When trying to explain the us/israel relationship I always get hung up on this part, which is the most immediate experience people in western countries have with the conflict. Were people getting fired for voicing mild criticism of apartheid south africa at work?
it’s a weird rhetorical trick to wrap people’s heads around, it’s US repression against US citizens for opposing US policy, it’s all coming from inside the house. but because it’s posed as support for ‘another state’ people’s nationalist wires get crossed. i’ve got to wonder if the state intentionally designed their rhetoric this way or just accidentally fell into it from the antisemites propagating israel-as-controller narratives.
but maybe it’d be easy to explain by historical allusion: no one would take seriously the idea that South Vietnam was orchestrating US aid & deployments to itself or directing US troops to kill college students in the US. the illusion of Israel’s freedom of action can be analyzed in the details today but even the overwhelming media perception of its independence will be swept away with time, just like the idea ‘South Vietnam’ was a real country the US was simply helping out
The domestic recession isn’t bad for the capital class, in fact they are doing great- we just had One of the greatest wealth transfers to the rich ever.. Also South Africa (region and country) is/was not an integral part of American foreign policy, hence why Zimbabwe and Angola were allowed to fall to communist revolution. Israel though was for the longest time America’s only (useful) ally in the region- Egypt, Iraq, Lybia, and Syria were all Baathist and more or less anti west, Turkey only cared about defending against Soviet invasion, Iran was being Iran, and the house of Saud were/are subjects to the Wahhabi movement.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, necessarily, but I think you misread “repression” as “recession”.
You’re right, totally did
Removed by mod
Now I could be talking out of my ass, but my own stance has been that foreign countries’ support for the Zionist entity is based on risk vs reward in short. So the simple answer for why the government of the USA is so willing to “kick the hornet’s nest”, as it were, is not because “Joe Biden is a cuck” or because of some sort of “ZOG” conspiracy, but rather because the consequences for the Usonian bourgeoisie of “kicking the hornet’s nest” is simply, as it were, less: they have the most to gain from the continued occupation of Palestine, and the least to lose. If there is a big regional war in the Middle East, the Usonian bourgeoisie will continue to sip martinis like they always have, and if average Usonian workers die in such a war, then this is not of much concern for them so long as they can still secure their own class rule.
Then the further down the chain of the imperial core we go, the risk of the colonial project failing becomes more disproportionate to the reward of its continued existence. Thus the “fringes of the core” will be the first countries in the imperial core to establish diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine as a sort of “brace position”, such that they can move towards neocolonial rule of a liberated or partially liberated Palestine long before the liberation has actually occurred — the bourgeoisie of these countries are simply more anxious about not getting a good return on investment, so they’re more willing to “set one foot out the door”. Then by the time we get to the bourgeois dictatorships of the imperial periphery and semi-periphery, it’s practically guaranteed that these countries will already recognize and have relations with the State of Palestine, because this has been in their national bourgeoisie’s interests from the beginning.
This being my analysis, I might even say that it is the “fringes of the core” that provide “insurance” for the USA’s recklessness: whatever the USA might do, its allies will already work to ensure neocolonial rule no matter what, thus the consequences for the USA’s actions are further lessened. The USA is then free to be diehard for Zionism until the exact minute it is pronounced dead.
This is just my own perspective, though, and it could be wrong or uneducated. In any case we need to remember that we should be analyzing based on class foremost: that “calling the shots” may be a useful shorthand in some situations, but that ultimately no country ever truly “calls the shots” of another — there are only individual actors within countries who cooperate or conflict based on their own circumstances.
deleted by creator
