We can see the present-ness of history in the efforts of expansion engaged in by Israel, supported by the US; US using Israel as a surrogate for its own endeavors.
Let’s take a look at some recent support for Israel from the US. September 23, 2021. The house of representatives overwhelmingly approved a $1billion dollar Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ missile-defense system. This system is Dome (Https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-backs-bill-provide-1-billion-israel-iron-dome-system-2021-09-23/).“The $1 billion in the Iron Dome funding bill is intended to replace missile interceptors Israel used to ward off rockets fired from Gaza during the May conflict.” Attending to the past by preparing for the future; Utilizing the past to justify the present preparations for the future; creating the inevitable by preparing as if violent conflict is inevitable.
Some of the remarks on the debate floor are interesting to examine (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/23/us/politics/israel-iron-dome-congress.html).“In an angry speech, Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida, said he would not allow “one of my colleagues to stand on the floor of the House of Representatives and label the Jewish democratic state of Israel an apartheid state.” Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, ““This bill demonstrates that Congress’ commitment to our friend and ally Israel is bipartisan and ironclad,” Ms. DeLauro said. “It fulfills our moral imperative to protect the lives of innocent civilians and helps build the foundations for peace.” (Emphasis mine).Protecting the lives of innocent civilians through increased spending for violent efforts. On the opposite side of the argument, “Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, said the United States should no longer continue to provide Israel with funding “without addressing the underlying issue of the occupation.” “This is not about one country,” she said. “If human rights are truly to guide our foreign policy, we need to act like it everywhere. Otherwise, our words ring hollow.” Yet, human rights, morals if you will, is what proponents of spending directed towards Israel are saying this spending will continue to advocate.
Where does this rhetoric come from? How can we make sense of the circulation of (this) information? We can return to Ahmed. Benedict Anderson as cited by Ahmed: “We might consider, for instance, Benedict Anderson’s model of the nation as imagined community, in which he stresses the significance of the emergence of print capitalism (1991). Anderson’s argument shows us how shared orientations can be produced without physical copresence: the circulation of print is what creates common lines or even ties that bind.” (Ahmed, 119). It is this idea that the information circulated around (in) the public is what the public gathers around. Community building through information circulation; gathering around what is spread around. As such, the idea that Israel is home to the ‘innocent civilians’ and Palestine (Gaza; Hamas) as the ‘aggressors.’ Therefore, the US by spreading around the idea that Israel is a friend- a nation of innocents, much like us- that the US can orient the public towards approving erroneous amounts of spending for conflict-generative measures. That is what this spending provides: the conditions to orient two nations- the US and Israel- towards nations in need of defense; humanitarian nations that are amassing ever-increasing violent-technologies (missiles, spyware, vehicles) only as a means to defend themselves (and the ‘innocent civilians’) from the threats the nations create. In short, moral nations.
Comments