More from
Fateful Triangle by
Noam Chomsky with 1984 background on the current
Crisis in the Middle East, a recurring topic (mess) for tha last 5 or 6 decades...
.> American liberalism has led the way in constructing the “blindly chauvinistic and narrow-minded” support for Israeli policy that General Peled deplores. On the same day that the U.S. and Israel stood alone against the world at the United Nations (see p. 9), the national conference of the Democratic Party “adopted a statement highly sympathetic to Israel’s recent attacks in Lebanon, qualifying it only with an expression of regret over ‘all loss of life on both sides in Lebanon’.” In contrast, the Foreign Ministers of the European Community “vigorously condemned the new Israeli invasion of Lebanon” as a “flagrant violation of international law as well as of the most elementary humanitarian principles,” adding that this “unjustifiable action” posed the risk of “leading to a generalized war.”56 This is by no means an isolated case.
.> ... the front page of the New York Times on that day (June 27 [1982]) encapsulates the U.S.-Israel “special relationship” rather neatly. There are three adjacent columns. One is a report by William Farrell from Beirut, describing the effects of Israel’s latest bombardments: cemeteries jammed, people buried in mass graves, hospitals in desperate need of supplies, garbage heaped everywhere in stinking piles, bodies decomposing under tons of rubble, buildings little more than shattered hulks, morgue refrigerators full, bodies piled on the floors of hospitals, the few doctors desperately trying to treat victims of cluster and phosphorus bombs, Israel blocking Red Cross medical supplies, hospitals bombed, surgery interrupted by Israeli shelling, etc. The second is a report by Bernard Nossiter from New York, reporting how the U.S. blocked UN action to stop the slaughter on the grounds that the PLO might be preserved as “a viable political force.” The third is a report by Adam Clymer from Philadelphia on the sympathetic support of the Democratic national conference for Israel’s war in Lebanon. The three front-page reports, side-by-side, capture the nature of the “special relationship” with some accuracy—as does the lack of editorial comment.
> American liberalism had always been highly sympathetic to Israel, but there was a noticeable positive shift in attitudes in 1967 with the demonstration of Israel’s military might. Top Israeli military commanders made it clear not long after that Israel had faced no serious military threat and that a quick victory was anticipated with confidence—that the alleged threat to Israel’s existence was “a bluff.” ^57 But this fact was suppressed here in favor of the image of an Israeli David confronting a brutal Arab Goliath, ^58 enabling liberal humanitarians to offer their sympathy and support to the major military power of the region as it turned from crushing its enemies to suppressing those who fell under its control, while leading Generals explained that Israel could conquer everything from Khartoum to Baghdad to Algeria within a week, if necessary (Ariel Sharon).^59
- ^57 For references, see John Cooley, Green March, Black September (Frank Cass, London, 1973, pp. 161-2); my Peace in the Middle East? (Pantheon, New York, p. 140).
- ^58 The U.S. press appears to have ignored this important discussion among Israeli military commanders, apart from a report by John Cooley, Christian Science Monitor, July 17, 1972. For some discussion of what he refers to as “the ‘David and Goliath’ legend surrounding the birth of Israel,” see Simha Flapan, Zionism and the Palestinians (Barnes & Noble, New York, 1979, pp. 317f.).
- ^59 Yediot Ahronot, July 26, 1973; see Peace in the Middle East, p. 142.
#
JohnCooley #
AmericanLiberalism #
ArielSharon #
SupportersOfIsrael as client state asset of the USA..
#
FatefulTriangleBook #
NoamChomsky #
ChomskyOnIsrael #
LebanonWar #
InvasionsOfLebanon
;