Israel’s success in presenting itself as existentially threatened in the run-up to the war provided Tel-Aviv with overwhelming public support in the post- Shoah Western World. Partly as a result, the US did not even try to force Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied during the war, as it did in 1957 in the aftermath of the Suez Crisis. Israel’s 1967 victory over the Soviet-equipped Egyptian and Syrian armies enthroned Tel-Aviv as a major Cold War asset for Washington. even refused to provide any military assistance to the Jewish state. under Harry Truman was among the first nations to recognize Israel in 1948, but American support for Israel did not begin to become “semi-unconditional” until 1967. In the Palestinian context, they represent the visible layer of a much deeper prejudice with historical, ethnic, and religious dimensions, which made it not only possible to identify with Israel, but also, inevitably, acceptable to devalue the suffering and basic rights of Israel’s victims. However, as I theorized in a previous article - while not downplaying the role of realpolitik in cementing the Israel-West alliance - mutual interests do not work in a vacuum. Traditionally, observers and scholars interpret the bias along the lines of mutual interests. “It is what it is, what do you expect?” they say. It has become so normalized that most Palestinians no longer pause to ponder its absurdity and preposterousness. The overall concept of anti-Palestinian bias is unsurprising, certainly coming from Washington.
Israel justified the military operation on the sheer assumption that the Islamic Jihad movement was planning to retaliate in response to Israel’s crackdown on the organization in the West Bank. The cream of the crop was the statement from Ukraine’s embassy in Tel-Aviv, which expressed sympathy for Israel and likened Israel’s attack on the besieged Gaza Strip to Ukrainians’ fight against Russia.įor Palestinians, the statements were astonishing not only because of their speed in condemning them and denying their right to self-defense, but also because they ignored the fact that Israel attacked Gaza unprovoked. Almost immediately after the first Israeli missile hit Gaza, the US State Department affirmed Israel’s “right to self-defense.” Britain’s Foreign Minister, Liz Truss, too, was unreserved in saying that the UK “stands with Israel and its right to defend itself.” A softer but rather vague statement came from the EU, which called for “maximum restraint on all sides to avoid a further escalation and further casualties.”
0 kommentar(er)
