Israel’s occupation is doomed
By Uri Avnery*
10 February 2008
Uri Avnery argues that Israel’s occupation is doomed. “ After all, the end
is not in doubt. The
only question is how much more killing, how much more destruction, how
much more suffering must
be caused before the occupiers arrive at the inescapable conclusion.”
A wise person once said: "A fool learns from his experience. An
intelligent person learns from
the experience of others." To which one could add: "And an idiot does not
even learn from his
own experience."
So what can we learn from a book which shows that we do not learn from
experience?
All this is building up to a recommendation for such a book. I don't
recommend books as a rule,
not even my own. But this time I feel the need to make an exception.
This is William Polk's book, Violent politics, which has recently appeared
in the United States.
Polk was in Palestine in 1946, at the height of the struggle against the
British occupation,
and since then he has studied the history of liberation wars. In less than
300 pages he
compares insurgencies, from the American Revolution to the wars in
Afghanistan. His years on
the planning staff of the State Department involved him with the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
His conclusions are highly illuminating.
I have a special interest in this subject. When I joined the Irgun at age
15, I was told to
read books about previous liberation wars, especially the Polish and Irish
ones. I diligently
read every book I could lay my hands on, and have since followed the
insurgencies and guerrilla
wars throughout the world, such as those in Malaya, Kenya, South Yemen,
South Africa,
Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Vietnam and more. In one of them, the Algerian war
of liberation, I had
some personal involvement.
When I belonged to the Irgun, I worked at the office of an Oxford-educated
lawyer. One of our
clients was a high British official of the Mandate government. He was an
intelligent, pleasant
and humorous person. I remember once, when he passed by, a thought
crossing my mind: How can
such intelligent people conduct such a foolish policy?
Since then, the more I have become became engrossed in other insurgencies,
the stronger this
wonderment has become. Is it possible that the very situation of
occupation and resistance
condemns the occupiers to stupid behavior, turning even the most
intelligent into idiots?
Some years ago the BBC screened a long series about the process of
liberation in the former
British colonies, from India to the Caribbean islands. It devoted one
episode to each colony.
Former colonial administrators, officers of the occupation armies,
liberation fighters and
other eye-witnesses were interviewed at length. Very interesting and very
depressing.
Depressing – because the episodes repeated each other almost exactly. The
rulers of every
colony repeated the mistakes made by their predecessors in the previous
episode. They harboured
the same illusions and suffered the same defeats. Nobody learned any
lesson from his
predecessor, even when the predecessor was himself – as in the case of the
British police
officers who were transferred from Palestine to Kenya.
In his compact book, Polk describes the main insurgencies of the last 200
years, compares them
with each other and draws the obvious conclusions.
Every insurgency is, of course, unique and different from all others,
because the backgrounds
are different, as are the cultures of the occupied peoples and the
occupiers. The British
differ from the Dutch, and both from the French. George Wa****ngton was
different from Tito, and
Ho Chi Minh from Yasser Arafat. Yet in spite of this, there is an amazing
similarity between
all the liberation struggles.
For me, the main lesson is this: from the time the general public embraces
the rebels, the
victory of the rebellion is assured.
That is an iron rule: an insurgency sup****ted by the public is bound to
win, irrespective of
the tactics adopted by the occupation regime. The occupier can kill
indiscriminately or adopt
more humane methods, torture captured freedom fighters to death or treat
them as prisoners of
war – nothing makes a difference in the long run. The last of the
occupiers can board a ****p in
a solemn ceremony, like the British High Commissioner in Haifa, or fight
for a place in the
last helicopter, like the last American soldiers on the roof of the
American embassy in Saigon
– defeat was certain from the moment the insurgency had reached a certain
point.
The real war against the occupation takes place in the minds of the
occupied population.
Therefore, the main task of the freedom fighter is not to fight against
the occupation, as it
may seem, but to win the hearts of his people. And on the other side, the
main task of the
occupier is not to kill the freedom fighters, but to prevent the
population from embracing
them. The battle is for the hearts and minds of the people, their thoughts
and emotions.
That is one of the reasons why generals almost always fail in their
struggle against liberation
fighters. A military officer is the least suitable person for this task.
All his upbringing,
his whole way of thinking, all that he has learned is opposed to this
central task. Napoleon,
the military genius, failed in his effort to vanquish the freedom fighters
in Spain (where the
word guerrilla, little war, was originally coined), no less than the most
stupid American
general in Vietnam.
An army officer is a technician, trained to fulfill a particular job. That
job is irrelevant to
the struggle against a liberation movement, in spite of its superficial
appropriateness. The
fact that a house-painter deals with colors does not make him into a
****trait painter. An
outstanding hydraulic engineer does not become a skilled plumber. A
general does not understand
the essence of a national insurgency, and therefore does not come to grips
with its rules.
For example, a general measures his success by the number of enemies
killed. But the fighting
underground organization becomes stronger the more dead fighters it can
present to the public,
which identifies with the martyrs. A general learns to prepare for battle
and win it, but his
opponents, the guerrilla fighters, avoid battle altogether.
The iconic Che Guevara well defined the stages which a classic war of
liberation goes through:
At first, there is a partially armed band that takes refuge in some
remote, hard-to-reach spot
[or in an urban population, I would add]. It strikes a lucky blow against
the authorities and
is joined by a few more discontented farmers, young idealists, etc. It ...
contacts residents
and conducts light hit-and-run attacks. As new recruits swell the ranks it
takes on an enemy
column and destroys its leading elements... Next the band sets up
semi-permanent encampments
.... and adopts the characteristics of a government in miniature..." and
so on.
In order to succeed all along the way, the insurgents need an idea that
fires the enthusiasm of
the population. The public unifies around them and provides aid, shelter
and intelligence. From
this stage on, everything that the occupation authorities do helps the
insurgents. When the
freedom fighters are killed, many others come forward and swell their
ranks (as I did in my
youth). When the occupiers impose collective punishment on the population,
they just reinforce
their hatred and their mutual assistance. When they succeed in capturing
or killing the leaders
of the liberation struggle, other leaders take their place – as the Hydra
in Greek legend grew
new heads for every one that Hercules chopped off.
Frequently the occupation authorities succeed in causing a split among the
freedom fighters and
consider this a major victory. But all the factions go on fighting the
occupier separately,
competing with each other, as Fatah and Hamas are doing now.
It is a pity that Polk did not devote a special chapter to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
but that is not really necessary. We can write it ourselves according to
our understanding.
All along the 40 years of occupation, our political and military leaders
have failed in the
struggle against the Palestinian guerrilla war. They are neither more
stupid nor more cruel
than their predecessors – the Dutch in Indonesia, the British in
Palestine, the French in
Algeria, the Americans in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan. Our
generals may top them all
only in their arrogance – their belief that they are the smartest and that
the "Jewish head"
will invent new patents that all those Goyim could never think of.
From the time Yasser Arafat succeeded in winning the hearts of the
Palestinian population and
uniting them around the burning desire to rid themselves of the
occupation, the struggle was
already decided. If we had been wise, we would have come to a political
settlement with him at
the time. But our politicians and generals are not wiser than all the
others. And so we shall
go on killing, bombarding, destroying and exiling, in the foolish belief
that if only we hit
once again, the longed-for victory will appear at the end of the tunnel –
only to perceive that
the dark tunnel has led us into an even darker tunnel.
As always happens, when a liberation organization does not attain its
objectives, another more
extreme one springs up beside it or instead of it and wins the hearts of
the people. Hamas-like
organizations take over from Fatah-like ones. The colonial regime, which
has not reached an
agreement in time with the more moderate organization, is in the end
compelled to come to terms
with the more extreme one.
General Charles de Gaulle succeeded in making peace with the Algerian
rebels before reaching
that stage. One and a quarter million settlers heard one morning that the
French army was going
to pack up on a certain date and go home. The settlers, many of them of
the fourth generation,
ran for their lives without getting any compensation (unlike the Israeli
settlers who left the
Gaza Strip in 2005). But we have no de Gaulle. We are condemned to go on
ad infinitum.
If not for the terrible tragedies we witness every day, we could smile at
the pathetic
helplessness of our politicians and generals, who are ru****ng around
without knowing where
their salvation should come from. What to do? To starve all of them? That
has led to the
collapse of the wall on the Gaza-Egypt border. Kill their leaders? We have
already killed Sheik
Ahmed Yassin and countless others. To execute the "Grand Operation" and
reoccupy the entire
Gaza Strip? We have already conquered the strip twice. This time we shall
encounter much more
capable guerrillas, who are even more rooted in the population. Every
tank, every soldier will
become a target. The hunter may well become the prey.
So what can we do that we have not already done?
First of all, to get every soldier and politician to read William Polk's
book, together with
one of the good books about the Algerian struggle.
Second, to do what all occupation regimes have done in the end in all the
countries where the
population has risen up: to reach a political settlement that both sides
can live with and
profit from. And get out.
After all, the end is not in doubt. The only question is how much more
killing, how much more
destruction, how much more suffering must be caused before the occupiers
arrive at the
inescapable conclusion.
Every drop of blood spilt is a drop of blood wasted.
*Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist.
Exposing injustice, disinformation and bigotry
http://redress.cc/
|
