> > Seib writes in today's WSJ that the 1982 invasion of Lebanon was met with
> > much more criticism in the US - so much so that Reagan pressed Begin &
> > Sharon to pull back, unlike now, when the House passed an endorsement
> > resolution 410-8. I don't remember 1982 well enough to know whether Seib
> > was right. Anyone else?
>
> > Doug
>
> The '82 invasion was when I first began reading anything about the Middle
> East. But I recall there being very little domestic criticism, outside of
> Chomsky, Cockburn in his Press Clips column in the Voice, and surprisingly
> Nat Hentoff, who woke up to the realities at this time.
>
> Yes, Reagan ordered Begin to stop, but only after the carnage got so bad
> that it began getting embarrassing for the US. As bad as Lebanon is getting
> hit now, it hasn't reach '82 levels -- yet.
>
> Dennis
I've been wondering about the support for the 1982 invasion at the beginning, in Israel and here. Just as a useful reminder for those who are now triumphantly throwing about the Maariv poll. My memory is hazy, but as I recall, in the U.S. there was the usual fanatical blind support among so-called "supporters of Israel", until things started to look particularly bad in September, at which point people praised themselves for caring so much about the victims, unlike the lousy Arabs who only cared about killing Jews. But even in September, people were quite insane. I was a sophomore at the University of Pennsylania at the time, and I remembering arguing with people about the war, and got quoted in the school paper as saying that people shouldn't blindly support whatever Israel is doing. Sheesh. What a mild statement, and it still pissed some people off.
In Israel, others can say far better than me, but as I recall there were a sizeable antiwar movement, but I don't know what the support was at the beginning of the invasion. There are some sad words about this by Michael Warschawski at the as-always-invaluable Alternative Information Center page:
http://www.alternativenews.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=460&Itemid=1
[...]
The present crisis is not close to an end, for several reasons. First,
there is no sign of any readiness to surrender, neither in the
Palestinian Occupied Territories, nor in Lebanon. Though many Arab
regimes, in particular Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, as well as part
of the Lebanese ruling elite, are unhappy with the Hizbollah
counter-war, the brutality of the Israeli attacks is rapidly creating
broad Arab sentiment against the Israeli violence and in support of
the Resistance. Second, there is no, and will be no, international
pressure on Israel; even the EU is treating Israel as the victim, with
a legitimate right to retaliate, albeit with proportional use of
force. Third, the Israeli public does not consider the loss of Israeli
lives a failure of the policy of its government and a catalyst for an
anti-war mass movement, as it was during the Lebanese war in
1982-1985. The majority of Israeli public opinion, having internalized
the “clash of civilizations” world view and therefore the
need for an unending preemptive war, considers the fact that there are
Israeli victims, civilian and military, natural and unavoidable. In
other words, the government is no longer accountable for the suffering
of the Israeli people, considered a legitimate price to pay for the
protection the State of Israel, as part of the “civilized
world”, from the “barbaric” Muslim civilization.
The fallacy of the “clash of civilizations” has become
deeply entrenched in Israeli public opinion since 1996, making it
extremely difficult to combat. This entrenchment is further confirmed
by the total collapse of Peace Now, by far the biggest Israeli mass
peace organization, which was silent during the brutal war of
destruction launched by Ariel Sharon between 2001 and 2005, and which
today supports Israeli aggression in Gaza and Lebanon.
This is why, unlike the demonstrations of 1982, only 800 men and women
demonstrated in Tel Aviv on Sunday night against the aggressive
operations in Lebanon and the Israeli policy of might. Brave and
determined they may be, but activists of the anti-colonial movement in
Israel cannot change the course of action of the government and its
drive towards an unending war in the region. However, their clear
opposition to Israeli war policy is living proof that there is no
definitive “clash of civilizations” or, in the words of
Israeli spokespersons, “a general cultural problem”
between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, there is a clash-a clash between, on
the one hand, those who, in Washington and Tel Aviv, are driving for a
re-colonization of the world under the domination of the multinational
corporations and the US Empire, and, on the other hand, the peoples of
the world who aspire to real freedom, sovereignty and true
independence.