[GushShalom] "Children of Death " Uri Avnery on militarism

[Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Bloc)]

/////////////////
     Gush Shalom
     ////////////////////

Children of Death 
Uri Avnery on militarism in Israel


14.6.03
     A week after the ship of peace was solemnly launched on its 
perilous voyage from Aqaba harbor, it was hit by a torpedo. It is not yet 
clear whether it is wrecked or can continue on its way in spite of the 
damage.
     The story of its voyage so far: An Israeli helicopter gunship tried to 
kill Abd-al-Aziz al-Rantisi, one of the leaders of the political wing of 
Hamas. He miraculously survived. Immediately afterwards the gunships 
killed other Hamas leaders. Clearly, this was the beginning of a 
campaign to kill the leaders of all the wings of Hamas - military, 
political, social, educational and religious.
     Such a campaign is, of course, the outcome of long preparations, 
which take weeks and months. It was evidently planned even before 
the Aqaba summit conference convened, but postponed by Sharon in 
order to afford President Bush his moments of photographic glory on 
the shore of the Red Sea.  Immediately after the President and his 
entourage went home, radiant with success, the machinery of death 
went into action.
      In establishing intent, all courts around the world act upon a simple 
principle: a person who carries out an action with predictable results is 
held to have intended that result. That is true for this campaign, too.
     The killing of the Hamas leaders (together with their wives, children 
and casual bystanders) is intended to attain the following results: (a) 
acts of revenge by Hamas, i.e. suicide bombings, (b) the failure of the 
Palestinian Authority's efforts to secure the agreement of Hamas to a 
cease-fire, (c) the destruction of Abu Mazen's political standing right 
from the start, (d) the demolition of the Road Map, (e) compensation for 
the settlers after the removal of some sham "outposts".
     All five objectives have been achieved. Blood and fire cover the 
country, the media on both sides are busy with funerals and mutual 
incitement, the efforts to establish a hudnah (truce) have stopped, 
Sharon called Abu Mazen a chicken without feathers, the Road Map is 
toterring , Bush has mildly reproached Sharon while directing his wrath 
at Hamas.
     The "dismantling" of the phony settlement-outposts, a joke to start 
with, has been stopped. Construction activity in the settlements is in 
full swing, and so is the building of the "fence" that is establishing a 
new border deep inside the West Bank.  (Both Bush and Blair have 
demanded that it be stopped, a boost to the campaign we started 
months ago). The closures and blockades have been tightened. The 
situation in the occupied Palestinian territories is back to what it was 
before, as if the entire performance in Aqaba had never taken place.
     The decision to kill Rantisi was, therefore, a decisive point in the 
history of Israel. And the first question must be: who was it that took 
this decision?
     It is easy to say who did not take it.
     Not the government, which has become a choir of flatterers and yes-
men. Sharon treats them with contempt. He would not dream of 
consulting them.
     Not the Knesset, which has reached an unprecedented low. It now 
openly includes representatives of the underworld, a murderer who has 
asked for (and received) a pardon, and some small politicians who look 
as if they had been picked at random from the street. The Speaker is 
known as an entertaining character. 
     And not the public at large, of course. All public opinion polls show 
that the public wanted the road Map to succeed. All believed that 
Sharon was serious about seeking peace. On the left, too, there were 
many simpletons who lauded Sharon for changing his spots. Nobody 
asked the public if it wants to start a new round of violence. Indeed, the 
latest poll indicates that 67% of the public did not support the attempt 
on Rantisi's life after it happened. But Sharon knew that the public 
would accept his decisions and follow him like the sheep on his ranch.
      If so, who took the decision?
     That is no secret. The decision was taken by five generals:
     - The Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, a retired two-star general.
     - The Minister of Defense, Sha'ul Mofaz, a retired three-star general.
     - The Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya'alon, a serving three-star general.
     - The Mossad chief, Me'ir Dagan, a former one-star general.
     - The Security Service chief, Avi Dichter, with a rank equivalent to a 
three-star general.
     This military quintet is now making decisions about the fate of 
Israel, perhaps for generations, perhaps for ever. In Latin America they 
would be called a Junta (military committee). 
     We have spoken more than once about the special status of 
generals - in and out of uniform - in our state. It has no equivalent in the 
Western world. In no democratic country does a general now serve as 
prime minister. In no democratic country does a professional soldier 
serve as minister of defense, certainly not one who was wearing a 
general's uniform right on the eve of his ministerial appointment. In no 
democratic country does the Chief-of-Staff attend all cabinet meetings, 
where he serves as the highest authority in all "security" matters - 
which, in Israel, include practically all matters of national policy.
     The rule of the generals is based on an extensive infrastructure. An 
Israeli general leaves the army, as a rule, in his early 40s. If he does 
not join the top leadership of a political party (Likud, Labor and the 
National Religious Party are at present led by generals, and Meretz is 
practically led by a colonel), or manage to get elected as a mayor, his 
comrades help him to settle down as the director of a large government 
corporation, university or public utility. 
    The hundreds of ex-generals who man most of the key posts in 
government and society are not only a group of veterans sharing 
common memories. The partnership goes much deeper. Dozens of 
years of service in the regular army form a certain outlook on life, a 
political world-view, ways of thinking and even language. In all the 
years of Israel, there have been no more than three or four exceptions 
to this rule.
     On the face of it, there are right-wing and left-wing generals, but 
that is an optical illusion. This week it was particularly obvious: after 
the assassination attempt on Rantisi and the Hamas revenge-attack, 
dozens of generals appeared in the media. (An Israeli general, however 
stupid he may be, automatically becomes a sought-after commentator 
in the media.) For the sake of "balance", generals-of-the-right and 
generals-of-the-left were brought on screen, and lo and behold, they all 
said the same thing, more or less, even using the same terminology.
       More than in the "commentaries" themselves, this found 
expression in two Hebrew words: Ben Mavet ("Son of death", meaning 
a person who must be killed).
     As if by order, this week these two detestable words entered the 
public discourse. There was hardly a general, politician or 
correspondent who did not roll them on his tongue with obvious relish. 
They had never been heard before in the media. Now, suddenly, 
everybody has started to use them. Rantisi was a "son of death".  
Sheikh Yassin was a "son of death".  The other Hamas leaders were 
"children of death". Perhaps even Yasser Arafat himself.
     The expression appears in the Bible, II Samuel, XII. King David has 
committed a heinous crime, deliberately arranging for his most loyal 
officer, Uriah the Hittite, to be killed in battle, so he can have his wife, 
Bath-sheba, for himself. The prophet Nathan denounces him for this 
deed, telling him the story of the rich man who slaughtered the only 
sheep of a poor man. David gets very angry and tells the prophet: "As 
the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing is a son of death!" To 
which Nathan replies: "Thou art the man!"
     Ironically, the Bible applied the term to the greatest leader of the 
people of Israel, who has committed an abominable crime. Now it is 
used by the leaders of the state of Israel against Palestinians.
     But this is not the most important point. It is more significant that 
the Prime Minister and his small group of generals introduce these two 
words, and all the people repeat them like a giant flock of parrots, 
without thinking, without protesting. This is rather frightening in itself, 
but when these words reflect a disastrous national decision and the 
public accepts it without question, that is even more frightening.
     It is not yet clear whether Sharon has succeeded in scuttling the 
boat of the peace initiative. Perhaps President Bush will after all show 
some resolution and save the initiative, in which he has invested his 
personal prestige. But in the meantime the dance of death continues, 
and the blood flows - quite literally - in the streets of Israel and 
Palestine.