The Logic of Occupation - Part 4
Lessons from Israel

by Aron Trauring

The tour I helped organize for Amit Mashiah of Courage to Refuse is now over. Over the course of the tour we were asked by many people, if there is a connection between what's going on in Israel and the up-coming Iraqi war. Besides the fact that Amit was one of the invited speakers at the New York "The World Says No to War" rally, here is my answer.

Not too long ago I was watching PBS news. They were interviewing four editorial writers from around the country about the upcoming war. Two of them, began talking about the upcoming "occupation" of Iraq. I felt like I had been slapped in the face when I heard those words.

I remember in the aftermath of the WTC attack, reading several editorials arguing that America has to learn from Israel in terms of dealing with "terrorism." How true that is, I thought -- but not in the sense the pundits meant. In fact, my dear American friends, it is time you learn about the logic of occupation.

The first rule of the logic of occupation: "The logic of occupation is actually a form of madness. Violence breeds violence without end." When Israel first occupied Lebanon in 1982, Israeli soldiers were greeted with almonds and flowers. Perhaps the same will occur in Iraq. But within a few months, Israeli soldiers were returning home in body bags by the dozen. The inevitable force that an occupier applies to maintain control of the occupation, leads to hatred and more violence. Inevitably, the occupied people see themselves as helpless victims and are driven by intense anger and a desire for revenge to relieve their suffering.

The Israeli army always claims that the purpose of its use of force is to make the Palestinians "understand that violence doesn't pay." Here's a quote from the Israeli army justifying their violent actions in Gaza: "Colonel Strick acknowledged that Israeli armor was operating in a volatile atmosphere in areas densely populated by noncombatants. But he said his forces would remain 'until the Palestinians understand this launching has a very high price.'" The occupier believes that he can "educate" the occupied by the use of force. But the education is usually in the opposite direction. This article notes:

No matter how repugnant we find such sentiments, there is no getting around this: the use of force by the occupier, only succeeds in "educating" a new generation of the occupied to be filled with hate and a desire for revenge. The price in blood of a colonial occupation, like Israel is now paying as a result of it occupation of the West bank and Gaza, like the U.S. paid in Vietnam, is immeasurable.

I stress the price in blood, because that overshadows everything. But the economic costs are also important. Recently I passed a newsstand and saw this headline in one of the Israeli newspapers: "Sharon declares that without a political settlement the Israeli economy will collapse." I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Who has quashed every political initiative over the past two years if not Mr. Bulldozer himself? All the talk of a new economic team in Israel, reforms, cut-backs whatever - it is all meaningless. But Sharon & Co. fiddles on as Israel slides back into third world status.

Now America is following in Israel's footsteps. The Iraq war has not yet even begun and we are already paying the price. The economy is hundred's of billions in the hole. Social programs are being cut back. States and cities are in huge deficits. Bush invokes September 11th as justification for his holy war, but there is no money for New York to cover the enormous costs of being in a constant state of alert - much less to compensate for the huge economic blow September 11th caused to the city. Bush & Co. are buying a "coalition of the willing" at premium prices. The economic costs will be staggering, and the booty of war, Iraqi oil, won't begin to cover it all, even if the U.S. manages to get away with stealing it from the Iraqis.

Which brings us to the second rule of the logic of occupation: the destruction of democracy. The very act of ruling another people is anti-democratic. And the breakdown of democratic norms caused by ruling another people, corrupts democracy at "home" as well. The first casualty is dissent. Those who criticize the occupation are accused of attacking the tribe. The army, meant to protect Israel's security, becomes cruel and corrupt. And if the reciprocal violence does in fact lead to economic collapse, all pretenses of democracy will disappear completely.

We saw this process in the U.S. during the occupation of Vietnam. It will happen again. Already we see the same trends beginning. Xenophobia increases with every day, egged on by Bush & Co. Anyone who reads the New York Post over the past few weeks and its hysteric attacks on France, will get a foretaste of what will become mainstream once the occupation of Iraq begins.

To break the logic of occupation requires another path - a path Krugman calls enlightened self-interest, but which I call compassionate justice. The moral thing to do, is also the pragmatic thing to do. I cite Krugman and his example of the Marshall Plan not as a practical step we must necessarily follow. In general I oppose government to government aid, since it is usually used to prop up the ruling class in the aid-receiving countries, rather than help those who need it. And it is not necessarily clear that the Marshall Plan per se is what changed post-war Europe. But the Marshall Plan is symbolic of a sea change in thinking in Europe after W.W. II. Rather than turning to force as a first resort, the victorious allies (including Truman's America) understood that co-operation, both economic and social, is the the best path to peace and prosperity. The establishment of the European Union, the dismantling of European colonial regimes, the establishment of social networks, were all aspects of the new post-war Europe.

This path can serve as a model for all conflicts. As I have often said, those who believe in violence are naive. Understanding, justice and compassion are the correct and pragmatic path to true peace, security and freedom. When it comes to Iraq, the first thing we must do is separate out the people from the regime. Here is some pragmatic advice from Noam Chomsky on how we can deal with Iraq in a compassionate and just way that does not require war:

Sadly, America, at least under the leadership of Bush & Co, seems to be leading the world back to the 1930s. At this stage, it seems that it is too late to stop the war in Iraq. Bush has made up his mind and nothing will sway him. The goal of the anti-war movement now must be to prevent the occupation of Iraq in the post-war period. A UN vote against this war will give legitimacy to a UN regime in post-war Iraq that will ensure Iraq is returned to its people, not exploited by an American military regime. The alternative, a long American occupation with all its negative consequences, is too horrible to contemplate.