Killers Trained by the Israelis

"I love Israel," [Jane Fonda] said [at a meeting in New York after the 1982 Lebanon war], "and I believe that Israel is a loyal ally of the United States," and thus deserving of support, apparently with no further questions asked. "She spoke with great emotion about the prisoners of Zion in the USSR" -- but not, as reported, about those who might be called "prisoners of Zion" in another sense of the phrase: in Ansar in Lebanon or in the West Bank villages terrorized by the settlers... "Israel rarely makes misstates," she said, "and when Israel makes a mistake -- everyone, particularly Jews, shouts and screams." She asked: "Who ever made a criticism of Yasser Arafat, the head of the PLO?" -- surely no one in the American press -- "and who does he represent anyway?" -- a question to which she might have heard some answers on her visit to Hebron, had she chosen to mingle with the local population, apart from her gracious hosts. She concluded "that it is easy to sit here, Jews and non-Jews, and to make criticisms." "But we do not live on the Lebanon border and we were not attacked for 12 years by the Palestinian terrorists," so we have no right to criticize. And by the same logic, those who have not lived in Palestinian refugee camps surely have no right to criticize the PLO. (pp. 269-270)

One poll [in the U.S.] indicates that there appears to be "two U.S. publics," one described as “better informed” and the other as "less informed." The "better informed" feel that the invasion of Lebanon was justified, by 52 to 38 percent; the "less informed" hold that it was not justified, by 43 to 28 percent. One recall the attitude studies that showed a correlation between educational level and support for the Vietnam war, or the current ones that show that nearly 3/4 of the general population regard the war as "more than a misstate; it was fundamentally wrong and immoral," a position held by only 45% of "opinion makers" and probably by a far smaller proportion of the "elite," to judge by earlier studies.

Such results are subject to various interpretations. One, which I think is plausible, is that the term "better-informed," i.e., more subject to the distortions of the ideological system. People who are less susceptible to its influences, perhaps because of lack of exposure, are more readily able to perceive aggression and massacre as aggression and massacre, not understanding them to be, in reality, self-defense and extraordinary precautions of safeguard civilians. As a case in point, consider the standard attitude toward the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Few people know much about it, but it is overwhelmingly understood to be exactly what it is: a case of brutal aggression and massacre. Those subjected to effective Communist indoctrination will regard this view as naïve and deluded, as “moral preference masquerading as political analysis,” accepting the more sophisticated interpretation that the leader of the socialist camp is fulfilling its international duty to defend freedom and human rights from terrorists serving the interests of the CIA and Western imperialism. Our own systems of indoctrination, while quite different in form and technique, often have the same kind of effect on sophisticated opinion. (pp. 278-279)

The behavior of the international media amounted to a "media pogrom," though in certain Latin American countries "there was understanding, even sympathy and support." Presumably this is true in Chile, the recipient of much Israeli military aid; and in Guatemala, where the army Chief of Staff under the Nazi-like Lucas Garcia regime thanked Israel for the military aid it was providing, adding that "The Israeli soldier is a model and an example to us," while the new Rios Montt regime, which is estimated to have murdered at least 5000 Indians during the period of the Lebanon war while forcing over 200,000 to leave their homes, stated that "we succeeded [in the military coup that brought them to power] because our soldiers were trained by the Israelis." (p.290)

"Trained by the Israelis..." ムムム…。

Israeli satirist B. Michael wrote a column expressing his view on the hasbara campaign. The occasion was a celebrated incident in which President Reagan was reported to be distressed by a picture of a severely injured child, even placing it on his desk. The child was allegedly found, only slightly injured, a proof of the anti-Israel bias of the media and a great triumph of hasbara. Michael's column is entitled: "The Miracle Child":

Mr. Reagan! Mr. Reagan! Look at what we have found! A little boy with two hands! A perfect child! A real sweetie! He’s like new! Just a little burned in the face, and one shoulder is out of joint. He was the best we could find. Now can you see what liars the Arabs are? We knew right away they were frauds and we decided to prove it to you. Do you realize how much time we spent searching among the bodies, until we had found a little boy in such excellent condition? We did it all for you.
This boy has not suffered one bit, on the contrary, he enjoyed all the noise and the fireworks. Just ask his father about it. No, sorry, don't, because his father was killed by the same bombardment that did not do any harm to this little boy. Ask his mother! She knows the truth. Only don't look for her in her home. Look for her in some other place, because her home was reduced by the bombardment that was such fun for the boy in the rubble which buried her husband.
This will teach you to believe the media, Mr. President. You should have known that they are controlled by international petro-dollar consortiums. Now go and put on your desk the new picture of the cute little boy who not only has two whole arms, but even two whole legs. Each time you are going to look at him, Mr. President, you are going to remember that nobody was killed in this war, no stone was loosened by it, no children were hurt and no homes were destroyed. You will recall that not a singly family was made homeless by us; it's all propaganda. There were just a few traffic accidents, some people had heart attacks and a crumbling building happened to collapse because of the weight of the ammunition stored on its roof. There was nothing else. And next time anyone sends you any nasty picture of a wounded baby, please let us know right away. We will send you by return mail a color photograph of a jolly, healthy child. (pp. 296-297)

... Something should be said about... the Syrian phase of israel's Lebanon war. The nearest that we have to a definitive account of this topic was provided in a series of detailed articles by military analyst Ze'ev Schiff in Ha'aretz. He dismisses the claim, a "new invention" offered in justification for Operation Peace for Galilee after the fact, that Syria was planning an attack on Israel that was forestalled by israel's preemptive move. Defense Minister Sharon's claims to this effect, he argues, entirely lack foundation; "it is known today" that the Syrian command had no such plans under present circumstances, and were emphasizing "defensive measures." Phalangist initiatives had led to a Syrian response to protect their lines of communication, something that no army could have failed to undertake. It was the view of Israeli intelligence and others that these Phalangist "provocations" had the "intention of causing us [Israel] to come into military conflict with the Syrians." Further conflict resulted from Sharon's "larger plan," namely, to impose his "new order" in Lebanon by "driving the Syrians out of Lebanon" and installing Bashir Gemayel, the head of the Phalangist Lebanese Forces, as President, blocking Syria's anticipated attempt to place its favorite, former Maronite President Suleiman Franjieh, in power as it had done six years before with Elias Sarkis. Recall that the election was scheduled for August-September, quite probably a factor in the timing of the Israeli invasion, a conclusion that Schiff does not draw here..., but that is reinforced by his analysis. (pp. 335-336)

"Fateful Triangle"はあと2～3日で終われるかもしれないが、この前買ってきた本を入れて読んでないのが30冊近くある…。急がないと…。 次は、"Middle East Illusions" にならざるをえないか…。