Wednesday, February 8, 2012

There is no "political blindspot" in Washington

Barry Lando is only stating common knowledge when he writes:One of the most uncommented on ironies today is that Israel is threatening military action toprevent Iran from continuing the same clandestine route to nuclear weapons that Israel took; just as Israeli planes destroyed nuclear reactors in Syria and Iraq to prevent those countries from following Israel’s lead.” Nevertheless, the real point he is trying to make in his article "Iran and Israel: Obama's blindspot intact" is the hypocritical nature of the fact that "for the past fifty years, every American President has refused to publicly recognize the fact of Israel's nuclear arsenal" and that this in turn means that there has been a nuclear power in the Middle East since the early sixties.

However, Washington's behaviour is not myopic and there is more than enough evidence to suggest that there is no blindspot when it comes to Israel. We need not doubt the current President of the  Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Dore Gold's, contention that Israel and the United States share "fundamental strategic interests".  It is an alliance, which involves collusion to the point where the US not only aids and abets Israeli crimes but also goes beyond mere complicity. Indeed, just as we can be sure that all too often American weapons are used not only to enforce an illegal occupation but also to kill innocent civilians in the Lebanon and Gaza, we can also be sure that if Israel decides to attack Iran, the slaughter will be made in America. After the attack, of course, we will then have is Washington protesting Israel's right to a preemptive strike and Uncle Sam, once again, trying to sell himself as the "honest broker".

The "political blindspot" might be attributed to the rest of us, who have tolerated the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the mass murders here, there, and everywhere. Strictly speaking, we do not aid and abett, but we are, at least as guilty as those who, when confronted with the death camps, tried to defend themselves by saying "Davon haben wir nichts gewusst ("we didn't know anything about those things")"Indeed, in a sense we are more guilty for as the German historian, Peter Longerich, quite rightly says, "Es gab im »Dritten Reich« fast keine Möglichkeit, abweichende Meinungen öffentlich zu äußern ("in the third Reich it was practically impossible to voice alternative opinions")." Our problem, however, is quite rightly touched on by Mr Longerich when he goes on to say that there is always a discrepancy between what we can know and what we want to know. It was a problem then and, with the sources that are available at the click of a button, it would appear to be a bigger problem now.

No comments: