Democratic Palestine : 24 (ص 27)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 24 (ص 27)
- المحتوى
-
‘Israel’ serve as imperialism’s forward base in the area. The
Zionist lobby openly advertises for this function in its efforts
to solicit massive US aid to ‘Israel’. The American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most influential com-
ponent of the Zionist lobby, published a booklet entitled «The
Strategic Value of Israel» in 1982, timed to coincide with the
invasion of Lebanon and the Reagan Administration’s military
build-up. The topics of the booklet include: «Israel as a
Prepositioning Site,» «Comparing Deployment Times» and
«Comparison in Terms of Cost.» Based on the geostrategic
location, political stability, reliability and «advanced society»
of ‘Israel’, the AIPAC argues that US troops and military
equipment positioned there could be more easily, speedily
and cheaply be moved to the Gulf «in the event of Soviet ag-
gression,» than from the US or existing US bases in the area.
The AIPAC moreover appeals directly for Israeli inclusion
in NATO: «From the point of view of US defense planning, it
has the potential to contribute in three theaters: the Gulf, the
Mediterranean, and NATO’s Southern and Central fronts.» In
future projection, this means not only Israeli involvement
against the socialist community, but also against a revolu-
tionary development occurring in Western Europe.
IN WORD AS IN DEED
Putting statements aside, historical reality provides the best
evidence of the Israeli role in the Middle East. Most obvious
are the five major Arab-Zionist wars, all generated by Israeli
expansionism, in addition to continuous raids on neighboring
countries in the interim. Another indication is that the Zionist
state has developed its own atomic weapons in secret coopera-
tion with the imperialist powers, and more recently joined the
US’s SDI (Star Wars). Other evidence is seen in the regional
and international alliances into which the Zionist state has
entered, from the Phalangists in Lebanon and the Shah of
Iran, to Somoza and now the contras in Nicaragua. Over the
years, the experience gainec in policing the Middle East has
enabled ‘Israel’ to assume a leading position in exporting arms
and military expertise to reactionary states and forces fighting
liberation movements and newly independent countries.
The structure of the Israeli society itself has been determined
by the military nature of the Zionist state’s role in the region.
This is seen in the overlap between the Israeli political and
military leadership, and the militarization of the economy and
society in general. Zionist settlements in occupied Palestine
serve as armed bastions in the midst of the Palestinian popula-
tion, each a microcosm of the existence of ‘Israel’ as a garrison
state in the midst of the Arab world.
Facts and figures attest to the Zionist state’s role as a strike
force for imperialism: «Official government releases indicate
that the IDF can deploy eleven divisions within seventy-two
hours. Intelligence estimates, however, suggest that it can ac-
tually deploy almost fifteen divisions. If that estimate is cor-
rect, it makes the IDF one of the largest deployable ground
forces in the Western world. By comparison, the United States
army is able to deploy some sixteen divisions, but it would take
an enormous amount of time and effort to fill them out with
sufficient manpower and equipment (280 days according to
one estimate)...» 2
FROM PALESTINE 1948 TO LEBANON 1982
Many analysts of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon fall prey to
the illusion that this war was basically different from the
previous campaigns fought by ‘Israel’. It is said that this was
the first war which ‘Israel’ had not been forced to fight, or had
not fought in ‘self-defense’. It was claimed that this was the
first war when ‘Israel’ inflicted unnecessary civilian casualties,
and fought for the sake of imposing a particular regime in the
country invaded. Such reasoning is to accept the self-
perception of the Israelis themselves, for it was in fact the first
war where substantial portions of the population realized that
they were not fighting a necessary war of self-defense. The war
was prolonged by the tough resistance put up by Palestinian,
Lebanese and Syrian patriots. The resulting difficulties faced
by the invading Israeli army enforced this realization upon
Israelis and the world at large.
Yet the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 were in essence no
different. The October War in 1973 differed only in that
technically it was begun by Egypt and Syria, but as an attempt
to partially redress the results of the 1967 Zionist aggression
against them. The major Arab-Zionist wars have been what the
Israelis term ‘preventive strikes’, i.e., wars they themselves
planned, provoked and launched to achieve expansionist goals.
The goal of changing the regime of an Arab country was also
included in the previous wars. In 1948, Zionist aggression im-
posed and expanded a Jewish state in Palestine at the expense
of Palestinian statehood. In 1956 and again in 1967, a prime
Israeli war aim was precipitating the downfall of Nasser. Just
as in Lebanon 1982, ‘Israel’ has each time used phoney excuses
for starting a war, violated ceasefires to its own advantage, and
engineered its military campaign to mesh with imperialist in-
terests. By reviewing these wars, we aim to illustrate the Israeli
role in the region, while refuting the commonly accepted pro-
paganda that Arab ‘aggression and intransigence’ are the cause
of the Middle East conflict. Concrete facts expose the falsity of
the Israeli claim to be a small state in the midst of Arabs who
intend to «throw the Jews into the sea.»
We have put a detailed review of the 1948 war in a separate
article in this issue, to mark the 39th year since the creation of
the Zionist state. Below we will concentrate on the 1956 and
1967 Israeli aggressions.
JOINING THE COLD WAR AND THE
CAMPAIGN VS. EGYPT
In the fifties, the US administration was formulating the
Eisenhower Doctrine, wherein the Middle East was considered
pivotal for containing the Soviet Union. David Ben-Gurion,
the Israeli prime minister, sent a memorandum to President
Eisenhower, which spelled out the Zionist state’s alignment in
the US-inspired cold war: «Nasser’s take-over of the Arab
Middle East, with the assistance of the tremendous might of
the Soviet Union, would have serious implications for the
West... We have begun to strengthen our ties with neighboring
countries on the outer circle of the Middle East: Iran, Ethiopia
and Turkey, with the purpose of creating a powerful dam
against the Nasserist-Soviet torrent...»” With Turkey a
member of NATO, and Turkey and Iran in the Baghdad Pact,
this marked the beginning of Israeli striving for integration in-
to US-dominated military axes and strategy.
In 1954, Moshe Dayan, head of the Israeli army’s operations
branch and on his way to be chief of staff, presented a plan for
military moves against Egypt to precipitate a war. Defense
Minister Lavon and Ben-Gurion proposed invading and occu-
pying parts of Syria, to control the Jordan River headwaters,
while demonstrating Israeli strength to the US. The three
together forwarded the idea of precipitating a civil war in
Lebanon and setting up a ‘Christian state’ under the leadership >
27 - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 24
- تاريخ
- مايو ١٩٨٧
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed