The
World According to Washington
By Noam Chomsky

On February 13, Imad
Moughniyeh, a senior commander of Hezbollah, was assassinated in
Damascus. "The world is a better place without this man
in it," US State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack said. "One way or the
other he was brought to justice." Director of National Intelligence Mike
McConnell added that Moughniyeh had been "responsible for more deaths of
Americans and Israelis than any other terrorist with the exception of Osama bin
Laden".
Joy was unconstrained in Israel
too, as "one of the US and
Israel's most wanted men" was brought to
justice, the London Financial Times reported. Under the heading, "A militant
wanted the world over", an accompanying story reported that he was "superseded
on the most-wanted list by Osama bin Laden" after September 11, 2001, and so
ranked second among "the most wanted militants in the world".
The terminology is accurate
enough, according to the rules of Anglo-American discourse, which defines "the
world" as the political class in Washington and
London
(and whoever happens to agree with them on specific matters). It is common, for
example, to read that "the world" fully supported President George W Bush when
he ordered the bombing of
Afghanistan
in 2001. That may be true of "the world", but hardly of the world, as revealed
in an international Gallup Poll after the bombing was announced. Global support
was slight.
In Latin America, which has
some experience with US behavior, support ranged from 2% in Mexico to 16% in
Panama, and that support was conditional on the culprits being identified (they
still weren't eight months later, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported),
and civilian targets being spared (they were attacked at once). There was an
overwhelming preference in the world for diplomatic / judicial measures,
rejected out of hand by "the world".
Following the terror trail
In the present case, if
"the world" were extended to the world, we might find some other candidates for
the honor of most hated arch-criminal. It is instructive to ask why this might
be true.
The Financial Times reports
that most of the charges against Moughniyeh are unsubstantiated, but "one of the
very few times when his involvement can be ascertained with certainty [is in]
the hijacking of a TWA plane in 1985 in which a US Navy diver was killed". This
was one of two terrorist atrocities that led a poll of newspaper editors to
select terrorism in the Middle East as the top
story of 1985; the other was the hijacking of the passenger liner Achille Lauro,
in which a crippled American, Leon Klinghoffer, was brutally murdered. That
reflects the judgment of "the world". It may be that the world saw matters
somewhat differently.
The Achille Lauro hijacking
was a retaliation for the bombing of
Tunis
ordered a week earlier by Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. His air force
killed 75 Tunisians and Palestinians with smart bombs that tore them to shreds,
among other atrocities, as vividly reported from the scene by the prominent
Israeli journalist Amnon Kapeliouk. Washington cooperated by failing to warn its
ally Tunisia that the bombers were on the way, though the Sixth Fleet and US
intelligence could not have been unaware of the impending attack. Secretary of
State George Shultz informed Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir that
Washington
"had considerable sympathy for the Israeli action", which he termed "a
legitimate response" to "terrorist attacks", to general approbation. A few days
later, the UN Security Council unanimously denounced the bombing as an "act of
armed aggression" (with the
US abstaining). "Aggression" is, of course, a
far more serious crime than international terrorism. But giving the
United States and
Israel the benefit of the doubt, let us keep to
the lesser charge against their leadership.
A few days after, Peres
went to Washington
to consult with the leading international terrorist of the day, Ronald Reagan,
who denounced "the evil scourge of terrorism", again with general acclaim by
"the world".
The "terrorist attacks"
that Shultz and Peres offered as the pretext for the bombing of
Tunis were the killings of three Israelis in
Larnaca, Cyprus.
The killers, as Israel
conceded, had nothing to do with Tunis,
though they might have had Syrian connections.
Tunis was a preferable target, however. It was
defenseless, unlike Damascus.
And there was an extra pleasure: more exiled Palestinians could be killed there.
The Larnaca killings, in
turn, were regarded as retaliation by the perpetrators: They were a response to
regular Israeli hijackings in international waters in which many victims were
killed - and many more kidnapped and sent to prisons in
Israel, commonly to be held without charge for
long periods. The most notorious of these has been the secret prison/torture
chamber Facility 1391. A good deal can be learned about it from the Israeli and
foreign press. Such regular Israeli crimes are, of course, known to editors of
the national press in the US
and occasionally receive some casual mention.
Klinghoffer's murder was
properly viewed with horror and is very famous. It was the topic of an acclaimed
opera and a made-for-TV movie, as well as much shocked commentary deploring the
savagery of Palestinians - "two-headed beasts" (Prime Minister Menachem Begin),
"drugged roaches scurrying around in a bottle" (Chief of Staff Raful Eitan),
"like grasshoppers compared to us," whose heads should be "smashed against the
boulders and walls" (Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir). Or more commonly just
"Araboushim," the slang counterpart of "kike" or "nigger".
Thus, after a particularly
depraved display of settler-military terror and purposeful humiliation in the
West Bank town of Halhul in December 1982, which disgusted even Israeli hawks,
the well-known military/political analyst Yoram Peri wrote in dismay that one
"task of the army today [is] to demolish the rights of innocent people just
because they are Araboushim living in territories that God promised to us", a
task that became far more urgent, and was carried out with far more brutality,
when the Araboushim began to "raise their heads" a few years later.
We can easily assess the
sincerity of the sentiments expressed about the Klinghoffer murder. It is only
necessary to investigate the reaction to comparable US-backed Israeli crimes.
Take, for example, the murder in April 2002 of two crippled Palestinians, Kemal
Zughayer and Jamal Rashid, by Israeli forces rampaging through the refugee camp
of Jenin in the West Bank. Zughayer's crushed
body and the remains of his wheelchair were found by British reporters, along
with the remains of the white flag he was holding when he was shot dead while
seeking to flee the Israeli tanks which then drove over him, ripping his face in
two and severing his arms and legs.
Jamal Rashid was crushed in
his wheelchair when one of
Israel's huge US-supplied Caterpillar
bulldozers demolished his home in Jenin with his family inside. The differential
reaction, or rather non-reaction, has become so routine and so easy to explain
that no further commentary is necessary.
Car bomb
Plainly, the 1985
Tunis
bombing was a vastly more severe terrorist crime than the Achille Lauro
hijacking, or the crime for which Moughniyeh's "involvement can be ascertained
with certainty" in the same year. But even the Tunis
bombing had competitors for the prize for worst terrorist atrocity in the
Mideast in the peak year of 1985.
One challenger was a
car-bombing in Beirut
right outside a mosque, timed to go off as worshippers were leaving Friday
prayers. It killed 80 people and wounded 256. Most of the dead were girls and
women, who had been leaving the mosque, though the ferocity of the blast "burned
babies in their beds", "killed a bride buying her trousseau", and "blew away
three children as they walked home from the mosque". It also "devastated the
main street of the densely populated" West Beirut
suburb, reported Nora Boustany three years later in the Washington Post.
The intended target had
been the Shi'ite cleric Sheikh Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, who escaped. The
bombing was carried out by Reagan's CIA and his Saudi allies, with
Britain's help, and was specifically authorized
by CIA director William Casey, according to Washington Post reporter Bob
Woodward's account in his book Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987.
Little is known beyond the bare facts, thanks to rigorous adherence to the
doctrine that we do not investigate our own crimes (unless they become too
prominent to suppress, and the inquiry can be limited to some low-level "bad
apples" who were naturally "out of control").
'Terrorist villagers'
A third competitor for the
1985 Mideast terrorism prize was Prime Minister Peres' "Iron Fist" operations in
southern Lebanese territories then occupied by Israel in violation of Security
Council orders. The targets were what the Israeli high command called "terrorist
villagers". Peres's crimes in this case sank to new depths of "calculated
brutality and arbitrary murder" in the words of a Western diplomat familiar with
the area, an assessment amply supported by direct coverage. They are, however,
of no interest to "the world" and therefore remain uninvestigated, in accordance
with the usual conventions.
We might well ask whether
these crimes fall under international terrorism or the far more severe crime of
aggression, but let us again give the benefit of the doubt to
Israel and its backers in
Washington and keep to the lesser charge.
These are a few of the
thoughts that might cross the minds of people elsewhere in the world, even if
not those of "the world", when considering "one of the very few times" Imad
Moughniyeh was clearly implicated in a terrorist crime.
The US also accuses him of
responsibility for devastating double suicide truck-bomb attacks on US Marine
and French paratrooper barracks in Lebanon in 1983, killing 241 Marines and 58
paratroopers, as well as a prior attack on the US Embassy in Beirut, killing 63,
a particularly serious blow because of a meeting there of CIA officials at the
time.
The Financial Times has,
however, attributed the attack on the Marine barracks to Islamic Jihad, not
Hezbollah. Fawaz Gerges, one of the leading scholars on the jihadi movements and
on Lebanon,
has written that responsibility was taken by an "unknown group called Islamic
Jihad". A voice speaking in classical Arabic called for all Americans to leave
Lebanon
or face death. It has been claimed that Moughniyeh was the head of Islamic Jihad
at the time, but to my knowledge, evidence is sparse.
The opinion of the world
has not been sampled on the subject, but it is possible that there might be some
hesitancy about calling an attack on a military base in a foreign country a
"terrorist attack", particularly when US and French forces were carrying out
heavy naval bombardments and air strikes in Lebanon, and shortly after the US
provided decisive support for the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which killed
some 20,000 people and devastated the south, while leaving much of Beirut in
ruins. It was finally called off by President Reagan when international protest
became too intense to ignore after the Sabra-Shatila massacres.
In the
United States, the Israeli invasion of
Lebanon is regularly described as a reaction to Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO) terrorist attacks on northern
Israel from their Lebanese bases, making our
crucial contribution to these major war crimes understandable.
In the real world, the
Lebanese border area had been quiet for a year, apart from repeated Israeli
attacks, many of them murderous, in an effort to elicit some PLO response that
could be used as a pretext for the already planned invasion. Its actual purpose
was not concealed at the time by Israeli commentators and leaders: to safeguard
the Israeli takeover of the occupied West Bank.
It is of some interest that
the sole serious error in Jimmy Carter's book Palestine:
Peace not Apartheid is the repetition of this propaganda concoction about PLO
attacks from Lebanon
being the motive for the Israeli invasion. The book was bitterly attacked, and
desperate efforts were made to find some phrase that could be misinterpreted,
but this glaring error - the only one - was ignored. Reasonably, since it
satisfies the criterion of adhering to useful doctrinal fabrications.
Killing without Intent
Another allegation is that
Moughniyeh "masterminded" the bombing of Israel's
embassy in Buenos Aires on March 17, 1992,
killing 29 people, in response, as the Financial Times put it, to
Israel's "assassination of former Hezbollah leader Abbas
Al-Mussawi in an air attack in southern
Lebanon". About the assassination, there is no
need for evidence: Israel
proudly took credit for it. The world might have some interest in the rest of
the story.
Al-Mussawi was murdered
with a US-supplied helicopter, well north of
Israel's illegal "security zone" in southern
Lebanon. He was on his way to
Sidon from the village
of Jibshit, where he had
spoken at the memorial for another Imam murdered by Israeli forces. The
helicopter attack also killed his wife and five-year-old child.
Israel then employed US-supplied helicopters to
attack a car bringing survivors of the first attack to a hospital.
After the murder of the
family, Hezbollah "changed the rules of the game", Prime Minister Rabin informed
the Israeli Knesset. Previously, no rockets had been launched at
Israel. Until then, the rules of the game had
been that Israel could launch
murderous attacks anywhere in
Lebanon at will, and Hezbollah would respond
only within Israeli-occupied Lebanese territory.
After the murder of its
leader (and his family), Hezbollah began to respond to Israeli crimes in
Lebanon by rocketing northern
Israel. The latter is, of course, intolerable
terror, so Rabin launched an invasion that drove some 500,000 people out of
their homes and killed well over 100. The merciless Israeli attacks reached as
far as northern
Lebanon.
In the south, 80% of the
city of Tyre
fled and Nabatiye was left a "ghost town", Jibshit was about 70% destroyed
according to an Israeli army spokesperson, who explained that the intent was "to
destroy the village completely because of its importance to the Shi'ite
population of southern
Lebanon". The goal was "to wipe the villages
from the face of the earth and sow destruction around them", as a senior officer
of the Israeli northern command described the operation.
Jibshit may have been a
particular target because it was the home of Sheikh Abdul Karim Obeid, kidnapped
and brought to Israel
several years earlier. Obeid's home "received a direct hit from a missile",
British journalist Robert Fisk reported, "although the Israelis were presumably
gunning for his wife and three children". Those who had not escaped hid in
terror, wrote Mark Nicholson in the Financial Times, "because any visible
movement inside or outside their houses is likely to attract the attention of
Israeli artillery spotters, who … were pounding their shells repeatedly and
devastatingly into selected targets". Artillery shells were hitting some
villages at a rate of more than 10 rounds a minute at times.
All of this received the
firm support of President Bill Clinton, who understood the need to instruct the
Araboushim sternly on the "rules of the game". And Rabin emerged as another
grand hero and man of peace, so different from the two-legged beasts,
grasshoppers and drugged roaches.
This is only a small sample
of facts that the world might find of interest in connection with the alleged
responsibility of Moughniyeh for the retaliatory terrorist act in
Buenos Aires.
Other charges are that
Moughniyeh helped prepare Hezbollah defenses against the 2006 Israeli invasion
of Lebanon, evidently an
intolerable terrorist crime by the standards of "the world", which understands
that the US
and its clients must face no impediments in their just terror and aggression.
The more vulgar apologists
for US and Israeli crimes solemnly explain that, while Arabs purposely kill
people, the US and
Israel, being democratic societies, do not
intend to do so. Their killings are just accidental ones, hence not at the level
of moral depravity of their adversaries. That was, for example, the stand of
Israel's High Court when it recently authorized severe
collective punishment of the people of
Gaza by depriving them of electricity (hence water,
sewage disposal and other such basics of civilized life).
The same line of defense is
common with regard to some of Washington's past
peccadilloes, like the destruction in 1998 of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant
in Sudan.
The attack apparently led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people, but
without intent to kill them, hence not a crime on the order of intentional
killing - so we are instructed by moralists who consistently suppress the
response that had already been given to these vulgar efforts at
self-justification.
To repeat once again, we
can distinguish three categories of crimes: murder with intent, accidental
killing, and murder with foreknowledge but without specific intent. Israeli and
U.S. atrocities typically fall into the third
category.
Thus, when
Israel destroys Gaza's power
supply or sets up barriers to travel in the West Bank,
it does not specifically intend to murder the particular people who will die
from polluted water or in ambulances that cannot reach hospitals. And when Bill
Clinton ordered the bombing of the al-Shifa plant, it was obvious that it would
lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. Human Rights Watch immediately informed him
of this, providing details; nevertheless, he and his advisers did not intend to
kill specific people among those who would inevitably die when half the
pharmaceutical supplies were destroyed in a poor African country that could not
replenish them.
Rather, they and their
apologists regarded Africans much as we do the ants we crush while walking down
a street. We are aware that it is likely to happen (if we bother to think about
it), but we do not intend to kill them because they are not worthy of such
consideration. Needless to say, comparable attacks by Araboushim in areas
inhabited by human beings would be regarded rather differently.
If, for a moment, we can
adopt the perspective of the world, we might ask which criminals are "wanted the
world over".