by Jonathan Cook

July 29, 2006

 *W*hen journalists use the word "apparently," or another favorite  "reportedly," they are usually distancing themselves from an event or

 an interpretation in the supposed interests of balance. But I think we   should read the "apparently" contained in a statement from the head of

 the United Nations, Kofi Annan, relating to the killing this week of   four unarmed UN monitors by the Israeli army in its other sense.

 When Annan says that those four deaths were "apparently deliberate," I  take him to mean that the evidence shows that the killings were

 deliberate. And who can disagree with him? At least 10 phone calls  were made to Israeli commanders over a period of six hours warning

 that artillery and aerial bombardments were either dangerously close  to or hitting the monitors' building.

 The UN post, in Khaim just inside south Lebanon, was clearly marked  and well-known to the army, but nonetheless it was hit directly four

 times in the last hour before an Israeli helicopter fired a  precision-guided missile that tore through the roof of an underground

 shelter, killing the monitors inside. A UN convoy that arrived too  late to rescue the peacekeepers was also fired on. From the evidence,

 it does not get much more deliberate than that.

 The problem, however, is that Western leaders, diplomats, and the  media take the "apparently" in its first sense – as a way to avoid

 holding Israel to account for its actions. For "apparently  deliberate," read "almost certainly accidental." That was why the best

 the UN Security Council could manage after a day and a half of  deliberation was a weaselly statement of "shock and distress" at the

 killings, as though they were an act of God.

 Our media are no less responsible for this evasiveness. They make sure  "we" – the publics of the West – never countenance the thought that a

 society like our own, one we are always being reminded is a democracy,  could sink to the depths of inhumanity required to murder unarmed

 peacekeepers. Who can be taken seriously challenging the Israeli  foreign minister Tzipi Livni's assertion that "There will never be an

 [Israeli] army commander that will intentionally aim at civilians or  UN soldiers [sic]"?

 Even the minority in the West who have started to fear that Israel is  "apparently" slaughtering civilians across Lebanon or that it is

 "apparently" intending to make refugees of a million Lebanese must  presumably shrink from the idea that Israel is also capable of killing

 unarmed UN monitors.

 After all, our media insinuate, the two cases are not comparable.

There may be good reasons why Lebanese civilians need to suffer. Let's  not forget that they belong to a people (or is it a race or, maybe, a

 religion?) that gave birth to Hezbollah. "We" can cast aside our  concerns for the moment and take it on trust that Israel has cause to

 kill the Lebanese or make them homeless. Doubtless the justifications  will emerge later, when we have lost interest in the "Lebanon crisis."

 We may never hear what those reasons were, but who can doubt that they exist?

 The "apparent" murder of four UN monitors, however, is a deeper  challenge to our faith in our moral superiority, which is why that

 "apparently" is held on to as desperately as a talisman. No civilized  country could kill peacekeepers, especially ones drawn from our own

 societies, from Canada, Finland, and Austria. That is the moral  separation line that divides us from the terrorists. Were that line to

 be erased, we would be no different from those whom we must fight.

 An iconic image of this war that our media have managed to expunge  from the official record but which keeps popping up in e-mail inboxes

 like a guilty secret is of young Israeli girls, lipsticked and  nail-polished as if on their way to a party, drawing messages of death

 and hatred on the sides of the missiles about to be loaded on to army  trucks and tanks. In one, an out-of-focus soldier stands on a tank

 paternally watching over the girls as they address another death  threat to Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

 Is this the truer face of Israeli society, even if it is the one we  are never shown and refuse to believe in? And are "we" in the West

 hurtling down the same path?

 Driving through the Jewish city of Upper Nazareth this week, I  realized how inured I am becoming to this triumphal militarism – and

 the racism that feeds it. Nothing surprising about the posters of "We  will win" on every hoarding. But it takes me more than a few seconds

 to notice that the Magen David ambulance in front of me is flying a  little national flag, the blue Star of David, from its window. I have

 heard that American fire engines flew U.S. flags after 9/11, but this  somehow seems worse. How is it possible for an ambulance, the

 embodiment of our neutral, civilized, universal, "Western,"  humanitarian values, to fly a national flag, I think to myself? And

 does it make a difference that only a few months ago Magen David  joined the International Committee of the Red Cross?

 Only slowly do my thoughts grow more disturbed: how many hospital  administrators, doctors, and nurses have seen that ambulance arrive at

 their emergency departments and thought nothing of it? And is that the  only Israeli ambulance flying the flag, or are many others doing the

 same? Later, the BBC TV news answers my question. I see two ambulances  with the same flags going to the front line to collect casualties.

 Will others soon cross over the border into southern Lebanon, after it

 is "secured," and will no one mention those little flags fluttering  from the window?

 A psychologist tells me how upset she is about a meeting she attended  a few days ago of the northern coordinating committee of her

 profession. They were discussing how best to treat the shock and  trauma suffered by Israeli children under the bombardment from

 Hezbollah. The meeting concluded with an agreement that the  psychologists would reassure the children with the statement: "The

 army is there to protect us."

 And so, the seeds of fascism are unthinkingly sown for another  generation of children, children like our own.

 No one agreed with my friend when she dissented, arguing that this was  not the message to be telling impressionable minds, and that violence

 against the Other is not a panacea for our problems. Parents, not  soldiers, are responsible for protecting their children, she pointed

 out. Tanks, planes, and guns bring only fear and more hatred, hatred  that will one day return to haunt us.

 The slow, gentle indoctrination continues day in, day out, reinforcing  the idea among Israel's Jewish population that the army can do no

 wrong and that it needs no oversight, not even from politicians (most  of whom are former generals anyway, or like Prime Minister Ehud Olmert

 too frightened to stand up to the chiefs of staff if they wanted to).

 "We will win." How do we know we will win? Because "the army is there  to protect us." Add into the mix that faceless "Arab" enemy, those

 sub-beings, and you have a recipe for fascism – even if it is of the  democratically elected variety.

 The Israeli media, of course, are the key to providing the second half  of that equation – or rather not providing it. You can sit watching

 the main Israeli channels all day, flicking between channels 1, 2, and  10, and not see a Lebanese face, apart from that of Hassan Nasrallah,

 the new Hitler. I don't mean the charred faces of corpses, or the  bandaged babies, or the amputees lying in hospital beds. I mean any

 Lebanese faces. Just as you almost never see a Palestinian face on  Israeli TV unless they are the mob, disfigured with hatred as they

 hold aloft another martyr on his way to burial.

 Lebanon only swings in to view on Israeli television through the black  and white footage of an aerial gun sight, or through the long shot of

 a distant urban landscape seconds before it is "pulverized" by a  dropped bomb. The buildings crumble, flames shoot up, clouds of dust

 billow into the air. Another shot of arcade-game adrenaline.

 The humanitarian stories exist, but they do not concern Lebanon.

 Animal welfare societies plead on behalf of the dogs and cats left

 alone to face the rocket fire on deserted Kiryat Shmona, just as they  did before for foxes and deer when Israel began building its mammoth

 walls of concrete and steel across their migration routes in the West  Bank, walls that are also imprisoning, unseen, hundreds of thousands

 of Palestinians.

 The rest of the coverage is dedicated to Israeli army spokespeople,  including the national heartthrob Miri Regev, and media "commentators"

 and "analysts." Who are these people? They are from the same pool of  former military intelligence and security service officers who once

 did this job in the closed rooms of army HQ but now wallow in the  limelight. One favored pundit is even subtitled "Expert on

 psychological warfare against Hassan Nasrallah."

 And who are the presenters and anchors who interview them? The other  day an aging expert on Apache helicopters interrupted his interviewer

 irritatedly to tell him his question was stupid. "We were in the army  together and both know the answer. Don't play dumb." It was a rare

 reminder that these anchors too are just soldiers in suits. One of the  most popular, Ehud Yaari of Channel 2, barely conceals his military

 credentials as he condones yet more violence against the Lebanese or,  if he can be deflected for a moment, the people of Gaza.

 That is what comes of having a "citizen army," where teenagers learn  to use a gun before they can drive and men do reserve duty until their

 late 40s. It means every male teacher, professor, psychologist, and  journalist thinks as a soldier because that is what he has been for

 most of his life.

 Israel is not unique, far from it, though it is in a darker place, and  has been for some time, than "we" in the West can fully appreciate. It

 is a mirror of what our own societies are capable of, despite our  democratic values. It shows how a cult of victimhood makes one

 heartless and cruel, and how racism can be repackaged as civilized  values.

 Maybe those UN monitors, with their lookout post above the battlefield  where Israel wants to use any means it can to destroy Hezbollah and

 Lebanese civilians who get in the way, had to be removed simply  because they are a nuisance, a restraint when Israel needs to get on

 with the job of asserting "our" values. Maybe Israel does not want the  scrutiny of peacekeepers as it fights our war on terror for us. Maybe

 it feared that the monitors' reports might help to give back to the  Lebanese, even to Hezbollah, their faces, their history, their suffering.

 And, if we are honest, Israel is not alone. How many of us want the  Arabs to remain faceless so we can keep believing we are the victims

 of a new ideology that wants only our evisceration, just as the "Red  Indians" once supposedly wanted our scalps? How many many of us

 believe that our values demand that we fall in behind a new world  order in which Arab deaths are not real deaths because "they" are not

 fully human?

 And how many of us believe that deliberate barbarity, at least when we  do it, is only "apparently" a crime against humanity?