I have managed not to blog at all for so long, I've almost forgotten what counts as an actual blog post. And so it is here; this isn't a complete post, but rather an off-the-cuff response to a long-winded, and ultimately ridiculous, post by Sgt. Mom. on why Americans continue to support Israel despite everything.

She could have cut it far short by describing the origins of America's Israel bias fairly--that is, as a heady mix of ignorance, identity politics-gone-mad, a media blackout of the other side, and a careful regurgitation of Israeli right-wing propaganda.

But why indulge in a more reasonable explanation of events when we can just self-congratulate ourselves on our historically-based 'clarity of mind'?

***

This post is quite risible on so many grounds, I don't even know where to begin. I could start by shrugging off the idea of 'natural sympathies' between nations; it was Lord Palmerston, Britain's great 19th century statesman, who put it bluntly, that Britain had no permanent allies - only permanent interests. (And Anglo-American relations saw a complete reversal of previous antipathies last century just to prove the point.) We can even see it in America's relative indifference to Israel in the early years after its independence. Finally, there's the simple fact that the American establishment are at best biased towards Israeli--in lock-step, to boot, something I still find remarkable--at worst apologists for its most egregious acts. So it is that in other countries you can have a serious debate on the merits, the history and the future of Israeli-Palestinian relations; in the United States, Congress laughably votes 100% in favour of Israeli policies--literally, almost every single man and woman in Congress scrambles pathetically to vote in favour of whatever Israel has done whenever the chance arises. It obviously has nothing to do with enormous lobbying pressure, or even geopolitical influence in the region. O' course not; it's American reasoning at its best!

Permit me while I scoff.

I would quibble with a few things you've argued here. I'd start by contesting the notion that the State of Irael suffers from a 'perilous existence.' I don't see how that can be so--and indeed, it is, I think, one of the defining differences in opinion between many European and American commentators on the Palestinian Question. I think most people outside the US take it as given that Israel will continue to exist unproblematically, thanks in large part to America's bloated annual aid and its guarantee for Israeli security. In Britain, for example, I think most people just don't think Israel is at danger of destruction because of the ongoing turmoil in the occupied territories. I think this also, generally, defines attitudes to terrorism in general. Few in Europe seriously believe their state is on the precipice of complete destruction as a result of terrorist attacks; in America, we're way more paranoid about that.

And of course, coupled with Israel's gigantic military advantage vis-à-vis its neighbours, let alone the TERRITORIES IT OCCUPIES, so bold an assertion proves more facile than Americans seem to accept.

I further quibble with that queasy romantic take on America's love of 'frontier' countries, on many grounds. I'm sorry, but Palestine has always been inhabited--from before the Jews 'arrived', until after the destruction of the kingdom(s) of the Jews, to the extension of the caliphate(s), to the European mandates. The Jews in 1948 did not create something ex nihilo--there was a whole society, mostly Arab, but also Jewish, Christian and others, that continued to be present. Saying otherwise is a patent falsehood, and it buys into Israel's self-deceptive myths; much, indeed, as the US buys into its own myths about its exceptionalism and--yes--its pioneering spirit. (Only, of course, Americans weren't pioneering in the wild entirely; there were Native Americans everywhere, and Spaniards--later Mexicans--to the South and the West; all forgotten...) And South Korea is a silly example. There was no wholesale re-engineering of South Korea's demographics after the Korean War. If anything, Korea simply undertook the same policies adopted by Germany and Japan after the Second World War: that is, a managed (read: state-directed) economic growth policy to reconstruct its destroyed, and in the event backward economy, and it worked wonders. South Korea, further, wasn't occupied, like Palestine; South Korea was under American military protection, much like Japan and Germany. Protection does not equal occupation, and that makes all the difference. It's also an affront to make any direct comparisons between South Korea and Gaza, for what should be obvious reasons. (Oh, but of course it's not obvious; NPR is just being silly, as are continued reports of food and supplies shortages in Gaza...)

What's even more galling, however, is that you concentrate your energies on putting us on a pedestal--because we Americans just absolutely love the truth, and can't stand to be lied to--whilst wantonly ignoring our, well, ignorance of the truth. In America, you only get half the truth--Israel's half--about what has transpired, and what continues to transpire. So Yasser Arafat wasn't a shining beacon of democracy and political legitimacy in the Middle East. But it is not as though the UN, European states, pretty much every NGO worth its name, and countless independent enquiries--even within Israel itself, mind--haven't consistently pointed out the many, MANY egregious harms done by the Israeli occupation on the Palestinian people.

And what makes it all so unique, indeed, is the fact that this is a problem of our--the West's--creation. You can bang on and on about the Armenians, the Tibetans, et al, but the simple fact of the matter is that those are peoples who were--and to some degree, are--oppressed by folks outside of our direct control. But what of Palestine, carved as it was out of a large series of protectorates under British control? What of Palestine, whose creation is owed to UN sponsorhip of Zionist claims to a separate homeland? What of Palestine, where the US transfers billions of dollars to fund one of the best-equipped militaries on Earth, and which enjoys singular transfers of technology and weaponry to fight terrorists fighting with the most arcane weapons? What of Palestine, where Israel has flouted more Security Council resolutions--the self-same Security Council that guaranteed Israeli independence--than should be deemed acceptable? What about the Palestine that has been illegally occupied, partially ethnically cleansed (let's not mince our words), and which continues to be colonised in an era when we're told colonisation is no longer acceptable?

The truth of the matter, Sgt. Mom, is that yours are tendentious arguments that appeal to only the worst in the American psyche--its pompous self-regard, its back-patting congratulations over its supposed even-handedness, its love of 'winners'--whilst studiously (no, stupidly) ignoring not just historical verities, but present-day suffering. So it doesn't matter to you that Gaza is slowly being strangled, if not entirely starved (in the words of Israeli officials). That this goes against the spirit AND letter of international law, international humanitarian law, and the laws of war doesn't bother you one iota.

You think that's splendid because you're a gee-whiz, we-know-what's-best American. I call it a callous indifference both to truth and suffering.