So, let’s say that at least part of the point of the 9/11 attacks was to get the American people to focus on the plight of the Palestinians. I think we can support such a supposition by looking at bin-Laden’s 1998 Fatwa in which he made the following assertion:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.
The al-Aqsa Mosque sits atop the ruins of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that was destroyed by Vespasian and Titus in 70 CE. Because Muslims still control the Temple Mount, bin-Laden’s language was symbolic and meant that Jews would be expelled from East Jerusalem (at the very least). It’s important that Americans realize that al-Qaeda is trying to kill them (in part) because of our support for Israel and Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. It has nothing to do with our freedoms. In any case, (via Yglesias) here is how bin-Laden’s message was received by the American people.
While bin-Laden did achieve his goal of expelling U.S. troops from the land of the two mosques (Mecca and Medina), he absolutely destroyed support for the Palestinians with the American people, whose support is crucial to getting American politicians to force Israel into making needed concessions. If the name of the game is to sway American public opinion, the Intifada and the Second Intifada (combined with 9/11) had the exact opposite effect, making the use of terrorism about the most counterproductive and pointless exercise imaginable.
Bin Laden’s goal was not to get attention to the Palestinian people, at least in reality. Sure, he claims it was one of the main reasons, but in truth Bin Laden doesn’t give a damn about them whatsoever. They’re just tools for recruitment, same as most leaders in the region. No one really seems to care about them except for citizens around the world. They’re seen as pawns to people like Bin Laden.
I’d say, though, that it’s not terrorism that is the most counterproductive exercise, at least with respect to this issue, but it’s violence. Even if I see Hamas and such defending themselves as justified, as the Israelis are occupiers, it’s not going to achieve anything but kill innocent people, and push you and your cause into a corner. I’m a subscriber of the Doctrine of Double Effect, though, so killing purposefully attacking civilians is never justified in my opinion. I only see it as defense if it’s attacking the IDF; and even still, is that self-defense going to achieve anything other than more violence and bloodshed?
It’s the difference between MLK and Malcom X. Both radicals, despite historical revisionism, but one keeping with non-violence, and the other advocating for violence in an act of self-defense. I think we’ve seen what’s more productive, even if the less-effective measure is justified.
I can only go on his stated goals. Obviously, his number one issue was getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia and Zawahiri’s number one goal was toppling the Mubarak regime in Egypt. But the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks were certainly motivated in large part by the Palestinian issue, so my point stands.
“the 9/11 attacks were certainly motivated in large part by the Palestinian issue, so my point stands.”
Although you may be correct, I just have never read about any “large part” relationship between 9/11 and the Palestinian cause in the media. It certainly was always a mentionable in OBL’s speeches, but Israel was always an afterthought, a mentionable, but not a central theme.
Certainly, Israel propaganda tried to make this connection, as for example, Sharon’s insistence that whereas America had a terrorist problem, so did Israel, referring to militant Palestinian groups.
I am correct.
Ray McGovern covered this in November.
You are absolutely correct, but wrong.
The American public just doesn’t read Ray McGovern; they read the MSM, and I have yet to read a story in the MSM in which Israel or the IP conflict was implicated as the cause, or one cause of 9/11. Call it bias or censorship, but there is no publicity that proIsrael factions would hate more than to find what Israel is doing to the Palestinians trumped in a headline as the cause of 9/11.
Such a headline would undoubtedly rile up Americans and get them to ask, is our relationship to Israel, and what they are doing to the Palestinians, worth it? To the contrary, support for Israel is a highly valued concept by Americans in general. They have been told that time and again: we love Israel, right or wrong. No change that, just “right.” Israel is helping us fight terrorism, and even if it is the wrong terrorism, the so what?.
well, at least Petraeus is allowed to point out the obvious under this administration.
SO will the US military act to end the IP conflict?
One only hopes that, as the only new player in this conflict, excluding the EU whose voices are slowly being brought under control anyway, it will do just that. But if it is not publicized and made a public issue, and the American people don’t get behind it, it too will come to nought.
Some opinions say we will have to wait until Obama’s second term, if he makes it. Then in the last year, following Clinton and Bush, he will make an effort, one which will of course follow the pattern of being too late.
I don’t know.
I don’t think either America or Israel has the political will to do what must be done. Something will have to happen to focus attention on the problem, and obviously even a 9/11 won’t do it, and will, in fact, have the opposite effect unless there is true leadership in the aftermath.
Israel’s actions have contributed to the loss of thousands of American lives and it will happen again.
Something like say, apartheid? What really turned the tide in South Africa? A lot of people don’t see this situation for what it is, even though it’s already there, especially in EJ. However, with the continued expansion of settlements and land grabs, it might be easier for the rest of America to see.
This is a question, not rhetorical, what called to the attention and solution of South African apartheid despite it existing like that for 50 years?
It just took a long time to get noticed, but once it was, and the BDS movement got started….it eventually came down. That period might have been less than twenty years.
there was considerable student efforts to get universities to divest from South Africa, and eventually their isolation became crippling.
However, South Africa is not in the bible, and people’s views of what went on there were not influenced by superfluous matters.
I don’t know whether the Apartheid analogy is ultimately helpful or not. I don’t think it was taken root so far.
You must mean that US media have not bought into it yet. But if you take into consideration Netanyahu’s recent announcements about the extent of Israeli colonialism, it is Apartheid. Of course Jimmy Carter had to deal with his use of the term in the title of his book, and even Pelosi denied that Israel is an Apartheid state. In reality, he was referring to Palestine, not Israel, but that didn’t matter to the critics.
Shergald, what specific actions would you suggest the U.S. military can take to end the IP conflict?
Off the bat, publicity and getting the American public to understand the dangerous and immoral connections we have and have had with Israel over the years, in our financial and military support.
I’m really interested in hearing just what Hillary Clinton will present at the AIPAC convention. Will see repeat Biden’s statement, that “this is getting dangerous for us?”
I would make a security arrangement offer to them combined with a threat that if they didn’t accept it, we would end our financial support.
The situation now is much different than it was in 1973, when Israel was quite vulnerable. Israel is not threatened by annihilation (excepting the remote change of a nuclear event). They are threatened by harassment by rocket and occasional suicide attacks.
We can assure them of total commitment to their security if they are ever again menaced by a legitimate mobilization of forces, as well as other technological and financial inducements, in return for an evacuation of the West Bank and other modifications, along lines that have long been established.
But, we never can muster a credible stick to go with the carrot.
” evacuation of the West Bank?”
Much too late for that. Only Barak suggested a reasonable end to the occupation: Israel sets its borders, then withdraws tens of thousands of settlers behind it. The rest will constitute Palestine, with land swaps, presumably.
That was Barak’s suggestion five years ago on the Charlie Rose Show, Jan 25, 2005. In that interview, he also acknowledged the falsity of the “generous offer.”
But we are not seeing something like it implemented or even suggested by Kadima or Likud.
Israel has no interset in ‘total commitment to their security’ by the US or anyone else. Once it accepts that total security is guaranteed they are no longer in danger and then forfeit the present opportunities to steal more land and resources under the pretext of protecting their security. The game has to do with grabbing other peoples possessions—stealing. It has nothing to do with anything else. In fact, Israel is at this moment entirely secure. Violent attacks still occur but the country’s security is not at risk.
Not at all at risk. But it is still pumped up and in fact is at the center of Israeli propaganda today: “the right to exist” is what’s being threatened, according to the hasbarists. The existential threat today comes from Iran and not the Palestinians, although one can still see Hamas characterized as an existential threat. Hamas does not recognize Israel.
However, the opposite is also true: Likud does not recognize Palestine or a Palestinian state, at least according to their Charter. Diane Kamamura wrote an article about the Likud Charter over on EI a few years ago.
Come on now, is Iran REALLY an existential threat to Israel?
As I said, not at all.
Sorry, my misunderstanding. Can’t this whole Israeli colony policy in Israel-occuppied Palestine be explained as enormous real estate speculation, maybe more of a plain and simple business proposition than anything else? Nothing is more valuable than the actual land of this earth and Israel pretends to have the deed from Yaweh in the form of their book. It has the right to the proceeds.
The biblical hypothesis seems to apply mostly to the religious settler groups, but somewhere I read an estimate of their numbers, only 5%. The drive for land, the colonialism, seems to have ethnocratic or ethnocentric roots, the homeland for Jews idea taken to its extreme, we want all of it.
Indeed, terrorism sucks. But I don’t believe that it took Bin Laden’s gripes about Israeli occupation of the Al Aqsa mosque to do damage to the Palestinian cause in American’s minds. In part it was censorship and bias by the US media that helped considerably to cast Palestinians as terrorists; but it was also the Israeli PR effort that pushed the theme of Israel as victim and Palestinians as terrorists trying to wipe Israel off the map, if I may borrow that phrase. And it does little to reignite a debate about the causes of the Second Intifata suicide bombings and their instigation.
Those bombings causes consierable damage to the Palestinian cause for freedom and self-determination in a state of their own. The Israeli occupation and colonialism never appeared to skip a beat during the Sharon prime ministership.
This old documentary pretty much supports the view that terrorism sucks, and remains relevant today:
Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land (with Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Arik Ackerman, and many others)
Part I:
Part II:
It only took our military nine years to wake up.
“the real break came in January, when David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America’s relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America’s soldiers. Maybe Israel gets the message now.”
I don’t think Israel got the message, or at least not Netanyahu. His arrogance is indominable.
Make that “indomitable.”
They have their own Yiddish word for his behavior—chutzpah!
Why would you take bin Laden at his word? I see no reason to believe that he has any interest beyond his own power? I think he uses stupid Muslims for his own purposes exactly the way the American Right uses stupid Christians. That his terrorism succeeded in bringing down what was left of American democracy makes his quest 100% successful.
Why would I take him at his word? Well, on many things, I wouldn’t. But bin-Laden is a human being with a family history, with employment history, and with a long career of making public proclamations. He was kicked out of Saudi Arabia for criticizing the Royal Family over their decision to invite American troops onto their soil. Zawahiri was arrested and tortured in an Egyptian prison. Why? He was suspected as being involved in the assassination of Sadat. Why was Sadat killed? For making peace with Israel. KSM explicitly stated that Israel was his motivation. I think these people have a generalized dislike of American policy in the middle east generally and in their home countries in particular. And I don’t think they are dishonest when they voice those opinions. How much do they care about the Palestinians versus other issues? Depends on the person, but it is a central element of anti-American feeling and it comes with a price.
I agree that Palestine is the prime means bin Laden and the rest of the sociopaths use to win power. The same way their American counterparts use abortion or gay marriage or “socialism”.
One of the first things we did in response to 9/11 was make a deal with Qatar to move our air operations there from Saudi Arabia. That made sense. That was a response to why we were attacked. But we didn’t listen to the other reasons and doubled-down by invading Iraq, thereby adding a new grievance.
The IP conflict is not just another political issue, like abortion, gay rights, or socialism.
If any American can agree that dissolving a unique people, of taking away their identity, of taking their lands, killing them when they protest, and replacing them with another people, were just another political issue, then certainly slavery and Jim Crow segregation were okay. It just depended on your political viewpoint.
But for a more germane case, you might ask: why did the US get so upset when the Serbs ethnically cleansed (and killed) the Muslim Korsovans? Haven’t the Israelis been doing the same thing to the Palestinians for over 60 years?
I was referring to my take on bin Laden & cos’ commitment to that cause, not the justice of the cause itself.
Yes, exactly.
Wasn’t there stuff floating around that Bin Laden was pissed that the CIA cut him off from their version of wingnut welfare? Remember, we funded Bin Laden and his buddies during the Russian war/occupation.
there’s a lot of stuff “going around” but that doesn’t make it true.
Bin Laden comes from one of the richest, most important families in Saudi Arabia. His family did the remodeling of Mecca. He didn’t need welfare from anybody. He did, indeed, participate in Charlie Wilson’s War, but as a fundraiser for the most part. bin-Laden went to Pakistan for adventure like many young men went to Spain during the Civil War. He didn’t go there at the behest of the CIA or have any relationship with them. He probably had some relationship with the ISI in Peshawar though.
.
OBL’s war is about occupation of foreign troops (infidels) in the land of Muhammad, the Islamic holy places and Muslim countries. As all revolutionaries, he uses discontent and division to recruit his fighters in many nations. There are many places world-wide where states are divided between christians and muslims: Bosnia, Chechnya, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, Somalia, etc. OBL also exploits the Sunni/Shia religious divide throughout the Muslim world. His first war was with CIA backing in Afghanistan fighting and defeating a world power, the Soviet Union. Next were the satellite states of the former CSSR such as Chechnya with a large Muslim population to gain control of government e.g. The US allowed illegal shipments of arms into the Balkans in support of the Muslim people of Bosnia, hereby introducing Al Qaeda cells and OBL foreign fighters into Europe.
The invasion and occupation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi troops, was a major turning point. He volunteered his foreign fighters to the Saudi King to rid Kuwait of the Iraqi forces. Pointedly his most disturbing grievance was the presence of U.S. forces in the land of Saudi Arabia with the holy places Mecca and Medina. Even your graph shows the major shift of public opinion in favor of the Israelis and opposition to the Palestinian cause in the year 1990-91. The reason was both King Hussein of Jordan (protector of Medina) and Yasser Arafat vowed to support Saddam Hussein (Sunni) in his adventure. Israel was being attacked by Saddam’s scud missiles and the world opinion shifted in Israel’s support. The cost of the U.S. military in Gulf War I would be carried by the rich oil nations of the Gulf region and the UK was rewarded with the largest military arms deal ever. Good for Thatcher, Bush #41 and SoS James Baker III. The reward for the Arab nations was the Oslo Accords in regards to the I/P conflict. Netanyahu has never recognized these terms and flagrantly decided to push forward with the illegal settlement push on Palestinian land.
In the meantime, the Saudi Kingdom evicted Osama Bin Laden and he left for Sudan where he tried to build his emperium and give employment to many of his supporters (mujadeen fighters ex-Afghan war). In the 90s OBL joined forces with the Muslim brotherhood (assassination Sadat) and Zawahiri and had to move again to Taliban controlled Afghanistan where he continued with training foreign fighters, had backing of all parties in the region: Pakistan extremists from religious schools, ISI and Pakistan government. Remember, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was recognized by United Arab Emirates (falconry), Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
The link with 911 and Islamic terrorism (Saudis) to the Palestinians was made through a PR campaign by Netanyahu, Sharon, AIPAC lobbyists and the Neocon US-Israel political movement. For only a single purpose: Eretz Israel, eternal city Jerusalem for the Jewish people and evicting as many Palestinians as possible from their homeland.
Your interpretation of the graph is misleading. It really shows eight years of repugnant right-wing extremism joining hands (Bush and Sharon-Likud) to subjugate the Palestinian people. Does terror work? Of course it does, the existence of the state of Israel is the best illustration!
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
good point on the Gulf War turning American people against the Palestinians. Otherwise, our only disagreement is over the degree to which the terror threat is fueled by Israel and Israel-U.S. relations. From their point of view, infidels are occupying Muslim land in Israel. And, that’s permanent, unlike our troops in, say, the Balkans.
I’ve alway maintained that bin Laden’s main goal was/is to destabilize nuclear Pakistan (championing Palestinians is/was likewise about enraging Pakistan [and Indonesian – another Muslim powerhouse] Muslims). And we’ve been a huge help in that department.