[sparkscoffee] Re: Begin and the 'beasts' AMNON KAPELIUK in Jerusalem
- From: sblumen123@xxxxxxx
- To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 22:52:05 -0500 (EST)
DR
Too long and complicated for my weak, old brain.
Comrade B
-----Original Message-----
From: D.J.J. Ring, Jr. <n1ea@xxxxxxxx>
To: sparkscoffee <sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri, Nov 22, 2013 10:52 am
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Begin and the 'beasts' AMNON KAPELIUK in Jerusalem
I received a photocopy of the microfiche of this today. Corrected optical
character recognition is copied to this email and a pdf of the original article
is enclosed .
73
DR
Page 12 "NEW STATESMAN" June 25, 1981
ISRAEL
'Begin and the 'beasts'
AMNON KAPELIUK in Jerusalem
reports opposition of unexpected
strength to Israel's aggression - from
the PLO in the battlefield, and from Mr
Begin's critics at home
------------------------------------------------
THERE HAS never been an Arab-Israeli
war whose plans and objectives were so
clearly and openly proclaimed. Hundreds
of articles in the Israeli press dealt with the
impending conflict during the months be?
fore it started. General Ariel Sharon
revealed in a television interview that he
had been planning the invasion of Lebanon
since his appointment as Minister of De?
fence last August. It was no secret that
Sharon, Begin and the Chief of Staff, Gen?
eral Raphael Eitan, were merely waiting
for an opportunity to invade Lebanon. In?
deed, their invasion was barely averted in
February and April.
There have been no Israeli casualties on
the northern border since the cease-fire
between Israel and the PLO, proclaimed
on 24 July last year. As the PLO actually
respected the cease-fire, Israel's govern?
ment - seeking the needed pretext -
unilaterally declared that any attack upon
Israelis or Jews anywhere in the world was
a violation of the July agreement.
Certain preconditions were demanded
for launching the large-scale invasion.
First, and most important, was Washing?
ton's endorsement of Israel's war aims.
General Sharon revealed on Israeli televi?
sion that 'Palestinian terrorism' was the
main subject of his discussions in Washing?
ton last May. According to Sharon, 'the
Americans understood that we had no
choice but to hit the Palestinians'.
The second precondition was the neu?
tralisation of Egypt obtained through its
separate peace with Israel. In the absence
of this agreement, Israel would have had to
mobilise substantial forces along its
southern border. In the present circum?
stances, reservists for the southern front
are sunning themselves on the beaches of
Tel Aviv.
A vital but neglected aspect of the
operation (at least by the international
media) is its effect on Israeli policy in the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Since the
establishment of the civil administration in
the occupied territories last November, Is?
raeli attempts to impose the autonomy
plan have failed because of the insistence
of the local Palestinians that the correct
address for the Israeli negotiators was the
PLO offices in Beirut. Sharon believes that
the demoralisation of the Palestinians will
be so complete that the autonomy plan can
be imposed along Israeli lines (for people,
not for land). The Palestinians of course
have refused to accept this interpretation.
Last Sunday, 24 mayors from the West
Bank and Gaza published in the Arab
press of Jerusalem a declaration reaffirm?
ing their support for the PLO as the 'sole
and legitimate representative of our
people.'
AS FOR the Lebanon, Israel's aim is to
establish a right-wing Phalange govern?
ment which will sign a peace treaty with
Israel. Another condition of this desired
'new order' is the expulsion of the Syrians
from Lebanon. Even as Begin declared his
I hope that the Syrians would stay out of the
war, Israeli tanks were advancing upon
Syrian positions in southern Lebanon.
The war in Lebanon cannot be in?
terpreted, even by its most devoted propo?
nents in Israel, as a war of survival. For this
reason, the government has gone to
extraordinary lengths to dehumanise the
Palestinians. Begin described them in a
speech in the Knesset as 'beasts walking on
two legs'. Palestinians have often been
called 'bugs' while their refugee camps in
Lebanon are referred to as 'tourist camps'.
In order to rationalise the bombing of civi?
lian populations, Begin emotively de?
clared: 'If Hitler was sitting in a house with
20 other people, would it be correct to
blow up the house?'
The way. the Palestinians fought the Is?
raeli invader astonished the average Israeli
who, as a result of official propaganda,
imagined them as flotsam and jetsam. The
RPG children who have stood in the face
of these soldiers and tanks and fought to
the end 'must worry us', wrote a leading
Israeli military correspondent.
As far as the internal Israeli political
scene is concerned, Begin's government
enjoys a lack of serious opposition. The
opposition Labour Party has responded to
the war as the social democratic parties in
Europe did during World War One. As
soon as the first shots were fired, it aban?
doned the criticism and objections to the
war which it had been voicing for months.
Only a few Labour deputies, led by Yossi
Sarid, condemned it outright. The Peace
Now movement published a strong com?
munique against the war in the local press.
In Jerusalem, several hundred academics
and intellectuals demonstrated under the
slogan 'Stop the genocide in Lebanon'.
More than a thousand people, many of
them well-known personalities, have
signed a manifesto calling on the govern?
ment to stop the war and withdraw from
Lebanon at once. It has been published
repeatedly in the newspapers.
Former member of the Knesset, Colonel
(Ret.) Meir Pail of Sheli (anti-annexation?
ist left) declared that this war should be
appropriately named 'not peace for Gal?
ilee' but 'destruction for Lebanon'. He
added that 'it will disgrace Israel and
Zionism for years to come. It is the most
ignoble act of the Zionist movement since
its creation'. Professor Leibowitz last Sun?
day called upon Israeli soldiers to refuse to
serve in Lebanon.
The widespread unease surrounding this
war marks a break from the usual euphoria
which has accompanied military victories.
Nevertheless, the general consensus be?-
hind government policy still remains relati?
vely firm. Any serious national debate
must now await the arrival of a genuine
cease-fire. 0
Other related posts:
