Death and its symbols
Perhaps one of the strongest symbols of the current crisis in the Middle East is one that is illustrated more by an absence, by something we do not see on our television screens. As demonstrators march across Arab, Islamic and even some European capitals, as foreign and local peace activists try to break the Israeli military cordon around Yasser Arafat, there are no similar displays of solidarity on the other front of this vicious war: No visitor is seen sitting down at an Israeli cafe or pizzeria to show support for the young people who are in danger of being blown up by a suicide bomber. In their suffering, the Israelis are alone. In inflicting suffering, they are followed by a chorus of condemnation. This might embitter the beleaguered nation of Israel, spurring it along in its effort to fight the war on its own terms, but it is understandable that under these circumstances it should stand alone. All the symbolism of the situation is against them. The Israelis are fortunate, on the one hand, that at this moment of their national struggle with the Palestinians they are undisputed in their military power, thanks to their alliance with the United States and their own self-discipline. On the other hand, they are unfortunate for precisely the same reason – because they are seen to be using overwhelming military force against an enemy made up of battalions of civilians. For all the paramilitary shows of force by Palestinian youths, the image on the world’s screens is that of tanks, troops and helicopters against lightly armed foot soldiers, at best, or helpless civilians. The Palestinians have played a leading role in making this a war in which civilians are on the front line: Palestinian civilians are often the soldiers of an army whose mission is to carry out suicide bombings aimed at killing as many Israeli civilians as possible. The result is horrific, and is made even more so by the fact that the perpetrators have let go of the human instinct to preserve, first of all, their own lives. But, then again, suicidal last stands have always been a mark of ethnic struggles in the so-called Holy Land and other fields of battle. The Jews, the Greeks, and many other nations have fought battles in which they did not expect to survive, in pursuit of an ideal greater than the individual himself. So, horrible though the suicide bombings might be, it is disingenuous to try to demonize those who are resorting to such tactics in their desperation. The history of the Jews has taught them repeatedly that they are fighting for their survival. They have no time for niceties and principles that will hinder them – such as allowing foreign observers or news media into the «closed military areas» in which they are trying to break the will of the Palestinian resistance. They make no friends by isolating Yasser Arafat in Ramallah, or by besieging a couple of hundred Palestinian fighters and civilians in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Instead, with the symbolism of their using great force against an enemy on his knees, the Israelis bring much condemnation upon themselves. But the Israelis, knowing that they are the underdogs – and not the Palestinians, with their hundreds of millions of ethnic kin in the region on their side – also appear to want to show their own people, the world and the Palestinians that they will allow nothing to get in their way. The struggle appears to be taking place as if it were a chapter in the Old Testament, with Ariel Sharon seeing himself as an ancient biblical warrior unshaken in his belief that what he is doing is right. He has plenty of role models – but the Jews’ history is also filled with overreaching maniacs who led their people into disaster, such as those rebels who brought the wrath of the Roman Empire upon themselves in the first century, leading to massacre, slavery and destruction of their Temple. Only history will show whether Sharon was right, and whether his people were right to place their faith in him. But history’s judgment belongs to the future and the present belongs to us. Israel is playing with the deck of international opinion stacked against it right now because our world cannot accept a man with Sharon’s past and mindset conducting business as if that was the only way open to him. Responsibility for the slaughter of civilians at Sabra and Chatila is not something that can be washed away by the fact that Sharon has been forgiven by his own people by their electing him. Every nation has the right to elect its own leaders (just as the Palestinians have elected Arafat), but they must also know that their choice will color the way that others see them. Aside from the unsavory associations from Sharon’s past (which have made it easier for those supporting the Palestinians to demonize him, and others to fear what he will do) he also appears to have adopted a policy in which his aim is to break the will of the Palestinians in order to force more and more settlements upon them, aggravating the primary problem of the Middle East issue: the conflict by too many different groups over too few resources. Sharon’s aim appears to be too brutal and too simple for today’s international public opinion: He wants to bulldoze over past agreements with the Palestinians and assure the greatest possible expansion for his own people. It makes sense in terms of the biblical framework of leaders such as Joshua and David, but to the rest of the present-day world it looks very much as if he is crossing the line, as if he is going beyond his nation’s survival into the territory where the survival of the Palestinians is jeopardized. To the cynical observer, Sharon’s assault on Yasser Arafat and the Israelis’ renewed occupation of the West Bank, following the ever-growing death toll from suicide bombings, is an effort to destroy Palestinian moderates who would win the sympathies of all-important Western opinion. It is astonishing that the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority is being destroyed systematically and Arafat is being labeled the mastermind of the terrorist attacks at the same time that the leadership of the Hamas movement in Gaza gloats in interviews with The New York Times that it is responsible for the latest terrorist attacks and that its aim is to destroy the state of Israel. It is these attacks that followed the Arab proposal that Israel pull back to its pre-1967 borders in exchange for normalized relations with the Arab world. It is these attacks that prompted the Israeli incursion into the West Bank while at the same time leaving the Hamas leadership intact in Gaza. It is as if Sharon and Hamas would love to be the only protagonists in this fight to the finish. If this were the case, each would justify the existence and the behavior of the other. This, in turn, would strengthen the cause of Osama bin Laden, which is to destroy the modern world. So, suddenly, what happens in the Middle East concerns us all. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have the right to live in security in their own states. This means that the international community has to alienate the extremists on both sides. The only way that this can be done is to impose a security framework on them and to create conditions that will nurture a middle class, and with it, hope among the Palestinians. None of this will be safe or simple. The only alternative is to allow the two to fight until one side surrenders and the Islamic world, filled with its own radical, biblical warriors, explodes and is let loose on the world.
