Military service is compulsory in Israel. Men are required to serve for three years. Women are required to serve for two years, unless they volunteer for combat positions, in which case they must also serve for three years. Following regular service, both men and women are required to remain in the reserves, in most cases, until well into their forties. The only exceptions are the orthodox Jews enrolled in Yeshivas, who may choose to be exempted.
Given Israel's place at the centre of an unending maelstrom of Arab hatred, this decades-spanning conscription makes sense.
But it makes Israel a culture saturated with militarism. To the point where the life of a soldier is regarded more highly than that of a civilian. Had civilians been kidnapped instead of soldiers at the start of the current conflict, Lebanon would not now be in ruins.
A nation whose military has that much power over its people cannot help but be warlike, with voices for peaceful negotiation barely tolerated. The last person to challenge the military as the sole arbiter on how to deal with the Palestinians was Yitzhak Rabin. He was assassinated for his temerity.
It also makes Israel a paranoid culture. It's terrorist origins have hardened its heart against an enemy perceived to be a lesser species. This has outraged the Arabs in the region and increased Israel's paranoia of attack. Had the state been founded with a modicum of respect and generosity to the peoples it displaced, the Middle East might be a different place today. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Hamas and Hizbollah might not exist if this were true. Instead, paranoia and aggression reigns on both sides.
To bolster its military resources and further protect its border, Israel long ago enlisted the help of the United States. Israel's toehold in US foreign policy was gained initially through the use of holocaust-guilt, or the entirely justified reminder that most western nations had turned a blind eye to Hitler's Final Solution. But it apparently also struck a deal to increase US interests in the Middle East in return for favours, one of which -- non-interference -- it is now being calling in. The US has literally been at Israel's beck and call ever since.
Neither the US nor the UN has tried to stop Israel's decimation of Lebanon. Salim Lone writes:
The world's carefully constructed international system for maintaining peace and security, built around the UN charter, is now on its last legs. It tackles crimes by the weak but is mute and unresponsive in the face of lawless behaviour by the powerful.
Sadly, we've come to expect weakness from the UN. And, under Bush2, we are not surprised to see the US sitting back, twirling its well-oiled moustaches, while Israel gets closer and closer to Syria.
Lone continues,
Kofi Annan eventually made the headlines with his call for an immediate ceasefire in the Middle East crisis. It was too little, too late. That the United Nations Secretary-General waited nine days before seriously speaking out has dealt a severe blow to the organisation's humanitarian image. That he twinned his criticism of Israel's "excessive use of force" with repeated condemnations of Hezbollah again showed how deeply in thrall to the United States the world is.
That this blog is primarily concerned with Israel's disproportionate use of force in Lebanon in no way condones the actions of Hizbollah. But when attempting to analyse the use of Goliath's might against David, the disinterested observer must eventually support the bloke with the slingshot.
More from Lone:
Complicity in a war with such a high civilian toll is unprecedented in this era. It is particularly odious because all these leaders had, at last September's extraordinary UN summit, solemnly hailed as a historic milestone the declaration on the "responsibility to protect" civilians during conflict, labelling this protection as one of the most urgent global priorities.
Read Salim Lone's full article here.
It seems that WWIII is but a shrapnel-peppered child away. If so, Israel and the United States can be seen to have played a large part in bringing it about. Both have implemented foreign policies since the end of WWII guaranteed to start the conflagration we are about to be part of.
In Israel's case, the adage about the abused child growing up to be an abuser is being proved with apocalyptic results.
To finish up, here is a pair of quotes from Dr James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. He spoke last night on Lateline
I'm not one who sees history repeating itself infinitely in the same way, but certainly there are echoes here of what happened before and I shudder having lived through that history then, seeing it play out again. I wonder how many times we have to bang our heads up against the wall before somebody says "ouch!" and stops. This makes no sense. You cannot have a military solution to what is essentially a political problem. There are pathologies playing out all the way around. Israel has its pathologies, Hezbollah has its and the Palestinian movements have theirs. What is required here is adult supervision and that's what has been absent. The United States and/or some other agency from the world community has to be in a position of helping these parties put an end to this. And, frankly, we reduce ourselves to a role too small when we become a coat holder or cheerleader, which is what we've done. In the past when America has exercised restraint, we've been able to control these pathologies, but when we don't, we allow them to play out and the consequences, as I said, are felt down the road. I would also add here that despite the fact that there is a Sunni-Shiah split in the Arab world felt especially among leadership, it is no accident that in Saudi Arabia or in Egypt or in Jordan, there is grave concern about Hezbollah, as there ought to be. It is not a healthy movement and does not represent I think the future of Lebanon. But, Iran is a threat, no doubt, and Arab Sunni leadership are reflecting that. But on the Arab street we are seeing something very different play out. We are seeing a resentment against Israel and the US that itself will have consequences down the road.
…the infantile fantasies of the neo-conservatives have brought great destruction to Iraq and I would add to our country in the Middle East. Lord spare us from any more of their fantasies. They're a dangerous crew. They're about as dangerous as the ayatollahs. I think a strike against Iran would open the gates of hell for everybody in the Middle East and, frankly speaking, all of the footsteps of terrorism in the Middle East go directly back to Tehran. There's no question about that. But these morons - and I use that term advisedly - led us into Iraq and only served the purpose of emboldening and strengthening Iran, giving them unleashed power in Iran - sorry in Iraq and they pose now a greater threat in the Gulf region. There is an absolute need to deal with Iran, but at this point in time with 130,000 US troops in the middle of majority Shiah country, with Lebanon in flames, with Iran emboldened, the last thing we need to do is to envision a war against Iran that I believe would cause grave damage throughout the entire Persian Gulf on both the Arab side and the Iranian side, leading to a greater destabilisation in that broader region. If Iran crumbles, and it very well might crumble if in fact a war were to occur, the spill-over into several neighbouring countries would be enormous. Even a more dangerous situation than what we are currently seeing in Iraq. I do not believe, as the neo-conservatives do, in creative chaos. In fact what they have brought us is nothing creative. Just chaos. We don't need more of that.
See the interview: Real Video, or Windows Media
-- Chet LaMerde
