Banner headline events almost always flow from quieter real-life causes, and the worst attack on Israel in fifty years is not an exception.
Antony Blinken announced the American-pushed ceding by Israel of miles of potentially resource-heavy land to Lebanon, much of which is controlled by Hezb'allah, a proxy for Iran.
The White House is leaking its concerns that an Israeli attack could lead to a "Regional conflagration" - an early justification for limiting Israel's response.
In the face of a Wall Street Journal report alleging Iranian involvement in the planning of the attack, The New York Times reported anonymous American officials claiming that "Key Iranian leaders were surprised by the Hamas attack." Israel and the United States are gearing up for a campaign against Hamas that's explicitly compared to its campaign against ISIL - one that in the hands of Robert Malley and Brett McGurk ended up strengthening Iran in 2015.
The Times has focused on the fact that "Severe divisions in Israel over a judicial overhaul" encouraged the attack and gone so far as to suggest that the Abraham Accords caused the attack by antagonizing Palestinians.
One of the reasons these narrative lines can get pushed is the selective silences of people, mostly Democrats and neoconservatives, who have long called themselves Israel's friends but whose domestic loyalties are to the think tank and administrative nexus which helped make the attack possible: the one which effectively took power a quarter century ago and which has pushed the Middle East from one disaster to the next ever since.
These establishment loyalists are ready to criticize institutions for failing to condemn support of Hamas, but not to admit that the roots of the attack on Israel go deeper: towards the heart of an establishment that has systematically made itself unaccountable to the American people and hospitable to ideologues running radicalisms inside it.
No comments:
Post a Comment