The motive is to silence anyone who speaks out against Israel. You can go way back to Jimmy Carter as a former president. He went to Gaza and came back and wrote “Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid” and for the longest, was treated like a lunatic. Those in power wanted nothing to do with him. Even the Democrats gave him the cold shoulder. Why? Because he dared to call out what Israel was doing.
As for the questions about why the US has such allegiance to Israel, I think it might be 1. We have been SO WRONG for SO LONG! Who wants to be running for office or trying to govern while reversing course in such a way. Nobody! It is just easier to perpetuate the lie that Israel is merely defending its right to exist. Almost ANY criticism of Israel gets this bull shit accusation and people will then tell you what YOU are thinking. And that is you are thinking Israel does NOT have the right to exist. They can read your mind! (snark) 2. AIPAC - the MOST powerful lobby. If you are running for office and don’t have support from AIPAC you are going to run into trouble. 3. Israel IS BAD. BAD. But not quite as bad as Iran. So the US will stick WITH Israel through thick and thin because we are worried about Iran. That was a big reason why we were good buddies with the freak Saddam Hussein. Right up until we weren’t. If he had NOT been stupid and invaded Kuwait, he would have lived a luxury life in his palace and continued all his cruelties. We did not care how cruel he was until he invaded Kuwait. I think Bush the senior decided he was getting too big for his britches and just wanted to teach him a lesson AND a little REAL combat practice is going to make the generals happy, get lots of promotions, keeps everyone sharper. So he got his little coalition together and we swatted Hussein on the behind. And then went home. A whole new era of war movies made bank.
I would like to see a BIG reset with regard to Israel. But for the reasons I have described, this is unlikely. Not many politicians can survive being called an anti semite. Seems college presidents who don’t have the campus police beat down protesters of Israel’s actions get fired pretty much immediately. The students get expelled and criminally charged. There will be no reset of our policy toward Israel. I expect Iran to retaliate any minute. And we might be looking at American troops on the ground there or maybe just air support for the IDF. Nightmare!
The mind-reading is one of the most repellent things about this form of personal attack. It's one of the most egregious forms of gaslighting that exists, at least in the political sphere. And, if someone so accused attempts to refute the charge, it goes right into "when did you stop beating your wife?" territory. It's a no-win situation.
Carter is interesting, in terms of how he is seen in some corners of liberalism. He was shunned for his remarks at the time, but these days Carter is seen as the elder of the party, both in terms of his numerical age as well as the fact that he's the oldest living president. So for certain liberals, they simply paper over their disdain for Carter's stance on Israel being an apartheid state and celebrate him in just about every other way. It's a surgical slicing out and removal of this one aspect of Carter's worldview.
I'm still reading up on the backstory of AIPAC, but it tilted to the right in the early '80s, just about the time that neoliberalism was taking hold, when the right-wing Likud party came to power in Israel and changed that country's trajectory forever, and when the right took hold in the West (US, UK) as well. So it's very problematic that AIPAC is now seen as a legitimate actor as it influences US elections by spending directly in political campaigns. The fact that it was the deciding factor in the defeats of Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush _in their primaries_ indicates that the right has found a way to meddle in Democratic intra-party affairs.
As far as a reset is concerned, I fear that the Biden policy toward Israel may become permanent, that we will be joined at the hip with Israel indefinitely, and in essence will be led around on a leash depending on what Israel decides is in its own best interest in the region. As you say, people are getting fired, expelled, criminally charged, and stigmatized for speaking in opposition to this policy -- I believe the administrative state has declared through such actions that there is nothing it won't visit upon citizens in order to enforce silence and/or compliance on this issue.
I think it was another writer on this platform who stated that, going forward, the only choices for voters in liberal democracies will be what flavor of autocracy one prefers: far-right or rainbow. In practice, there will be little to distinguish the two, except that in the latter you can feel good that the one overseeing the repression might be a racial or sexual minority. The fact that this repression against Palestinians and their allies is a bipartisan affair is telling. Protesters for other unpopular causes may be grudging tolerated in the same way one tolerates mosquito bites, but those fighting for the Palestinian cause go straight to jail, literally and figuratively. There’s already an assault on our rights happening under Democratic control. It will be more of the same under Trump, except then I suppose liberals will have permission to care somewhat, since it’s “the other side” doing it.
Some time ago it became apparent that the US is deeply concerned about anti-Zionism, but not so much antisemitism. Anti-Zionism threatens US military and business interests, whereas antisemitism doesn’t. I think often about the bombing of a synagogue that happened in my hometown during the Civil Rights Movement and how there was only a perfunctory investigation of it. They brought five guys before a show trial, and then once they got acquitted, the view was, “I guess we’ll never know what happened. Now let’s never mention this again.” TPTB are more than willing to look the other way at this kind of violence, especially if it serves as a warning to avoid getting involved in progressive causes. But criticizing the US’ foreign policy regarding Israel is an absolute no go.
However, as I said on the last post, I do not understand why the US is so ride or die for Israel. A vassal state like Israel shouldn’t have this much influence over its patron. As unpopular as the Vietnam protests were, I haven’t heard about anyone involved in them having their lives completely ruined as pro-Palestinian protesters are today. Apartheid South Africa was the US’ pet during the Cold War and it didn’t have any problem with dumping it once it stopped being useful. Speaking of which, anti-apartheid activists in the 1980s did the same things as today’s activists (eg building encampments) but the SWAT team wasn’t called on them and they weren’t threatened with being blackballed. People mention the Mossad having blackmail on world leaders, but one would assume that all intelligence agencies in the West do. I don’t understand what Israel gives to the US that South Africa or Rhodesia didn’t.
I don't quite share your cynicism, though I completely understand where it's coming from. I suppose my lingering idealism comes from being taught -- being instructed -- in self-governance. That was one of the most stressed tenets at my (admittedly small, admittedly private) college. The administrators, for the most part, respected student government, and the student body was expected to steer its own course. (The one major pushback the student body got, ironically enough, was when student workers attempted to unionize. But that's a story for another time, despite being perhaps a remarkable specimen.)
That's all to say that I deeply believe in democratic forms of government, wherein the people at large are the government. I think that when Reagan famously blamed government as being the root of America's problems, he introduced a sort of schism in the national psyche and basically turned us schizophrenic, policy-wise. People didn't just start to distrust government; they began to distrust themselves. We've been dealing with the outflow of that ever since.
As for Israel, I think it's telling that even experts couldn't put their finger on how backing Israel in the wake of October 7th was in America's best interests. Particularly in terms of sending aircraft carriers, it was unclear to policy experts how being that involved in Israel's defense advanced American foreign policy. It's weird that that is unable to be divined. It shouldn't be a secret or be hard to define. All I can see, from my point of view as a relative novice, is that Israel has insinuated itself in the tech industry since the '90s; from that point on, it appears that it has made itself indispensible. I find it telling that the universities have reacted so stringently against students who are asking their schools to divest from these tech and weapons companies -- that's a bridge too far, it seems, and I am left to wonder if that's because pulling funds might jeopardize national security. Such would be several steps removed, of course, as the stock market is the interface, but it seems like this Jenga tower can't have any pieces removed.
Per your point about demonstrations against South Africa, I think the intensity of the response was different because police forces here in the States had yet to militarize. That didn't begin until the U.S. decided to repurpose its old equipment from Middle East wars in cities and towns across the country. This began after Desert Storm, if I recall correctly. Then, of course, we know that the IDF and security services in Israel now train U.S. police departments, teaching them techniques that they deploy against Palestinians; those police then take those lessons and apply them to mass protests here, particularly pro-Palestinian protests. Those elements were not yet in place in the mid-'80s (such a simpler time, eh?).
The motive is to silence anyone who speaks out against Israel. You can go way back to Jimmy Carter as a former president. He went to Gaza and came back and wrote “Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid” and for the longest, was treated like a lunatic. Those in power wanted nothing to do with him. Even the Democrats gave him the cold shoulder. Why? Because he dared to call out what Israel was doing.
As for the questions about why the US has such allegiance to Israel, I think it might be 1. We have been SO WRONG for SO LONG! Who wants to be running for office or trying to govern while reversing course in such a way. Nobody! It is just easier to perpetuate the lie that Israel is merely defending its right to exist. Almost ANY criticism of Israel gets this bull shit accusation and people will then tell you what YOU are thinking. And that is you are thinking Israel does NOT have the right to exist. They can read your mind! (snark) 2. AIPAC - the MOST powerful lobby. If you are running for office and don’t have support from AIPAC you are going to run into trouble. 3. Israel IS BAD. BAD. But not quite as bad as Iran. So the US will stick WITH Israel through thick and thin because we are worried about Iran. That was a big reason why we were good buddies with the freak Saddam Hussein. Right up until we weren’t. If he had NOT been stupid and invaded Kuwait, he would have lived a luxury life in his palace and continued all his cruelties. We did not care how cruel he was until he invaded Kuwait. I think Bush the senior decided he was getting too big for his britches and just wanted to teach him a lesson AND a little REAL combat practice is going to make the generals happy, get lots of promotions, keeps everyone sharper. So he got his little coalition together and we swatted Hussein on the behind. And then went home. A whole new era of war movies made bank.
I would like to see a BIG reset with regard to Israel. But for the reasons I have described, this is unlikely. Not many politicians can survive being called an anti semite. Seems college presidents who don’t have the campus police beat down protesters of Israel’s actions get fired pretty much immediately. The students get expelled and criminally charged. There will be no reset of our policy toward Israel. I expect Iran to retaliate any minute. And we might be looking at American troops on the ground there or maybe just air support for the IDF. Nightmare!
The mind-reading is one of the most repellent things about this form of personal attack. It's one of the most egregious forms of gaslighting that exists, at least in the political sphere. And, if someone so accused attempts to refute the charge, it goes right into "when did you stop beating your wife?" territory. It's a no-win situation.
Carter is interesting, in terms of how he is seen in some corners of liberalism. He was shunned for his remarks at the time, but these days Carter is seen as the elder of the party, both in terms of his numerical age as well as the fact that he's the oldest living president. So for certain liberals, they simply paper over their disdain for Carter's stance on Israel being an apartheid state and celebrate him in just about every other way. It's a surgical slicing out and removal of this one aspect of Carter's worldview.
I'm still reading up on the backstory of AIPAC, but it tilted to the right in the early '80s, just about the time that neoliberalism was taking hold, when the right-wing Likud party came to power in Israel and changed that country's trajectory forever, and when the right took hold in the West (US, UK) as well. So it's very problematic that AIPAC is now seen as a legitimate actor as it influences US elections by spending directly in political campaigns. The fact that it was the deciding factor in the defeats of Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush _in their primaries_ indicates that the right has found a way to meddle in Democratic intra-party affairs.
As far as a reset is concerned, I fear that the Biden policy toward Israel may become permanent, that we will be joined at the hip with Israel indefinitely, and in essence will be led around on a leash depending on what Israel decides is in its own best interest in the region. As you say, people are getting fired, expelled, criminally charged, and stigmatized for speaking in opposition to this policy -- I believe the administrative state has declared through such actions that there is nothing it won't visit upon citizens in order to enforce silence and/or compliance on this issue.
I think it was another writer on this platform who stated that, going forward, the only choices for voters in liberal democracies will be what flavor of autocracy one prefers: far-right or rainbow. In practice, there will be little to distinguish the two, except that in the latter you can feel good that the one overseeing the repression might be a racial or sexual minority. The fact that this repression against Palestinians and their allies is a bipartisan affair is telling. Protesters for other unpopular causes may be grudging tolerated in the same way one tolerates mosquito bites, but those fighting for the Palestinian cause go straight to jail, literally and figuratively. There’s already an assault on our rights happening under Democratic control. It will be more of the same under Trump, except then I suppose liberals will have permission to care somewhat, since it’s “the other side” doing it.
Some time ago it became apparent that the US is deeply concerned about anti-Zionism, but not so much antisemitism. Anti-Zionism threatens US military and business interests, whereas antisemitism doesn’t. I think often about the bombing of a synagogue that happened in my hometown during the Civil Rights Movement and how there was only a perfunctory investigation of it. They brought five guys before a show trial, and then once they got acquitted, the view was, “I guess we’ll never know what happened. Now let’s never mention this again.” TPTB are more than willing to look the other way at this kind of violence, especially if it serves as a warning to avoid getting involved in progressive causes. But criticizing the US’ foreign policy regarding Israel is an absolute no go.
However, as I said on the last post, I do not understand why the US is so ride or die for Israel. A vassal state like Israel shouldn’t have this much influence over its patron. As unpopular as the Vietnam protests were, I haven’t heard about anyone involved in them having their lives completely ruined as pro-Palestinian protesters are today. Apartheid South Africa was the US’ pet during the Cold War and it didn’t have any problem with dumping it once it stopped being useful. Speaking of which, anti-apartheid activists in the 1980s did the same things as today’s activists (eg building encampments) but the SWAT team wasn’t called on them and they weren’t threatened with being blackballed. People mention the Mossad having blackmail on world leaders, but one would assume that all intelligence agencies in the West do. I don’t understand what Israel gives to the US that South Africa or Rhodesia didn’t.
I don't quite share your cynicism, though I completely understand where it's coming from. I suppose my lingering idealism comes from being taught -- being instructed -- in self-governance. That was one of the most stressed tenets at my (admittedly small, admittedly private) college. The administrators, for the most part, respected student government, and the student body was expected to steer its own course. (The one major pushback the student body got, ironically enough, was when student workers attempted to unionize. But that's a story for another time, despite being perhaps a remarkable specimen.)
That's all to say that I deeply believe in democratic forms of government, wherein the people at large are the government. I think that when Reagan famously blamed government as being the root of America's problems, he introduced a sort of schism in the national psyche and basically turned us schizophrenic, policy-wise. People didn't just start to distrust government; they began to distrust themselves. We've been dealing with the outflow of that ever since.
As for Israel, I think it's telling that even experts couldn't put their finger on how backing Israel in the wake of October 7th was in America's best interests. Particularly in terms of sending aircraft carriers, it was unclear to policy experts how being that involved in Israel's defense advanced American foreign policy. It's weird that that is unable to be divined. It shouldn't be a secret or be hard to define. All I can see, from my point of view as a relative novice, is that Israel has insinuated itself in the tech industry since the '90s; from that point on, it appears that it has made itself indispensible. I find it telling that the universities have reacted so stringently against students who are asking their schools to divest from these tech and weapons companies -- that's a bridge too far, it seems, and I am left to wonder if that's because pulling funds might jeopardize national security. Such would be several steps removed, of course, as the stock market is the interface, but it seems like this Jenga tower can't have any pieces removed.
Per your point about demonstrations against South Africa, I think the intensity of the response was different because police forces here in the States had yet to militarize. That didn't begin until the U.S. decided to repurpose its old equipment from Middle East wars in cities and towns across the country. This began after Desert Storm, if I recall correctly. Then, of course, we know that the IDF and security services in Israel now train U.S. police departments, teaching them techniques that they deploy against Palestinians; those police then take those lessons and apply them to mass protests here, particularly pro-Palestinian protests. Those elements were not yet in place in the mid-'80s (such a simpler time, eh?).