The Face Of Terrorism
It’s time for Americans to look in the mirror—but we’ll get to that. Today one aspect of the joint US - Israeli terror attacks on Lebanon that’s getting a lot of attention is the revelation by NBC News (quoting an “Israeli official”) of the rationale for killing Nasrallah. It was Nasrallah’s insistence that there could be no Israel - Hezbollah deal without a cessation of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. That was the deal breaker. Genocide is now revealed as the bedrock of the Zionist project under Netanyahu’s vision of a Greater Israel—greater in a territorial sense, not a moral sense.
This, of course, gives the lie to one of Netanyahu’s and Israel’s many lies—that the killing of Nasrallah had anything to do with some sort of principled opposition to “terror.” Terror, after all, is the very foundation of Zionism, as exemplified by the Dahiya Doctrine. Many have been quick to pick up on the development of American deference to terror tactics over two decades:
Muhammad Shehada @muhammadshehad2
In 2002, George Bush strongly condemned Israel for killing Hamas' TOP militant b/c 14 civilians were killed in the same strike. Israel didn't dare call those victims "human shields"
Compare this to Biden/Harris revelling in Israel's slaughter of 300 civilians to get Nasrallah!
Aaron Maté @aaronjmate
How many baby-busting bombs and UN vetoes does Biden have to give Netanyahu before it finally sinks in that there are no “US concerns about civilian casualties”?
Others are pointing out how America is quickly descending to pariah status along with Israel. The tenor of this 2024 presidential campaigns rhetoric isn’t helping.
asad abukhalil أسعد أبو خليل @asadabukhalil
There has been no US president EVER who has unconditionally allowed unrestrained Israeli savagery in the Middle East as Biden has done. The US will suffer for years to come from the policies of Biden in the Middle East. More far reaching that Bush’s.
But let’s consider the subject of terror and who the terrorists are more generally. I came across a video clip of Noam Chomsky this morning in which he responds to the question:
Do you consider Hizbullah to be a terrorist organization?
The United States considers Hizbullah [to be] a terrorist organization, but the term "terrorrism" is used by the great powers simply to refer to forms of violence of which they disapprove. So the US was of course supporting the Israeli invasions and occupation of southern Lebanon. Hizbullah was instrumental in driving them out so, for that reason, they are a terrorist organization. It's a reflection of the power of the imperial states - the United States and Europe - that they are able to shift the framework so that the problem appears to be Hamas' policies and not the more extreme policies of the United States and Israel. And remember--we must remember that in their case it's not just policies. It's not words--it's actions.
I would quibble with the phrase “forms of violence.” I think a more accurate phrase, which would capture the inherent immoralism of big power policy, would be something like “the targets of violence” or “the ends to which violence is applied.” But overall it makes sense. Consider, after all, Anglo-Zionist sponsorship of Sunni terror—al Qaeda and ISIS—that targeted Middle East Christians and Yazidis:
Aaron Maté @aaronjmate
In NATO state media coverage of Hezbollah’s role in Syria, this perspective is not allowed to exist:
Quote
Hassan Chami @Hasschami
Yessir. We will never forget how [Hezbollah] defended the Middle East from a proxy war funded and backed by the West to fuel Israeli expansion and break the ties of the AoR [Axis of Resistance]. Mercenaries from all over, under the CIA’s command, tried to conquer our region and were defeated. Still waiting for an answer: if Bashar [Assad] had fallen, who would have ruled Syria? ISIS? America? Israel? They're all one and the same.
10:33 AM · Sep 28, 2024
In fairness, the Deep State launched a jihad against Michael Flynn for pointing this connection out, when he was head of DIA.
More perspective on Hezbollah and Nasrallah from the Syrian conflict (follow link for brief video):
روني الدنماركي @Aldanmarki
In Syria, it was Hezbollah under Nasrallah's leadership which liberated the Christian Monastery of Saint James the Mutilated from the bloodied hands of ISIS in 2013.
The nuns and monks still remember when they were liberated by Hezbollah with great admiration.
Quote
روني الدنماركي @Aldanmarki
He was the one leader in the region whose words everyone stopped to listen, friend and foe alike. He called for (and strived towards) interfaith reconciliation between Lebanon's Muslim & Christian communities for the betterment of society in the post-civil war years [in Lebanon].
12:25 PM · Sep 28, 2024
Now, here’s an interesting perspective from the man himself—Nasrallah. I’ve transcribed the subtitles, but you can also watch the video:
There is a misconception prevalent in the Arab world regarding Israel - US relations. We keep repeating this lie about the Zionist lobby--that the Jews rule America and are the real decision makers, and so on. No. America itself is the decision maker. You have a trinity of the oil companies, the weapons industry, and the so-called "Christian Zionism." The decision making is in the hands of this alliance. Israel used to be a tool at the hands of the British, and now it is a tool in the hands of America.
I get what he’s saying about what we would probably call the Military Industrial Complex—the MIC. He’s also right to point to the role of “Christian Zionism”. There’s no question that the particularly eschatological, literal, Anglo-American brand of Protestantism has been a powerful enabler of the Zionist Project, right from the beginning of Zionism as an essentially secular, nationalist, neo-colonial obsession. On the other hand, Mearsheimer—whom Nasrallah seems to be addressing—is right to point to the way that dynamic has changed. The MIC undoubtedly still profits from forever wars in the Middle East and elsewhere, but my view is that the MIC has many ways to make their money and can afford to be flexible—their profits won’t go away if Israel makes peace with its neighbors.
And yet Nasrallah may have had more of a point than he realized when he stressed the role of “Christian Zionism” in the unholy trinity of terrorism. From the start, Protestant literal interpretation and stress on the supposed “seamlessness” of “the Bible” (please consult the Archives for more extended treatment) and the embrace of the “Old Testament” as the literal “word of God” enabled the most extreme forms of Zionist holy war doctrine—clearing the land a la Joshua, finishing the job on “Amalek”, etc. In fact, just as David Goldman has argued that Protestantism is a “Judaizing heresy” of Christianity, a further argument can be made that the religious Zionism that now controls the Israeli government has actually been heavily influenced by “Christian Zionism’s” fundamentalism, just as other modern movements of Judaism have incorporated Christian influences. In this case, what I’m referring to is the appeal to a specifically religious element in the new Zionism that was missing, for the most part, among the original secular Zionists—who, however, were supported by “Christian Zionists” like Balfour.
Is it just me, or does this article title sound a bit religiously Lebensraum-y?
LogKa @LogKa11
NEW HEZBOLLAH LEADER : Hashem Safi al-Din has been promoted to Secretary General of Hezbollah. He’s more hardline than their predecessor Nasrallah.
Nasrallah said Israel is a tool in the hands of America. But if America, the Global American Empire, is staffed at all its nodes of control by dual citizens desiring aliyah, then who is whose tool?
It's been an interesting year, since last October 7, to come up to speed on Zionism, and Christian Zionism, and how it resulted in what is defacto the last Anglo colony, which we have not given up and now may never be able to as it always had a life of its own, which inhabits us. Its hard not to see America as colonized, it's hard to go back to sleep.