Two of a Kind
I guess an estimated 300 nuclear warheads allows a nation like Israel to do whatever it wishes. Is U.S. support for Israel based on the possibility that Israel might lob one our way some day unless we are nice to them? A government that commits piracy on the high seas, murders unarmed people whose crime was to bring aid to Gaza, the world’s largest concentration camp, would be capable of doing anything and I mean anything.
The problem with writing about Israel is that my own government is actually worse than Israel. It’s a hands down no brainer that the U.S. is nothing but a band of cutthroat pirates, international criminals, thieves and murderers. It’s what we do best, what can I say? Israel is merely a weak echo of us. Israel exists because we send them money. That same money allows them to buy nifty things like those speedboats and helicopters seen in the videos of Israel’s piracy. Without our money Israel would have to act like human beings, they might even have found a way to make peace by now but we insist on supporting their military which allows Israel to act as it does. That’s probably the plan when you consider that our role in the world is to promote chaos. Not anarchy, chaos. In fact, the U.S. and Israel are the two major problems facing the world today, there is no greater threat to world peace than the U.S. and Israel.
Israel does very few things of this sort without first getting permission from the United States. I think it goes without saying that Obama gave Israel the go-ahead for the attack. This explains Obama’s silence except for his pathetic offering of “it’s important to find out the facts.” I would suggest that Obama knows the facts already.
I’m struck by how much more outraged much of the world is to Israel’s attack on the flotilla than I see here in the States. Of course as anthropologists have said, entire nations can be insane, and I think that applies to the U.S. and Israel more than anyone I can think of.
posted by Unknown @ 10:00 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
Israel is a convenient tool of the US and UK Governments, a satellite state serving both entities' interests as well as domestic interests of native Israeli business concerns.
The idea that Israel tells the US what to do is laughable. At first, it's illogical. Israel wouldn't exist if not for (a) seed money from the US and UK and (b) advocacy at the UN and otherwise globally by the US and UK. And second, Israel didn't even exist until 1947, and wouldn't ever have existed if not for that joint work by the US and UK in creating Israel.
How, then, in 63 years could Israel have turned things around?
Its existence depends on financial, intellectual property, academic and military/materiel aid from the US and UK.
Its economy depends on exporting goods and technology to foreign nations.
It cannot survive without protection from the US and UK.
How, then, could Israel dictate anything to anyone but its own citizenry?
This utter dependence is one of the psychological reasons for Israel's maltreatment of its neighbor Palestine.
The other psychological reasons have to do with the interests of the USA and UK (and to a lesser extent, Dutch interests) in the Middle East's oil and natural gas reserves.
And with the USA and UK wanting a thug-like wet-work specialist cadre in that Middle Eastern region, which cadre also may be dispatched internationally to serve the US-UK-Dutch interests.
The idea that Israel wags the dog of the US Govt is as ludicrous as saying that Sarah Palin dictates how US federal power will be used in the USA and abroad.
Good comments, I could not agree more. Our politcos kiss the Israeli lobby's butt for the campaign contributions but to say that Israel runs our foriegn policy is just a bit too much.
Rob,
I think that notion of "kissing Israeli butt for campaign contributions" has more to do with Israelophile wealth in the USA, which gives happily to any politician --local, state or federal-- who pledges to support Israel and who voices admiration, love, loyalty, etc for Israel's supposed "plight" in the Middle East.
It's the same thing as Obama mouthing "progressive" platitudes in order to get "progressives" to support him... and the same thing as Obama talking "tough foreign policy" to reduce criticism from the hawkish American people of influence.
Politics is a big charade. It's not about statesmanship, service, or fidelity to a nation's ideals.
It's about one saying the right things to get into the desired station/office where one can serve the interests of those who paid one's way into that station/office.
Nothing more.
A person has to get down to very, very small-scale, localized levels of public office before one can see any sort of honesty at work. And by "very small-scale" here I mean a town of perhaps 1,000 people.
I'm not sure what is the ceiling for honesty and integrity in public elections... but I've never seen it work at the 50,000 person town level. And surely never seen it work anywhere the populace was larger.
In short, I'd say that honesty exists only where the voting populace is small enough to know the candidate personally. Once that threshold is breached, image management becomes the driving force in electoral politics. And image management means, saying the right things to the audience in question... in other words, lies of various types.
"In short, I'd say that honesty exists only where the voting populace is small enough to know the candidate personally."
I have a feeling you are right Charles. (But I hear it costs a lot of money to live in Monaco, or even San Marino. C'est la vie.)
Rob, as far as your point about the lack of outrage in the US, I'm not sure if it's true. If you go to CNN's homepage off to the right they have a column with the top five articles being "shared" on facebook, where typically the top article has 100-250 "hits." At one point the article on the Israeli raid had over 5,000, until they yanked it, then put another article about the event up which just had 300 something hits, about what Gary Coleman's obit got.
People often figure out how to feel about something unfamiliar by assessing how other people who seem more familiar with the phenomenon are reacting. Much of our popular media relies on this to tell Americans how they feel about things they don't understand, as opposed to say, actually explaining them.
Charles,
I think that’s all pretty much true which reminds me that another factor is the popularity of Israel with the far right, especially those who see Israel as the place where Armageddon begins or something like that. At any rate politicians are well aware of the right wing support for Israel so that’s got a lot to do with the way our government supports Israel as well.
Jonathan,
That’s interesting about the availability heuristic phenomenon but I still think Israel has more support here than anywhere else, again the conervatives factor in this I think.
I saw a comparison between North Korea and Israel on the net. That is, North Korea is a satellite state of China that keeps getting in trouble with its neighbors and is now something of a pain for China. Likewise, Israel is a satellite state of the US and gets in trouble with its neighbors (and both are pariahs in the international community).
As far as the US's relationship with Israel, I think it's more complext than this one wagging that one.
Clearly, the US is the bigger, more powerful country, but Israel, especially its secret services, has been working in conjunction with US secret services for a very long time, so if nothing else there are people in Israel's hall of power that could make things uncomfortable for some Americans. The Mossad was all over Iran-contra and October Surprise, helping to move weapons to Iran for Reagan/Bush. That's just stuff that bubbled to the surface, so I'm sure that there's plenty of juicier tidbits to be found.
But I think that in order to understand the relationship between the two countries you have to recognize who's tight with whom. The Likkud is essentially Israel's fascist party. It has actual antecedents going back to pre-WWII Mussolini through the Stern Gang. They bet on the wrong side in WWII but still managed to work their way to the top of Israel, no doubt with the help of their fascist friends in the US.
If you look at the people who founded the CIA, they were Wall Streeters like the Dulles, people who were quite cosy with fascism. Of course, this explains their tendencies. And while not exclusively at all, the founders of the CIA tacked towards the Republican shore.
The Likkud/Mossad is copacetic with the Republicans/CIA. Obama is pretty much a ribbon-cutter and flak-catcher in my book, so if their friends across the pond want the Israelis to slap him for domestic American consumption, so much the better.
Bob,
While you aim your darts at the GOP, you seem eager to ignore that the Democrats are just as enamored of fascism.
As to the CIA, I don't recall the Democrats ever disavowing the utility of wet- and dry-work spookery.
I've noticed since Obama's election a real desire among some people (read: Democrat-loyalists) to hang onto those partisan themes, especially if they'll sustain a loyalist in this era of Democrat-led, Democrat-run Destructiveness.
I guess it's always better to hang onto a myth than to accept the reality... always better to blame an Evil Rethug than accept the vacillation of the Democrats between complicity in and outright leadership of thuggery.
...but they were noble once, weren't they?
Bob,
Good point about NK and Israel being satellite states and both causing trouble for their benefactors. So what you are suggesting is that the Israeli secret service might be blackmailing some politicians in order to get them in line. I wouldn’t rule it though of course they would likely only have so many politicos that they had some real dirt on.
Charles, you're creating a strawman. No need to. Clearly, Bill Clinton was very copacetic with the CIA and Obama has proven to have no stomach to change the status quo he inherited.
From the 60s viewpoint when I first became interested in politics, Bill Clinton is pretty much a Republican, as are most DLC Dems when we talk about the national security state.
You might find that Jimmy Carter, if he ever confided in you, might mention some displeasure with the way CIA elements helped to undercut his administration and put Reagan into the WH.
And you might find, if your Ouija board is sensitive enough to attract them, I'm sure that there are a few Kennedys that might dispute this with you.
It does no good to analyze solely that "this is like that" without how "this isn't like that". Chomsky was notorious for this kind of analysis. If all Dems are always only like all Republicans then why waste your time ever talking about politics?
But your earlier point, that you can find politicians with integrity only at lower positions of power, is worth examination. Since so many politicians move up the ladder this would suggest that what is acceptable for a town councilwoman, for ex, isn't acceptable for a US Senator. And since the same people vote for town councils and Senators, it suggests that there are other forces in play than just democracy.
And my point, that the CIA is essentially a Republican entity, is almost as true as that the Republican Party is the political arm of the national security state.
Dennis Perrin says it best:
"In my early days as a Middle East speaker/debater, I encountered Israelis from left to right, and while they held different views about war and Palestine, all of them said that the Israeli mentality is ultimately suicidal. If there is any hint of a massive defeat or decisive turnaround in Israeli designs, the country may well blow itself up (after destroying those around it) rather than face such indignity. The leftists bemoaned this; the rightists celebrated it. Israelis are drilled from childhood about their uniqueness and divine right to whatever land they consider historically theirs. They are also told that the rest of the planet hates them and longs for their extinction, therefore Israelis must be tougher, stronger, more violent, indeed crazier than their enemies."
Of course acting as if everybody hates you has a self-fulfilling quality.
Jonathan,
Like I said, insane. Dennis did nail it, you're right.
Rob, I guess I should be more specific: when I say Dennis P. says it best, I'm referring to the debate in the comments about the historical presence of Israel.
Jonathan,
I guess I’m more interested in the psychopathic behavior of people as brought about by our culture than I am in anything else.
Rob's pal :^) Thomas Friedman weighs in.
It’s a setup!!!! Why didn’t I think of that? If nothing else Friedman provides comic relief. That was devilishly clever of those “pro-Palestinian” terrorists armed with broom sticks of mass destruction to trick Israel into killing them, what a coup! Who would of thunk such a thing, Thomas Friedman, that’s who.
Bob, saying the CIA = GOP is just plain partisan bullshit.
The Democrats have always been part of the problem. Yet you keep hammering on the GOP and then talking about "bad apple" Donkeys whom you say are DINOs.
I don't know what makes you ignore reality as you do. Somehow, somewhere, you've assumed that the Democrats are noble and merely undone by occasional pretenders who play for the GOP but wear the Donkey uniform.
Arguing this here isn't gaining me points. I'm not trying to convert any readers. I'm just being honest.
I don't understand why you would cling to this idea that everything bad is a GOP problem, and every bad Democrat thing is done by a DINO.
It's about as mature as believing in the Tooth Fairy.
Post a Comment
<< Home