial scandals and a sluggish
economy.
Bush has reasons to attack Iraq, and Sharon has reasons to support him.
None is related to any real threat. Their manipulations of fact have
become so crass that criticism is mounting.
Bush has had difficulty selling the public on the need for war, especially
a war that the US might have to wage alone. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was
National Security Advisor in the Carter Administration, published his
criticism in the Wall Street Journal (Dec. 23). The US, he points
out, has failed to justify the war to its allies. Outwardly, America
claims it wants Iraq's disarmament, but what it really seeks is regime
change, a goal that many don't share.
Another recent example comes from the pen of Michael Dobbs in the
Washington Post (Dec. 30). He informs us that the present Secretary of
Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was the first high American official to meet
with Saddam Hussein. This occurred on December 20, 1983. Rumsfeld, then
with the Reagan Administration, expressed America's readiness to renew
full diplomatic ties with Iraq, precisely at a time when Saddam was using
chemical weapons against Iran on a daily basis. The US proceeded to rescue
Saddam from defeat, sending him weapons (chemical included), as well as
intelligence information. Parts of Dobbs' article appeared the next day in
Israeli papers.
Here, too, after an overlong honeymoon, the manipulations of Bush have
finally drawn fire. Leftist pundit B. Micha'el wrote in Yediot Aharonot
on Dec. 24: "It is astonishing to see how America's triple spearhead leads
its people, as well as choice bits from the rest of the world, toward an
unprovoked war that is devoid of grounds or logic. With a growing
disregard for truth or even the need to explain, the trio acts like a
spoiled child refusing to part from its toy… There is something even more
astonishing, though: the passionate eagerness with which Israel joins in
the game.
"This eagerness is twofold. First, it [the government – Ed.] wants to aid
the Americans in marketing the war. Second, it wants to make sure that the
voter's head, in the next few weeks, will be steeped in security-hysteria…
Such hysteria always helps Sharon and Company at the ballot box."
In
a similar vein, Nahum Barnea, the senior pundit of Yediot Aharonot,
came out on New Year's Eve with a sarcastic critique of Bush. Rarely in
Israel does one read the word "imperialism" in association with the US.
Here is one of many instances: "The imperialism of George Bush was born …
from the trauma of September 11. Before that, his interest in mending the
world was close to zero. If the wars of 2003 exact high prices – in dead
American soldiers and damage to America's economy – we may doubt whether
Bush will persist in them. Empire is a wearisome burden."
It
is refreshing to find that Bush does not fool all the Israelis all the
time. One may wonder, though, why the awakening has taken so long. The
American president, after all, has been pounding the drum for months. Two
possibilities suggest themselves:
(1)
The Left dislikes Bush because he has found a common language with Sharon.
Just when a nice juicy scandal comes along, Bush's war mongering gives
Sharon a chance to evade it.
There is room for hope, nonetheless, that (2) rays of sanity have begun to
penetrate the Israeli public. Its ruling axiom has been that an American
war against Iraq contains the key to squelching the Intifada. (See "Sowing
the Whirlwind," Challenge # 76.) When
Saddam Hussein falls, Arafat is supposed to fall too. The latter, Israelis
hope, will be replaced by someone more docile, e.g. Abu Mazen. Now,
however, some have begun to recognize that if Israel balked at bringing
down Arafat, although twice it surrounded his rooms with tanks, America
will find it no simple thing – and perhaps, in the end, no advisable thing
– to bring down Saddam Hussein. In the present White House view, however,
toppling Saddam is a step toward its manifest destiny.
As
Bush's manipulations endanger the world, so Israel's deeds in the
Territories endanger the region. In Israel, in the Territories and in the
Arab states, there are many who have made it a habit of hating Sharon
while licking Bush's boots. But the fish stinks from the head. Not Bush's
war, but its prevention, is a precondition for peace between Israel
and the Palestinians. n
[Home
| This Issue |
Archive|
Subscribe]
For a free, one-time
hard copy, please contact us. Be
sure to include your snail-mail address.