The Dimwit in question is Jennifer
Rubin, writing for the Washington Post,
who on 28 January published
some commentary about the Obama administration’s policy towards Egypt
charmingly titled “Our Dimwitted State Department”. My creativity being of the stunted nature, I
thought I’d borrow a rhetorical leaf from Rubin’s book.
She began on a promising note,
critiquing the President’s uncritical arming of the Egyptian government. In undertaking such a move, Obama follows in
the illustrious footsteps of every one of his predecessors. Flogging arms to autocrats, thugs and murderers
is a specialty of the U.S. government and arms industry. After all, there’s plenty of money to be
made.
If Obama is the villain of Rubin’s
piece, Senator Jim Inhofe is the hero.
He has been inveighing against the Obama administration for selling
F-16s to the Egyptian government—less, it should be noted, out of any concern
for the safety of Egyptian citizens or the health of Egyptian democracy than
out of an extraordinary solicitousness for Israeli security.
In assailing the State Department for
dealing with Egyptian President Morsi, Rubin wrote, “We should be deploring
Morsi’s move and making clear that the special relationship Egypt enjoys is
dependent upon the regime’s behaviour”. First,
note that the word “regime” suggests a certain illegitimacy, but however
crudely populist Morsi might be, he is legitimate. And let’s face it, he doesn’t have anything
on GOP Presidential candidates last year who told audiences that sick people
should be left to die if they can’t afford health insurance, proudly proclaimed
the number of people they’d executed to audience applause, who equated gay
marriage with “man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be”, and who suggested
that Muslims should be prohibited from public service in the United
States.
What Inhofe and Rubin don’t have much of
a problem with is the manner in which Morsi is dealing with dissent and violating
people’s rights. And there, he shares
some notable characteristics with the Israeli “regime”. The word “regime” is perhaps more applicable
in this case, because although commentators in the United States are wont to
praise Israel as the region’s only democracy, it only counts if we discount its colonies, the possession of which
generally precludes a democracy given that possession of colonies is predicated
on some people possessing fewer rights than others, and being subject to the
controls and whims of the colonisers.
Rubin’s remark about Morsi—to the effect
that our “relationship” with Egypt should be predicated on his “behaviour”—should
apply equally to Israel. Surely a
country that sows such instability in the Middle East by dispossessing people from
their land, herding them into marginal territory, deliberately creating
refugee-like conditions amongst those people, and sabotaging their every effort
to obtain international recognition is violating enough legal norms and moral frameworks
that we should reconsider our support.
Surely a country which takes U.S.
military aid and then expands its imperial incursions onto subject people’s
lands through illegal settlements, should be prepared to suffer, at the
minimum, a loss of uncritical support.
Chuck Hagel, Obama’s pick for Defence
Secretary, was
today grilled for once saying that Israel keeps “Palestinians caged up like
animals”, for suggesting that the Israeli lob intimidates people, and for
suggesting that Palestinians who seek to kill Israelis have legitimate “grievances”. One Senator attacked him for saying that
Israel stands guilty of war crimes, because it is “particularly offensive given
the Jewish people suffered war crimes”. The
same bloviating hypocrite (Ted Cruz) attacked Hagel for referring to the “Jewish”
rather than “Israeli” lobby, precisely the same conflation Cruz performed in attempting
to use the Holocaust experienced by Jews in the 1940s to obscure Israeli war crimes
in the twenty-first century.
Much is made of Hagel’s remarks about the
Israeli lobby’s intimidation. I
personally don’t see how what Hagel said is in any way controversial. All lobby groups, by their nature, work by
some combination of carrot and stick.
They use both bribes and threats, some implicit, others explicit. Their task is to make politicians fear for
their job so that they will perform the will of the lobby in question. Everyone knows this. It is one of the elementary problems of our
democracy that no politician is willing to tackle...because they’ve already
sold themselves to various lobbies.
We see intimidation everywhere. Our President is intimidated. Why else would he go to AIPAC every year and
talk about how much he loves Israel and how unshakeable his commitment to
Israel is. This is a sordid, shameful ceremony
in which every President and every presidential candidate engages. Joe Biden is intimidated. Why else, during his Vice Presidential
debate, would he grin that toothy grin and talk about how much he loves nutty “Bibi”
Netanyahu? Hagel himself is
intimidated. Why else would he be
attempting to backtrack on all of these statements now? Most of the Senate is intimidated. Why else would they spend so much time
talking about Israel’s needs instead of our own, particularly when Israel’s
intransigence, coupled with our blinkered backing of its every move, tends to
bring the ire of its neighbours down on our own heads.
Rubin concluded, “You have to wonder
why, in the face of a mound of evidence to the contrary, the Obama team keeps
enabling a [sic] Islamist despot”. I don’t
hear Rubin’s crocodile sobs on behalf of people in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain when
their U.S.-armed autocrats brutally put down protests. Where was she during the Mubarak years, when
the dictator and his family engorged themselves on their nation’s wealth and
swept aside all dissent...once again using U.S. arms? Does she have any sympathy for Palestinians
when the Israeli government blocks their efforts to attain statehood, or rolls
through their territories, or erects a blockade, always safe in the knowledge
that it can maintain its colonial regime so long as it has the unconditional
backing of the U.S. government?
Has she ever spoken out against the global
arms trade in which the U.S. participates so enthusiastically? This is, after all, a trade of spectacular
proportions in which arms companies rake in incomprehensibly large profits so
that people may be killed every year around the world in their thousands. It is a murderous trade which in a just world
would be criminalised. Rubin is right to
object to weapons sales to Egypt. But
she should equally reject the arming of other countries, in general because the
proliferation of weapons of war brings no good to mankind, and in particular in
those places where those weapons are so actively used to promote injustice and
inequality.
Rubin’s critique is partly dim-witted,
but most just hypocritical.