The overwhelming European sense of guilt, since nurtured by their actual misdeed of having been silent bystanders of the Nazi horrors, has been so far the counterbalance to the Israeli crimes. The “anti-Semitism” sword of Damocles has become therefore part of European lazyness and of its DNA. That’s it.
Walt and Mearsheimer described the Israel Lobby in the USA as “loosely organized groups working assiduously for Israel”, no talk of plot. And in fact, who needs a cabal, whereas you can do everything in sunlight? Specularly, who needs an anti-Semitic discourse to nail the Israeli leaderships and their unmindful people to their responsibilities?
To be clear, there’s no need of elaborating any further conspiracy theories, nor motive to expose the daily Israeli arrogance towards their neighbours as a worldwide plot, whereas the Jewish state keeps exploiting, by deception, a free pass to fully pursue any aggression. I stress, by deception, that does not necessarily imply any global conspiracy.
Notwithstanding the conspicuous Israeli exploitation of its closure has been sold as the fear for anti-Semite feelings, it gains otherwise its real origin from the convenient redrawing of a Jewish identity on other people’s soil, a fact that should have little to do with an obsolete racist ideal, if not for greed that easily (and generally) leads hatred towards the different and the weakest.
A discourse made for countering the poison of the antisemythic acting to its actual aim could be the primary antidote against the irresponsible general alignment to the Israeli policies in order to devaluate the credit card obtained on the Western shoulders, that then could hastily exhaust its supply before being lethal for the world as a whole. And I’m thinking of the rampant backbiting against Iran’s alleged nuclear attitude.
Provided, then, that in the long run, the Israeli rabid redraft won’t spread out of the new ghetto that was maliciously injected into the Palestinian land. The same in which they have voluntarily caged themselves together with the Arab sacrifical victim and with cheers from the whole bunch of the western hypocrites that form to date the blindest Israel Lobby. The latter a real conspiracy of fear and taboo.
Desperate to climb a greasy pole, Netanuts says: “Ladies and gentlemen, Israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to wipe us off the map. Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself […] I want there to be no confusion on this point. Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone.” (Source Ha’aretz, Oct. 8, 2013)
1. Any similar offensive (against an imaginary threat) is the equivalent of a war of aggression. Otherwise the world could be and will be blackmailed by any psychopath at choice.
2. In this respect, the buffoon wouldn’t be able to surpass a Nuremberg-style process, nor any process. Insofar as the old claim about “wiping-someone-off-the-map” is a blatant lie, a plain scrutiny of reality, reports, facts and some 70 million Iranians, should be enough to nail either the warmongering clown and its unfortunate supporters. Even in the USA. (Syria docet.)
3. From a general point of view, Israeli acquiescence on anything is clearly (and morally) so much relevant as the amount of its citizens compared with the world population and their welfare (aproximately, 1/1000.)
4. Someone should suggest that, in the end, one thing is stand alone, another is stay alone.
It’s an iron wall, a psychological wall. Hard to break through. The worst. Nevertheless, it doesn’t need anything more than what words can do to implement the power of those who found out the way to benefit of it.
First, terrorism. It should be the murderous and residual weapon of what’s supposed to be the weaker party. States with regular armies shouldn’t need to use terrorism. They do. Because it’s often cheaper and always misleading. Moreover, as they decide who is terrorist and who is not, they can use this mere noun as a powerful weapon, so that, by labelling the enemy in front of the world, they are able to cover all what they can’t reach with ordinary arms. It’s the strength of politics and deception.
What happens in Palestine without this word terrorism? What happens without the anti-semitism bullets, i.e. the Holocaust exploitation based on the blind sense of guilt of Europe, on the inner bad faith of the Zionists and on crass ignorance of a great part of the world?
And what happens – last but not least – without US money that was gained by blackmail thanks the Israel Lobby? In this latter respect, Israeli financing itself through the Lobby is the most profitable investment one can imagine. Pay one, gain hundreds.
Money, yes. That is not psychological. By the way, I would argue that there are also some people in the neighborhood, now and then, that sell their dignity and their brothers’ life for some loose change. But we can try not to unite people’s attitude with their leaders’ behaviour.
Heavy burden, then, upon Palestinian shoulders. I guess the last sixty years of Palestine history would have been otherwise very different. On the contrary, although Israelis have been experiencing a mere prevedibile reaction to any occupation, have benefited – since no one dares to expose their egregious crimes, thanks the omnipresent antisemyth-weapon – of the yearly award for the luckiest occupiers in the world.
I’ve read, and I know that “the world” has forgotten Syria for two years. That’s correct, but there ain’t anything as “the world”. There’s people, and we can only work on them. On us.
Not taking a position is tantamount to side with the oppressor. We know this very well, inasmuch as we’ve behaved like this (mainly from our safe living rooms) for so long, without a shiver for the slaughters that were happening all over the outside world.
Let’s not lie, today.
We’ve watched entire peoples being torn apart, notwithstanding any evident injustice. Seldom, we’ve taken side for the one or the other just as we would do looking at a soccer match.
But from the safety of our homes, well hardly we have the right to express our thoughts. For sure we are not entitled to yell (from outside, just as somewhat delegates combatants, from a distance, into a foreign war) the rights and the wrongs of one or the other, insofar as we are well away from the blood and neither with brain nor with soul we are able to perceive and evaluate what is happening. And the media just keep on adding new lies to old ones.
Now, are we really able to estimate that a US strike will lead to any better? If we are obviously not willing to support a murderous dictator (for such he is) how can we trust a long since designed US/Israel further invasion of the Middle East towards the next war of aggression on Iran? Are we ready to claim the good faith of one party – considered as a whole – against the bad faith of the other? Are we willing to be fooled, once again, by mandate of the imperial war machine? For the umpteenth time, by the way, in the last 10 years?
I fear we’re not. Nor we are able to assess our good faith, in this case, while we have failed to be honest in tens of other occasions.
There’s so little we can give to the people of Syria, maybe our heart, humbly our voice in the arena among the nations, some concrete humanitarian help, food, welcome and accomodation. Certainly not our powerful weapons, nor our inconsistent advice.
There are no side effects possibly acceptable of the war. Indeed, as for drugs, it doesn’t exist such a thing as side effects, but, be they prosecuted or not, only effects. Effects certain, or only possible, probable and/or incidental.
On the one hand, the first intuitive, undeniable effects of the war are the dead, the destruction, suffering, despair.
On the other hand, incidental and uncertain are all the other possible effects connected to objectives presented from time to time as apparently reasonable, such as the fight on terrorism, whatever this term is meant to indicate (and I was inclined to consider it, in the Iraqi case, as the “deadly and indiscriminate instrument of resistance of the weaker”), and anxiety or presumption of safety and all kind of preventive actions; questionable, such as the maintenance or achievement of a demanded precarious planetary balance; presumptuous or uncritical, as the defense of the “Western values” and the presumed civilization that would accompany them; vile and murderous, such as the forced maintenance of military control and economic exploitation of a territory through the power of the weapons, which aim at grabbing the resources, also in terms of strategy, of a particular region.