Saturday, 3 September 2011

Fisk, 911, Israel

Robert Fisk has written about 911 and Israel in an article headlined "For 10 years, we've lied to ourselves to avoid asking the one real question." Fisk believes the question "why?" has not been asked. He suggests it is has not been asked because to do so would undermine USA/Israeli relations. Not because he believes "Israel did it" but because the enemies of Israel did it, attacking USA because of its protection of its ally and client, recognition of which (so Fisk seems to believe) would drive USA away from Israel. Hence no "why" has been asked. Fisk writes
"The motivation for the attacks was "ducked" even by the official 9/11 report, say the authors. The commissioners had disagreed on this "issue" Рclich̩ code word for "problem" Рand its two most senior officials, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, were later to explain: "This was sensitive ground ...Commissioners who argued that al-Qa'ida was motivated by a religious ideology Рand not by opposition to American policies Рrejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... In their view, listing US support for Israel as a root cause of al-Qa'ida's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy." And there you have it.
The interesting thing about that is its mutually exclusive to the idea "Israel did it": if Israel's enemies did it to try to cleave apart USA and Israel, then it can't be said "Israel did it". And conversely, if it's said "Israel did it" (as so many of the conspiracist theories do) then it can't be said that American support for Israel was the cause.  (The implication also seems to be that if USA supported Israel even more, and attacked Islam/Arabs/Israel's enemies more, it would be safer.  Because attacking them doesn't breed terrorism.....not attacking them does.....apparently.)

 The upshot of all that - it is conspiracy theories which "lie to themselves to avoid asking the one real question". Conspiracy theory targeting Israel elevates Israeli/Jewish influence above that of real socio-political conditions and reaction in the Mid East and 'Islam'. It implicitly asserts the socio-political conditions are themselves incapable of generating such terrorism, at least amongst Arabs/Islam. (It also suggests Israel embraces it voluntarily as policy.)  It negates Al Qaida as a real force, and denies it has any real support - thereby denying the forces, conditions and history which generated Al Qaida (including Israel/Palestine).  (Whilst asserting supposed better conditions in Israel do generate terrorism.)

 Yet that isn't what the conspiracists actually say. Rather they litter their claims about 911 conspiracy with wider political issues, most notably Israel/Palestine... But consider, why would Israel do "it" and blame Al Qaida - an organisation known for attacking USA because of its support for Israel? Are they really suggesting Israel did it so as to undermine American support for Israel? That's obvious nonsense.

And if conditions in Palestine and the Arab-world are so bad, as the conspiracists keep complaining - and if all the blame lies on America and her support for Israel and tyrannical Arab regimes - why wouldn't those conditions produce terrorism against USA?  Likewise, if (as the conspiros claim) there's no such thing as AQ or Islamic terrorism, how can anyone claim things are really so bad in Gaza, Golan, Yemen, Afghan, whatever......

 Conspiros claim "It's war for Israel!" - that Israel manipulates the USA into attacking its enemies, like Iraq, for example. 9/11 was a singularly instrumental chapter in this, apparently. And Palestine is part of the reason too because Israel wants US support so it carried out 911 and blamed Arabs...guaranteeing American support of Israel and greater hostility towards her (arab/islamic) enemies. So the conpiracist narrative usually goes.

 But this makes no sense at all, if Fisk is right.

 For Fisk, it was American support of Israel (and wider social-political conditions) which produced Al Qaida.......but the conspiracists implicitly deny this by saying Al Qaida is "fake", it's a CIA/MOSSAD front, etc. If AQ is fake and is not motivated by Palestine and wider social conditions, then we don't have a problem with terrorism over Israel/Palestine or wider social conditions. So why do the conspiracists go on about it all the time if it really isn't anything to get bothered about? If the conditions are serious and unjust (as they claim) why do they deny that Al Qaida might be an expression of them?

If conditions are so bad, why shouldn't we expect them to generate terrorism and reaction?  Not so for conspiracism -  because the reaction is supposedly fake we can assume there is nothing to react to.  Else there would be genuine reaction, right?

Clearly the idea of an Israeli conspiracy obviates any discussion about support for Israel and the wider social conditions as causes of terrorism. [Even if it were agreed that support for Israel was generating terrorism, it wouldn't necessitate an end of such support. You don't stop doing something that's right simply because it is resisted by people who think it wrong.]

No comments: