[R-G] A deafening silence -- Ha'aretz

[Macdonald Stainsby]

Monday, October 07, 2002

A deafening silence

By Gideon Levy

Why is it that in England 50,000 people have demonstrated against the war in
Iraq, whereas in Israel no one has? Why is it that in Israel there is no
public debate about whether the war is necessary, whereas in Europe, and
even in the United States, such a debate is at its peak? Is it possible that
no one in Israel has any doubts about the benefits of such a war or that no
one fears its dangers?

Israel is again speaking in one voice - the voice of war. As on the
Palestinian question, in which uniformity, silence and indifference has
characterized public discourse in the past two years, no serious public
discussion can be discerned on the critical subject of the impending war in
Iraq.

The government is leading and hardly anyone is asking questions. The only
sound we hear is of the shuffle of feet of people who simply can't wait for
American to do its thing. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, for example, who 21
years ago courageously opposed Israel's attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor,
has done a characteristic flip-flop and without batting an eyelash is now
urging the Americans to go to war against the same Saddam Hussein. What has
changed in the meantime? Only the fact that in 1981 the bomber was Menachem
Begin and Peres was the leader of the opposition, whereas now the bomber is
George W. Bush and Peres is part of the government.

And even if Peres supports the war, does he have to engage in
saber-rattling? No one is asking him about his change of mind. The prime
minister and the defense minister are naturally gung-ho on the war. That is
their right, of course, but is there no other opinion in Israel? Even if
there is, its voice is being drowned out by the noise of the chorus. The
herd instinct that has become stronger in Israel since the failure of the
Camp David talks in July 2000 and the eruption of the intifada two months
later is being manifested on the Iraqi issue, too. The media talks only
about methods of self-defense and escape, where the mass graves will be dug
and where the residents of Ramat Gan will flee. No one on the current events
programs will be arguing against the logic of the war or asking how it will
end. Representatives of the Arab-Jewish Hadash party or of Gush Shalom, the
peace movement, are of course beyond the pale.

A stranger entering the country would not believe it: Israel is the only
country in the West whose leaders support the war unreservedly and where no
alternative opinion is voiced, and this holds true while Israel is liable to
be a direct victim. Sometimes it seems the protest against the force-feeding
of geese to produce foie gras, a just campaign, is far more widespread and
far more vociferous than the protest against the occupation or, with all due
distinction, against war in Iraq.

One of the vexatious questions that a possible war in Iraq raises was asked
last week in the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee by MK Yossi
Sarid, one of the few who has publicly dared to express doubt about the need
for a war. Sarid wondered what would happen if the war succeeds, Saddam is
toppled and the ensuing agitation in the Arab world produces three more
Saddams in his place. Apart from Sarid, no one has raised this possibility,
and this is of course not the only problematic possibility.

It is possible to agree that Saddam Hussein is a cruel, bloodthirsty ruler
and still doubt the wisdom of a war that has the goal of removing him. No
one is asking how Iraq suddenly became the world's greatest threat after
years in which the defense establishment in Israel claimed that the greatest
danger to this country is Iran. How do we reconcile the contradiction
between the many voices of reassurance that are being heard in Israel about
Iraq (the previous director of Military Intelligence, Amos Malka, said he is
more concerned about traffic accidents) with the need to strike at Iraq
because of the tremendous danger it poses? Are we talking about a preventive
war? What will happen if the U.S. fails and turns tail, in the wake of heavy
losses, as it did in Somalia? Saddam will become even stronger. Is he the
only brutal leader in the world? What is the course of the obsession that
the president of the U.S. has developed about him? And why not give the
United Nations another fair chance to resolve the problem? Why does Israel
have to be party to this joie de guerre?

The latest example of a war prosecuted by the United States offers little
encouragement: Osama bin Laden is apparently still alive, more than 3,000
people, most of them civilians, were killed in Afghanistan and Al-Qaida
continues to weave its webs all over the world. Was the war in Afghanistan
worthwhile? Smart? Just? How is it different from the war that is now
looming? It is self-evident that the U.S. is Israel's most important ally
and that this obliges Israel to take a particular position, but not even
America could have prevented a critical debate in the country that is known
as the only democracy in the Middle East.

The automatic way Israeli opinion is formulated as if the public follows the
government blindly should be a source of worry to everyone. It turns out
that Israel no longer has a meaningful left, as do all other Western
countries. There is no popular opposition and no one is speaking out. And
that may prove more dangerous for Israel than the looming war against Iraq.
-------------------------------------------
Macdonald Stainsby
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
--
In the contradiction lies the hope.
                                     --Bertholt Brecht