Reconfirmations

In the revealing light of a crisis it becomes easier to see realities that are fuzzed up by routine hypocrisies. I list here some items conspicuous in the recent Middle Eastern glare. 1. Aggression. Everyone, especially the U.S. Government, is “against aggression.” Preventing aggression is proclaimed as the key to peace. But we find in practice there are no objective military, strategic or even political criteria by which to define ‘‘aggression.” Who was “the aggressor” in the Middle East? It is generally agreed— if not officially acknowledged—that the Israelis started the shooting; obviously the first major military event was Israel’s preventive air strike. But it was Egypt that had mobilized first, had deployed its forces along the Israeli border, had swung allies into line with the proclaimed objective of destroying Israel, and had cut off Israel from the Indian Ocean. Theoretically Israel might have relied on World Opinion, but if she was going to fight (as all nations must from time to time, if they are to continue to exist), the limitations of her geography and manpower decree that she must come out first and swinging. So Egypt, then, was “in a more fundamental sense” the aggressor? But Israel had a few weeks before made a land and air incursion against Egypt’s ally, Syria. Yes, but Syria was pushing death-dealing raids into Israel. Yes, but these raids were in retaliation for Israel’s expulsion of the Palestine Arabs and for the Jews’ terrorist seizure of Palestine, the population of which was, fifty years. ago, 90 per cent Arab. Yes, but Palestine was entirely Jewish in the first century A. D. when imperialist Rome scattered its inhabitants to the four winds. Yes, but. .. . The series, once started, can go on forever. The concept of “aggression” is not military, strategic or political but moral, ideological and propagandistic. As such it has undeniable importance: I win a major battle when I succeed in pinning the “aggressor” label on my opponent. I will not, however, have made thereby any advance in scientific understanding.

2. The Bigs. We hear about the Big Four, the Big Five, the “major powers,’ the fourteen of the Security Council, the hundred whatever-it-is of the General Assembly. But once again we discover that in this epoch the top echelon has two and only two 1embers. When the Big Two jointly decide on something, even if it’s only to chat a bit, then everyone else waits on the sidelines. De Gaulle can sound off, Harold Wilson can manipulate, China can explode an H-bomb, India can bleat, Nasser and Dayan can have a war, but in a global clutch it’s the ‘Kremlin and the White House that really count. This global axiom was perfectly expressed in the fact that the unknown, intrinsically insignificant town of Glassboro became the political center of the world for three days merely because the top spokesmen of the Big Two decided to meet there. The entire world communications machine, and through it world attention, were drawn inevitably into the Holly Bush focus.

JB

About the Author

James Burnham

Featured Tags

In the revealing light of a crisis it becomes easier to see realities that are fuzzed up by routine hypocrisies. I list here some items conspicuous in the recent Middle Eastern glare. 1. Aggression. Everyone, especially the U.S. Government, is “against aggression.” Preventing aggression is proclaimed as the key to peace. But we find in practice there are no objective military, strategic or even political criteria by which to define ‘‘aggression.” Who was “the aggressor” in the Middle East? It is generally agreed— if not officially acknowledged—that the Israelis started the shooting; obviously the first major military event was Israel’s preventive air strike. But it was Egypt that had mobilized first, had deployed its forces along the Israeli border, had swung allies into line with the proclaimed objective of destroying Israel, and had cut off Israel from the Indian Ocean. Theoretically Israel might have relied on World Opinion, but if she was going to fight (as all nations must from time to time, if they are to continue to exist), the limitations of her geography and manpower decree that she must come out first and swinging. So Egypt, then, was “in a more fundamental sense” the aggressor? But Israel had a few weeks before made a land and air incursion against Egypt’s ally, Syria. Yes, but Syria was pushing death-dealing raids into Israel. Yes, but these raids were in retaliation for Israel’s expulsion of the Palestine Arabs and for the Jews’ terrorist seizure of Palestine, the population of which was, fifty years. ago, 90 per cent Arab. Yes, but Palestine was entirely Jewish in the first century A. D. when imperialist Rome scattered its inhabitants to the four winds. Yes, but. .. . The series, once started, can go on forever. The concept of “aggression” is not military, strategic or political but moral, ideological and propagandistic. As such it has undeniable importance: I win a major battle when I succeed in pinning the “aggressor” label on my opponent. I will not, however, have made thereby any advance in scientific understanding.

2. The Bigs. We hear about the Big Four, the Big Five, the “major powers,’ the fourteen of the Security Council, the hundred whatever-it-is of the General Assembly. But once again we discover that in this epoch the top echelon has two and only two 1embers. When the Big Two jointly decide on something, even if it’s only to chat a bit, then everyone else waits on the sidelines. De Gaulle can sound off, Harold Wilson can manipulate, China can explode an H-bomb, India can bleat, Nasser and Dayan can have a war, but in a global clutch it’s the ‘Kremlin and the White House that really count. This global axiom was perfectly expressed in the fact that the unknown, intrinsically insignificant town of Glassboro became the political center of the world for three days merely because the top spokesmen of the Big Two decided to meet there. The entire world communications machine, and through it world attention, were drawn inevitably into the Holly Bush focus.