Former U.S. ambassador Charles O. Cecil’s letter to President Obama warns that a U.S. veto of Palestine’s application for U.N. membership will physically endanger American civilians:
…if the United States vetoes the Palestinian request for statehood, we will damage our position in the Islamic world—not merely the Arab World—for untold years to come. We will become the object of retribution throughout the Muslim world, and will give new energy to the lagging efforts of al-Qaida to retaliate against us.
Considering that U.S. support for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people was the #1 motivator for the September 11, 2001 attacks, shouldn’t the possibility that a veto will motivate another such attack be part of the mainstream media discourse? This is why it’s not, plus this too.
Although it may be unlikely, if a post-veto terror strike on the U.S. materializes, it’s easy to predict that the mainstream media will again elide “oppression of Palestinians” from the analysis. We can look forward to another narcissistic and jingoistic bout of patriotism, revenge lust, and cheerleading for an unprovoked bombing/invasion of ________. (Fill in the blank with “despised Muslim country,” Mad Libs style… Iran, in all likelihood.)
Remember when Bush administration officials lied and claimed they had no way of knowing that Al Qaeda could strike in such a way (when in fact, they’d received precisely such warnings)? If the Obama administration knowingly endangers American civilians by blocking the legitimate rights of the Palestinians to statehood and UN membership, they’ll have no defense that they “weren’t warned” that this decision could motivate a violent reaction.
I’m not arguing that the U.S. should bow to a terrorist threat. The Palestinians have a legitimate right to statehood regardless of such threats. But I do think the government and the media should be honest about what motivates these violent attacks, and they aren’t.
History could be about to repeat itself. The veto may go down in the books as the worst U.S. diplomatic decision ever.
“Considering that U.S. support for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people was the #1 motivator for the September 11, 2001 attacks, shouldn’t the possibility that a veto will motivate another such attack be part of the mainstream media discourse? This is why it’s not, plus this too.”
I have heard one expert (Richard Clarke, Ray McGovern, Micheal Scheuer, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Bryzinski after the next as well as world leaders (King of Jordan etc) mix up these three issues in different orders for the hatred directed towards the US and attacks on the US and US interest.
1. US support for Israel no matter what they do
2. US support for dictators in that region
3. US military bases on Muslim lands
In former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit Micheal Scheuer’s latest piece over at his site he moves the I/P conflict into the number one spot of the anger and attacks. But in the past I have heard him put this issue in the number two spot of the anger and attacks. Again have heard experts more this issue around in the top three reasons for the built up hatred and for the reasons for the attacks
http://non-intervention.com/
“Motivating enemies: Interventionists and the UN veto
By mike | Published: September 21, 2011
For most of a decade I have said in books, articles, interviews, and speeches that America’s war with the growing Islamist movement is motivated by the Islamists’ belief that U.S. foreign policy is an attack on their faith and brethren. Generally, this effort has been akin to yelling into a closet. The dominance of pro-Saudi and especially pro-Israel political influence and money in both political parties, the media, and the academy is just too strong to allow more than fleeting opportunities to tell Americans that they — and their soldier-children — are and will continue to be at war because of the impact in the Muslim world of the foreign policy of Washington and its NATO allies.
This week, however, all Americans have a chance to see for themselves how Washington‘s bipartisan, interventionist foreign policy provides our Islamist enemies with their main motivation and encourages young Muslim males to seek out membership in Islamist organizations fighting the United States and its allies. If the Palestinian Authority’s president, Mahmoud Abbas, goes ahead and asks the United Nations to recognize Palestine as an UN member state, and the Obama Administration then vetoes the chance of a positive response — as would any Republican administration — Americans will see clearly and unequivocally how a U.S. foreign policy decision motivates Islamists to war and provides them with their major source of unity and enduring cohesiveness. Actions cause reactions, and, in this case, the pro-Israel lobby will have a harder time than usual telling Americans that U.S. foreign policy does not promote war with Muslims. The Obama veto will surely kill Americans and promote domestic Islamist violence in the years ahead.”
Scheuer on Washington Journal
On Osama Bin Laden
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/299269-5
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301467-5
Micheal Scheuer “Imperial Hubris”
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Michael-Scheuer-Author-quotImperial-Hubrisquot/2498/
Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh address the issue in detail in this talk/debate. Worth watching the whole talk
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3777614199046042311
I dont know why we presume that “security” for american citizens is a goal of the government. Clearly it is not. Americans will continue to do what they are told. We wont ask any question other than “what rights can I give up?”
Another big time terrorist attack would be the death knell for any sort of democracy in America, something that would make many Americans very happy.
“and will give new energy to the lagging efforts of al-Qaida to retaliate against us.”
So many benifited from 9/11 that I can’t help feeling that keeping the war on terror going is part of the strategy.
If trillions have been spent on homeland security, defense & war, then surely there are many be it local and state agencies, defense industry etc that don’t want that gravy train to end.
If 9/11 was a boon to Israel as it alligned ‘us’ more closely in seeing their enemies as their own, then surely they would welcome that outcome.
Maybe, encouraging blowback is part of the equation.
How else are you going to launch wars and open the spigots for billions upon billions of dollars of defense spending? How else are you going to ensure that the US doesnt make an exit from the ME?
“Remember when Bush administration officials lied and claimed they had no way of knowing that Al Qaeda could strike in such a way (when in fact, they’d received precisely such warnings)?”
The lie, I think was elsewhere. I am satisfied that the Saudi folks who flew those airplanes were working for (or believed they were working for) Al-Qa’ida. Sure. They were, in fact, Saudi terrorists. But who were they actually working for? No-one knows. But why suppose Al-Qa’ida just because the “soldiers” believed that? Didn’t Bin Laden deny it? They were set up. By whom? No-one knows. But the airplanes were not shot down or even directed to change course by the air force of the Great Oz. The buildings fell in a manner that made many engineers say they must have been brought down by pre-set demolition charges.
Bush et Cie. seem to have facilitated the destructiveness of the event to such an extent that it seems to many, and to me, that this was a USA job or Mossad job, something like that, something done by people able to organize a really big bang, such as 9/11 was. It was a show put on by the folks who wanted to start a perpetual war with Islam. Or so it appeared and still appears.