Good Morning, Elijahu!
By Uri Avnery, 23.8.06
A STORY has it that Oscar Wilde once attended the premiere of a colleague's play and every few minutes raised his hat. When asked about this odd behavior, he replied: "I am a courteous person. I raise my hat when I meet an old acquaintance."
If I wore a hat, I would
have to raise it every few minutes these days when I view TV talk shows, listen
to the radio or read the papers. I keep meeting things I wrote years ago, and
especially things I have written since the beginning of this war.
For example: for decades
I have warned again and again that the occupation is corrupting our army. Now
the papers are full of learned articles by respected commentators, who have
discovered - surprise! surprise! - that the occupation has corrupted our army.
In such cases we say in
Hebrew: "Good morning, Elijahu!" You have woken up at long last.
If there is a touch of
irony in my remark, I do apologize. After all, I wrote in the hope that my
words would convince the readers - and especially people of the Israeli
establishment - and that they would pass them on. When this is happening now, I
am quite happy about the plagiarism.
But it is important to
spell out how the occupation has "corrupted our army".
Otherwise it is just an empty slogan, and we shall learn nothing from it.
A PERSONAL flashback: in
the middle of the 1948 war I had an unpleasant experience. After a day of heavy
fighting, I was sleeping soundly in a field near the Arab village Suafir (now
Sapir). All around me were sleeping the other soldiers of my company, Samson's
Foxes. Suddenly I was woken up by a tremendous explosion. An Egyptian plane had
dropped a bomb on us. Killed: none. Wounded: 1.
How's that? Very simple:
we were all lying in our personal foxholes, which we had dug, in spite of our
fatigue, before going to sleep. It was self-evident to us that when we arrived
anywhere, the first thing to do was dig in. Sometimes we changed locations
three times a day, and every time we dug foxholes. We knew that our lives
depended on it.
Not anymore. In one of
the most deadly incidents in the Second Lebanon War, 12 members of a company
were killed by a rocket near Kfar Giladi, while sitting around in an open
field. The soldiers later complained that they had not been led to a shelter.
Have today's soldiers never heard of a foxhole? Have they been issued with personal shovels at all?
Inside Lebanon, why did
the soldiers congregate in the rooms of houses, where they were hit by
anti-tank missiles, instead of digging foxholes?
It seems that the army
has been weaned from this practice. No wonder: an army that is dealing with
"terrorists" in the West Bank and Gaza does not need to take any
special precautions. After all, no air force drops bombs on them, no artillery
shells them. They need no special protection.
THAT IS true of all our
armed forces on land, in the air and on the sea. It is certainly a luxury to
fight against an enemy who cannot defend himself properly. But it is dangerous
to get used to it.
The navy, for example.
For years now it has been sailing along the shores of Gaza and Lebanon,
shelling at pleasure, arresting fishermen, checking ships. It never dreamed
that the enemy could shoot back. Suddenly it happened - and on live television,
too. Hizbullah hit it with a land-to-sea missile.
There was no end to the
surprise. It was almost considered as Chutzpah. What, an enemy who shoots back?
What next? And why did Army Intelligence not warn us that they have such an
unheard of thing, a land-to-sea missile?
IN THE air as on the
sea. For years now, Air Force pilots shoot and bomb and kill at will. They are
able to hit a moving car with great precision (together with the passers-by, of
course.) Their technical level is excellent. But what? Nobody is shooting at
them while they are doing this.
The Royal Air Force boys
during the blitz ("the few to whom so many owe so much") had to
confront the determined pilots of the Luftwaffe, and most of them were killed.
Later, the British and Americans who bombed Germany ran the gauntlet of
murderous flak.
But our pilots have no
such problems. When they are in action over the West Bank and Gaza, there are
no enemy pilots, no surface-to-air missiles, no flak. The sky belongs to them,
and they can concentrate on their real job: to destroy the infrastructure of
life and act as flying executioners, "eliminate" the objects of
"targeted liquidations", feeling only a "slight bang on the
wing" while releasing a one-ton bomb over a residential area.
Does that create a good
air force? Does that prepare them for battle with a real enemy? In Lebanon the
pilots have not (yet) met anti-aircraft fire. The only helicopter shot down was
hit by anti-tank fire while landing troops. But what about the next war
everybody is speaking about?
AND THE ground troops?
Were they prepared for this war?
For 39 years now they
have been compelled to carry out the jobs of a colonial police force: to run
after children throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, to drag away women trying
to protect their sons from arrest, to capture people sleeping at home. To stand
for hours at the checkpoints and decide whether to let a pregnant woman reach
the hospital or send back a sick old man. At the worst, they have to invade a
casbah, to face untrained "terrorists" who have nothing but
Kalashnikovs to fight against the tanks and airplanes of their occupiers, as
well as courage and an unbelievable determination.
Suddenly these soldiers
were sent to Lebanon to confront tough, well trained and highly motivated
guerilla fighters who are ready to die while carrying out their mission.
Fighters who have learned to appear from an unexpected direction, to disappear
into well-prepared bunkers, to use advanced and effective weapons.
"We were not
trained for this war!" the reserve soldiers now complain. They are right.
Where could they have been trained? In the alleys of Jabalieh refugee camp? In
the well-rehearsed scenes of embraces and tears, while removing pampered
settlers with "sensitivity and determination"? Clearly it was easier
to blockade Yasser Arafat and his few untrained bodyguards in the Mukata'ah
compound in Ramallah than to conquer Bint Jbeil over and over again.
That applies even more
to the tanks. It is easy to drive a tank along the main street of Gaza or over
a row of houses in a refugee camp, facing only stone-throwing boys, when the
opponent has no trained fighters or half-way modern weapons. It's a hell of a
difference driving the same tank in a built-up area in Lebanon, when a trained
guerilla with an effective anti-tank weapon can lurk behind every corner.
That's a different story altogether. The more so as our army's most modern tank
is not immune from missiles.
The deepest rot appeared
in the logistics system. It just did not function. And why should it? There is
no need for complex logistics to bring
water and food to the soldiers at the Kalandia checkpoint.
THE SIMPLE truth is that
for decades now our army has not faced a serious military force. The last time
was 24 years ago, during the First Lebanon War, when it fought against the
Syrian army.
At the time we said in
my magazine, Haolam Hazeh, that the war was a complete military failure, a fact
that was suppressed by all the military commentators. In that war, too, our
army did not reach its targets on time according to the plan: it reached them
either late or not at all. In the Syrian sector the army did not reach its
assigned objective at all: the Beirut-Damascus road. In the Palestinian sector,
it reached that road much too late, and only after violating the agreed
cease-fire.
The last serious war of
our army was the Yom Kippur war. After the initial disgraceful setbacks, it did
indeed attain an impressive victory. But that was only six years into the
occupation. Now, 33 years later, we see the full damage done by the cancer
called occupation, which by now has spread to all the organs of the military
body.
How to stop the cancer?
The military commentator
Ze'ev Schiff has a patent medicine. Schiff generally reflects the views of the
army high command. (Perhaps over the last 40 years, there may have been
instances when he voiced opinions that were not identical with those of the
General Staff, but if so, they have escaped me.) He proposes to shift the
burden of occupation from the army to the Border Police.
Sounds reasonable, but
is completely unrealistic. How can Israel create a second big force to maintain
the occupation, on top of the army, which already costs something approaching
12 billion dollars a year?
But, thank goodness,
there is another remedy. An amazingly simple one: to free ourselves from the
occupation once and for all. To get out of the occupied territories in
agreement and cooperation with the Palestinians. To make peace with the
Palestinian people, so they can establish their independent state side by side
with Israel.
And, while we are at it,
to make peace with Syria and Lebanon, too.
So that the
"Defense Army for Israel", as it is officially called in Hebrew, can
go back to its original purpose: to defend the recognized international borders of the State of
Israel.