This Martian also might
learn that the residents of Gaza—most of them descendants of refugees
who had fled or been driven from Israel in 1948—had been under Israeli
occupation for 46 years, and intensified closure for six, a policy
described by Israeli officials as “economic warfare” and privately by
American diplomats as intended to keep Gaza “functioning at the lowest
level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis.” He might
note that Gaza’s water supply is failing, as Israel blocks the entry of
materials that could be used to repair and upgrade its sewage and
water-treatment infrastructure. That ten percent of its children suffer
from malnutrition and that cancer and birth defects are on the rise.
That the fighting had started after a long standing truce had broken
down after a series of tit-for-tat incidents, followed by the Israeli
assassination of an Hamas leader, and the typical Hamas response of
firing inaccurate rockets, which do Israel little damage.
But
our man from Mars is certainly not an American. And while empathy for
the underdog is said to be an American trait, this is not true if the
underdog is Palestinian.
Among the chief
milestones of Washington’s reaction to Israel’s military campaign were:
President Obama stated from Bangkok that America supported Israel’s
right “to defend itself” and “no country on earth would tolerate
missiles raining down on its citizens” while national-security aide
Benjamin Rhodes added “the reason there is a conflict in Gaza is because
of the rocket fire that’s been launched at Israeli civilians
indiscriminately for many months now.” Congress took time off from
partisan wrangling about the fiscal cliff to pass unanimously two
resolutions, in the Senate and House, expressing its “unwavering
commitment to the security of the State of Israel” and backing its
“inherent right to protect its citizens against acts of terrorism.” Its
members could further inform themselves by attending a closed briefing
by Israel’s ambassador Michael Oren on November 28, the only figure
invited by the House Foreign Affairs Committee to testify.
As
the fighting continued, Walter Russell Mead, a prominent political
scientist, conveyed impatience with the just-war tradition seemed to
inhibit Israeli air attacks, which by then had killed and wounded scores
of people. Mead asserted that Americans would back an Israeli response
of “unlimited ferocity.”
When Republican governor
of Virginia Bob McDonnell, not known for his foreign-affairs opinions,
issued a statement backing Israel’s response to “unwarranted and random
violence,” he was assumed to be signaling his presidential aspirations.
The polls seemed to back him up: Americans told pollsters they supported
Israel’s actions against the Palestinians in Gaza by 57 percent to 25
percent, though the percentage of backers were somewhat lower among
Democrats (41 percent), and the young (45 percent).
One
explanation for such sentiments is that most Americans take foreign
policy cues from political leaders, and no prominent American politician
is willing to publicly express sympathy or compassion for Palestinians
at the expense of Israel...
PS:Scott McConnell is a founding editor of The American Conservative.
No comments:
Post a Comment