I am always astounded by the level of voluntary political apathy that I encounter in a lot of students at Dartmouth. However, in an article by Maxwell Bryer ("Arab Culture Crisis," Aug. 10), I saw a lot of angst that was blind to a lot of equally angsty things we like to call "facts." According to him, there can be no sign of a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon today because the Arab nations "have sworn themselves resolutely and determinedly to the destruction of Israel at whatever cost." Before anything, let me just state here that all-expansive statements like those are what blotch facts and strengthen the institution of "misinformed opinions" -- the case with most of the U.S. media.
Bryer writes: "The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 constituted a moment of severe cultural crisis for the Arab nations."
The crisis in 1948 was hardly a matter of "culture." When Britain handed over the Palestine issue to the United Nations, Jews formed less than a third of the total population (1.3 million Palestinians, 620,000 Jews) and owned 7 percent of the total land, but were allocated 60 percent of land in the Partition Plan, including some of the most economically productive and Arab-majority areas. Naturally, this plan was rejected by the Arab contingent for reasons that appeal to plain old common sense: You can't have a "Jewish" homeland with almost 50 percent of the population being non-Jewish.
The cultural superiority of Israel that Bryer constantly alludes to in his article can more factually be called the superiority of aggression. He says that "there can be no effective ceasefire or premature end to the current hostilities because the fighting is exactly what Iran and Hezbollah and all those like them yearn for."
A little reality check here: Hezbollah didn't just come out of nowhere because a group of people felt they had an inherent instinct to dress up as feeble imitations of the Amazonians and fight. Hezbollah is the by-product of Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon from the early 1970s. In 1973, 1975 and 1982, Israeli forces attacked Beirut, killed many civilians and justified every single time as "preemptive."
Preemption is a great excuse. Works every time. Hezbollah was born in the process with the official aim of driving Israel from Lebanon (justifiably so). Israel still maintains a "security zone" in violation of the orders of the U.N. Security Council issued in March 1978. Lebanon insisted on the right of resistance to foreign occupation that was endorsed by the United Nations in 1987 by a vote of 153-2 (United States and Israel opposing), still unreported in the United States.
According to Mr. Bryer, a ceasefire would, from the Arab point of view, "be totally countermanding their efforts to open a new Islamic war against Israel." But here are the facts: Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and, in retaliation, Israel bombed Beirut, killing many civilians. Before this, Israel and Lebanon have had prisoner exchanges where prisoners have been returned in exchange for each other. Nothing explains why this could not have been another one of those prisoner exchanges. There was no burning reason for Israel to refuse to negotiate. An overwhelming majority of countries (as has been the case with Iraq), immediately asked for a withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. The United Nations reported that the excesses that Israel was committing were in absolute violation of any form of fair combat. Bombing civilian regions is absolutely wrong under any circumstances, of war or otherwise. Like before, Bryer seems to have gotten his statements a little twisted. It isn't the Arabs going in for war, it is Israel.
Oh, and just for the record, Bryer's claim about Israel's goal of "peaceful coexistence" surely includes Israel's occupation of the Gaza Strip, on which virtually the entire world endorsed a modification of U.N. 242 to include a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza (conveniently vetoed by the United States). "Peaceful coexistence" means co-existence and not existence without any consideration for what the rest of the world thinks.
The United States has been defending Israel's right to defend itself. "Defense" is an interesting word because it has been played around with a lot by the U.S. government. What exactly is Israel "defending" itself from? There is a thin line between offense and defense, and Israel has long gone beyond it.
"All you can do is fight." I agree. When one of the world's strongest military forces, backed by another unmatched military power, has just attacked your civilians and proudly states that it will continue to kill innocents, all you can do is fight, and that is what I call "self-defense."
