A week after the ship of peace was solemnly launched on its perilous voyage from Aqaba harbor,it was hit by a torpedo. It is not yet clear whether it is wrecked or can continue on its way inspite of the damage.
The story of its voyage so far: An Israeli helicopter gunship tried to kill Abd-al-Azizal-Rantisi, one of the leaders of the political wing of Hamas. He miraculously survived.Immediately afterwards the gunships killed other Hamas leaders. Clearly, this was thebeginning of a campaign to kill the leaders of all the wings of Hamas – military, political,social, educational and religious.
Such a campaign is, of course, the outcome of long preparations, which take weeks and months.It was evidently planned even before the Aqaba summit conference convened, but postponed bySharon in order to afford President Bush his moments of photographic glory on the shore of theRed Sea. Immediately after the President and his entourage went home, radiant with success,the machinery of death went into action.
In establishing intent, all courts around the world act upon a simple principle: a person whocarries out an action with predictable results is held to have intended that result. That istrue for this campaign, too.
The killing of the Hamas leaders (together with their wives, children and casual bystanders)is intended to attain the following results: (a) acts of revenge by Hamas, i.e. suicidebombings, (b) the failure of the Palestinian Authority’s efforts to secure the agreement ofHamas to a cease-fire, (c) the destruction of Abu Mazen’s political standing right from thestart, (d) the demolition of the Road Map, (e) compensation for the settlers after the removalof some sham “outposts”.
All five objectives have been achieved. Blood and fire cover the country, the media on bothsides are busy with funerals and mutual incitement, the efforts to establish a hudnah (truce)have stopped, Sharon called Abu Mazen a chicken without feathers, the Road Map is tottering ,Bush has mildly reproached Sharon while directing his wrath at Hamas.
The “dismantling” of the phony settlement-outposts, a joke to start with, has been stopped.Construction activity in the settlements is in full swing, and so is the building of the”fence” that is establishing a new border deep inside the West Bank. (Both Bush and Blair havedemanded that it be stopped, a boost to the campaign we started months ago). The closures andblockades have been tightened. The situation in the occupied Palestinian territories isback to what it was before, as if the entire performance in Aqaba had never taken place.
The decision to kill Rantisi was, therefore, a decisive point in the history of Israel. And thefirst question must be: who was it that took this decision?
It is easy to say who did not take it.
Not the government, which has become a choir of flatterers and yes-men. Sharon treats themwith contempt. He would not dream of consulting them.
Not the Knesset, which has reached an unprecedented low. It now openly includesrepresentatives of the underworld, a murderer who has asked for (and received) a pardon, andsome small politicians who look as if they had been picked at random from the street. TheSpeaker is known as an entertaining character.
And not the public at large, of course. All public opinion polls show that the public wanted theroad Map to succeed. All believed that Sharon was serious about seeking peace. On the left,too, there were many simpletons who lauded Sharon for changing his spots. Nobody asked thepublic if it wants to start a new round of violence. Indeed, the latest poll indicates that 67%of the public did not support the attempt on Rantisi’s life after it happened. But Sharon knewthat the public would accept his decisions and follow him like the sheep on his ranch.
If so, who took the decision?
That is no secret. The decision was taken by five generals:
- The Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, a retired two-star general.
- The Minister of Defense, Sha’ul Mofaz, a retired three-star general.
- The Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya’alon, a serving three-star general.
- The Mossad chief, Me’ir Dagan, a former one-star general.
- The Security Service chief, Avi Dichter, with a rank equivalent to a three-star general.
This military quintet is now making decisions about the fate of Israel, perhaps forgenerations, perhaps for ever. In Latin America they would be called a Junta (militarycommittee).
We have spoken more than once about the special status of generals – in and out of uniform – in ourstate. It has no equivalent in the Western world. In no democratic country does a general nowserve as prime minister. In no democratic country does a professional soldier serve asminister of defense, certainly not one who was wearing a general’s uniform right on the eve ofhis ministerial appointment. In no democratic country does the Chief-of-Staff attend allcabinet meetings, where he serves as the highest authority in all “security” matters – which,in Israel, include practically all matters of national policy.
The rule of the generals is based on an extensive infrastructure. An Israeli general leavesthe army, as a rule, in his early 40s. If he does not join the top leadership of a political party(Likud, Labor and the National Religious Party are at present led by generals, and Meretz ispractically led by a colonel), or manage to get elected as a mayor, his comrades help him tosettle down as the director of a large government corporation, university or public utility.
The hundreds of ex-generals who man most of the key posts in government and society are not onlya group of veterans sharing common memories. The partnership goes much deeper. Dozens ofyears of service in the regular army form a certain outlook on life, a political world-view,ways of thinking and even language. In all the years of Israel, there have been no more thanthree or four exceptions to this rule.
On the face of it, there are right-wing and left-wing generals, but that is an opticalillusion. This week it was particularly obvious: after the assassination attempt on Rantisiand the Hamas revenge-attack, dozens of generals appeared in the media. (An Israeli general,however stupid he may be, automatically becomes a sought-after commentator in the media.)For the sake of “balance”, generals-of-the-right and generals-of-the-left were brought onscreen, and lo and behold, they all said the same thing, more or less, even using the sameterminology.
More than in the “commentaries” themselves, this found expression in two Hebrew words: BenMavet (“Son of death”, meaning a person who must be killed).
As if by order, this week these two detestable words entered the public discourse. There washardly a general, politician or correspondent who did not roll them on his tongue with obviousrelish. They had never been heard before in the media. Now, suddenly, everybody has started touse them. Rantisi was a “son of death”. Sheikh Yassin was a “son of death”. The other Hamasleaders were “children of death”. Perhaps even Yasser Arafat himself.
The expression appears in the Bible, II Samuel, XII. King David has committed a heinous crime,deliberately arranging for his most loyal officer, Uriah the Hittite, to be killed in battle,so he can have his wife, Bath-sheba, for himself. The prophet Nathan denounces him for thisdeed, telling him the story of the rich man who slaughtered the only sheep of a poor man. Davidgets very angry and tells the prophet: “As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing is ason of death!” To which Nathan replies: “Thou art the man!”
Ironically, the Bible applied the term to the greatest leader of the people of Israel, who hascommitted an abominable crime. Now it is used by the leaders of the state of Israel againstPalestinians.
But this is not the most important point. It is more significant that the Prime Minister and hissmall group of generals introduce these two words,and all the people repeat them like a giantflock of parrots, without thinking, without protesting. This is rather frightening initself, but when these words reflect a disastrous national decision and the public accepts itwithout question, that is even more frightening.
It is not yet clear whether Sharon has succeeded in scuttling the boat of the peace initiative.Perhaps President Bush will after all show some resolution and save the initiative, in whichhe has invested his personal prestige. But in the meantime the dance of death continues, andthe blood flows – quite literally – in the streets of Israel and Palestine.