|
Formerly Divided Americans Unite in Support of Zionist Atrocities
Over the past month, as the US has moved forward toward Operation Iranian Liberation, deploying its Israeli assets in a brutal re-invasion and occupation of Lebanon, the reaction of Americans has been fascinating to observe.
While at least according to some polls, support for the Iraq crusade may have begun to soften in recent months, especially among those Americans who consider themselves "moderate" or the term they are more likely to favor, "progressive," (I could easily do an entire rant on what the various factions crowded onto the four inch balance beam of the American political spectrum like to be called) the recent slaughter spree of US proxy forces in Lebanon just may have turned that around, reviving, if such was needed, America's enthusiasm for its "war on terror."
This phenomenon is perhaps nowhere more easily observed than on the internets, where as the first bombs began to fall on Lebanon, the famous cyber-armies of "defenders of Israel" were on the case! Pre-emptively heading off any potential critics at the pass, what they lack in eloquence more than compensated by extra zeal and ardor, these fighting keyboardists quickly reduced any temptation on the part of the more maverick cyber-thinkers to express any opposition to burning the flesh off Lebanese children to soft little mewlings of "maybe Israel overreacted a bit..."
It is worth pointing out that what Israel "may have overreacted a bit" to, for those unfamiliar with the story, is the ostensible capture by Lebanese not in the employ of the recently installed US puppet regime of a couple of Israeli gunmen, just conducting a routine military operation in Lebanon.
Of course, such an action must be referred to as a "kidnapping." "Capture" is a term reserved only for individuals seized by US or Israeli gunmen. And of course, Israel is free to conduct its military operations in Lebanon any time it wants to. It is, after all, Israel.
Israel was, therefore, obliged to launch a full-scale invasion and re-occupation of Lebanon, complete with 24 and 7 aerial bombardment, including the use of white phosphorous and other new, improved chemical agents, cluster bombs and the expected accoutrement of the most moral army in the world.
That is, of course, the western orthodoxy of events. Which, as western orthodoxies of events are wont to do, have some differences from the facts.
Facts, however, are irrelevant in the war on terror, and affinity for or use of them is frequently a sign that the speaker is in fact a terror sympathizer whose sole aspiration in life is to Push Israel Into The Sea.
It seems increasingly difficult for me to write much of anything recently without discussing gaps. Widening gaps, unbridgeable gaps.
But in the past month, I have noticed something different: a narrowing, closing gap.
There has traditionally been a very visible difference in the internet sites maintained and frequented by Americans who consider themselves to be more moderate as opposed to "right wing" or conservative, the "left" or "pro-Reform faction" is not really a player in this game, the United States has no "left," aside from a very very small number of individuals, so small that it cannot even be called a "minority" and certainly nowhere near anything that could be called a "Reform movement."
There are basically two sides: One side, the "right" or "conservatives," agree with US policies, and for the most part, agree with how they are being implemented, and are devotees of George Bush and of the Republican party.
The other side, the "moderate" or "progressive" side, agree with US policies but believe that the party and politicians of whom they are devotees, the Democratic party, could do a better job of implementing those policies.
Ralph Nader, who ran as the "Green Party" candidate, which is to say he did not really run, as third parties are for all practical purposes not allowed, called the Democrats and Republicans the "two branches of the corporate party," which is a very apt description, however, Mr. Nader's suggestion regarding the Iraq crusade was essentially the same "outsource the wetwork" offered by the Democrats, and that vignette from the 2004 "election campaign" is perhaps the most clear illustration of the American political landscape.
The Republicans believe that Americans should do the wetwork, and that the crusade should benefit corporations owned by Republicans.
The Democrats believe that the wetwork, at least some of it, should be outsourced, and that the crusade should benefit corporations owned by Democrats.
The notion that the crusade should not be taking place at all, that the US has no business invading and occupying other countries, and should cease aggression and disarm, is a concept endorsed only by that very very small number of individuals who are sadly, too few to make any idea of a Reform Movement a reality.
This is why it was so remarkable to see such a marked gap-narrowing, such a dramatic reduction of the perceptible difference in the ambience of internet sites frequented by the two sides.
Invasion, occupation, destruction of civilian infrastructure, chemical weapons, families burned alive, buried alive, people corralled onto highways for easier bombing - compare the "criticism" such as it is, of these actions to the floodgates of pure, unbridled, raw outrage reserved for the suggestion that the victims of such atrocities have the right to resist them!
I had noted, with interest, that while the phrase "Israel has the right to defend itself" is repeated roughly every third sentence uttered by any American or Israeli speaking on the subject in the media for the last month, and dutifully intoned on the internets by the ubiquitous Cyber-Defenders of Israel, I had yet to hear even one person utter what I came to call The Forbidden Phrase:
Lebanon has the right to defend itself
I did not, however realize how little the intensity of the sheer hatred that would be unleashed at the very notion that anyone in Lebanon might dare to do such a thing would differ whether one visits a website that styles itself as "conservative" or "progressive."
One of the jokes going around, more among easterners, I guess, since the westerners are obliged to cleave to the current orthodoxy of the propaganda of their warlords, is that when Bush has more than complied with the promise he made to be a "uniter, not a divider," since he has succeeded in unifying Sunni and Shia where all other attempts have failed for centuries.
It seems that he has also succeeded in unifying his own people, his detractors with his champions, Democrat with Republican, conservative with moderate.
All are now united inthe poison of their primitive bloodlust, in the raw, savage poison of hatred for those of their brothers their warlords have bade them consider as less than human, they are united in the poison of unquestioning obedience to those warlords, united in sacrificing the future of their own children to the poison of The Sitation.
|
