|
the point i'm trying to make here is that there are any number of ways to frame israel as a political matter. you'd think that after the gaza atrocities the focus would be more on moving forward with creating a viable palestine--which would require the dismantling of the settlements in the west bank and their attending military/colonial infrastructure. but placing the emphasis on this situation makes israel into a colonial power. which it is.
placing emphasis on a perceived threat to israel from iran keeps israel in the role of potential victim, which is consistent with the fantasy-image of israel that's been used repeatedly to rationalized unconditional support from the american state for anything that israel does. it also enables a continual looking-the-other-way on problems that related to palestine--which aren't going away---and which constitute the single most important underlying threat to the region--because much of the hostility directed at israel follows from it's treatment of palestinians. theres no way around this, politically or logically.
if you separate this manipulation of the meaning of israel (how it functions as a signifier, which is altered by the contexts that are layed over it) and think about iran...
i support the obama administration's approach to iran. i am hoping--as i suppose most folk are---that ahmadinejad looses in the coming elections and is replaced with someone who doesn't play the same game. the paradox of the dick-waving approach to iran used by the bush people and manipulated by the israeli right for it's own purposes is that it simultaneously decries ahmadinejad's administration while providing it EXACTLY the conditions it requires to stay in power.
so it seems to me that if anyone is seriously concerned with what the iranians may or may not be doing with their nuclear program, they would support an approach that doesn't play straight into maintaining the political conditions that make of it a real or imaginary Problem.
of course, the other hilarious, counter-intuitive aspect of this game is that israel is a nuclear power...but iran is the problem. so the israeli nuclear arsenal is not understood as destabilizing...how does that work?
o i know i know: they haven't said much about it--but they can't (see dippin's post above)...what does that change?
nuclear weapons are in themselves a bad bad idea. it'd be better if every last one of them was taken apart, instructions for building them erased.
and if you're worried about the consequences of nuclear proliferation, why bother dwelling on imaginary scenarios with iran when you can fret about quite real scenarios involving pakistan?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|