Saturday, June 2, 2012

the Israelification of US policy

Israel acts unilaterally and pre-emptively. If the Israeli administration thinks something is amiss, it doesn't wait for confirmation or agreement with any other country. From the invasion of Lebanon to leaving Gaza, to the attack on the Gaza flotilla, what makes Israeli action right is that the Israeli administration says it is right. The truth is what Israel says it is, including the history of the country that it teaches in schools that has little relation to the actual documented history of the country.

Does this sound anything like the invasion of Iraq? Does it sound anything like the denial that waterboarding was torture? Israel defines words as well - calling Palestinians terrorists routinely.

Now we find out that President Obama operates under the idea that anyone in close physical proximity to a drone target is a "militant" by definition and not a civilian or innocent. This was clearly stated in the excellent NYT article on our Warrior Professor President this week.

Here is Stephen Colbert on the subject of drone strikes and "militants"

This new lexicon is in pure emulation of Israel. As Glenn Greenwald has documented, AP and the Washington Post are eagerly following the administration definition of "militant" in their reporting of drone strikes.

In addition, the Obama administration promotes fear to enable its disregard of the protection of individual rights of Americans. As Prime Minister Netanyahu knows, fearful people are complaint and willingly submit to what a fearless and free people will not. That's why Bibi endlessly invokes the threat of a second holocaust and beats the drums for war against Iran. No matter how powerful it may be, Israel is always the innocent victim and America since 9/11 has followed this self-portrayal religiously. Is it any wonder that Netanyahu said at the time that 9/11 was a good thing for Israel?

Our country apes a pariah state yet expects admiration and respect.

And of the two countries - America and Israel, who really is running U.S. policy in the Middle East? In a NYT article on cyber-warfare against Iran, it's said that the US fully supported it out of fear that if it did not, Israel would attack Iran militarily:

 "...Mr. Obama concluded that when it came to stopping Iran, the United States had no other choice.If Olympic Games (the cyber warfare effort) failed, he told aides, there would be no time for sanctions and diplomacy with Iran to work. Israel could carry out a conventional military attack, prompting a conflict that could spread throughout the region."

Think about this - the US is pressured into going ahead with a very dangerous precedent that invites cyber-retaliation because it fears that its tiny "ally" will launch an attack with weapons that we have supplied to it and paid for!

I could go on but I will end with the militarization of the U.S. in emulation of Israel, a state of warrior citizens always attacking in a large or small way. Checkpoints are everywhere in the occupied territories and the U.S. is busily constructing checkpoints in cyberspace that will be looking into the affairs of every citizen. Military affairs trump every other aspect of Israeli life and so it is becoming in the States where the hatred of government is suspended when it comes to funding of and deployment of weaponry.

No comments:

Post a Comment