Both the U.S. and Israel were stunned to experience the ultraviolence they mete out to others.
On the night of September 11, 2001, I sat on the stoop of my apartment building in Greenwich Village and drank some abominable wine coolers with my neighbors. I’d bought them from a nearby store that had already started wild profiteering and was charging three times the normal price. We were two miles north of the site of the World Trade Center; the neighborhood smelled of acrid smoke, which turned out to be preferable to the stench of burnt, rotting bodies that would develop later that week.
Now, according to a plethora of voices, with the vicious recent attacks by Hamas, Israel has experienced its own 9/11. “This is our 9/11,” says the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations. “This is our 9/11,” says the Israeli military’s spokesperson. “This is the equivalent for Israel of probably what happened in the United States in September 11th,” says Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. “Israeli Faces Its 9/11,” says the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. If you’d like to see 37,000 more examples, have at it.
The point of all these comparisons is obvious. Former Rep. Joe Walsh expressed it here:
Yesterday was Israel’s 9/11.
And remember, after 9/11, nobody told the United States not to retaliate, nobody called for a “ceasefire” or a “de-escalation,” nobody “both-sided” what had happened that horrible day.
In other words, Israel, like the U.S., had been innocently walking through the world when SUDDENLY, OUT OF NOWHERE, it was inexplicably attacked by inhuman barbarians. Therefore Israel, like the U.S. was, is entitled to do anything whatsoever in response. A recent estimate found that the U.S. war on terror has directly and indirectly caused over 4.5 million deaths.
I don’t agree with Walsh’s conclusion. But certainly everyone here is starting from the correct premise — that this is Israel’s 9/11 — even if they don’t understand why.
First of all, something like Hamas’s attack on Israel, as with something like 9/11, was going to happen eventually. Israel and the U.S. constantly deal out ultraviolence on a smaller scale (Israel) and a huge scale (the U.S.). Anyone in either country who believed this would never come home was living in a vain fantasy.
Likewise, the establishments of both Israel and the U.S. were well aware of this: that their policies would inevitably lead to the deaths of their own citizens. Richard Shultz, a longtime national security state intellectual, wrote in 2004 that “a very senior [Special Operations Forces] officer who had served on the Joint Staff in the 1990s told me that more than once he heard terrorist strikes characterized as ‘a small price to pay for being a superpower.’” Eran Etzion, onetime member of Israel’s national security council, just explained that from the government’s perspective, “the relatively small price that Israel paid every so often” for its policy toward Gaza was the deaths of dozens of Israelis.
What stunned both the U.S. and Israel was that anyone managed to briefly deal out damage on a scale they’re used to delivering. Israel killed over 10,000 Palestinians from 2000 through last month. God only knows how many hundreds of thousands the U.S. killed in the Middle East in the lead-up to 9/11.
Then, as now, anyone pointing out these obvious facts was smeared as “supporting” or “justifying” the vicious blowback. It’s frustrating and suggests that it’s impossible for human beings to be rational about this subject. If you tell someone that pouring gas on a pile of shredded newspaper and then throwing a match on it will probably make the newspaper catch on fire, you are not “supporting fire” or “justifying fire.” On the contrary, you’re trying to reduce the amount of fire in the world by describing reality.
Another similarity is that both Israel and the U.S. generated their own enemies. The U.S. famously nurtured fundamentalist Islamic opposition to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, said in a 1998 interview that this had been “an excellent idea” and he had no regrets about these “stirred-up Muslims.” Israel did essentially the same thing in miniature in the occupied territories, encouraging the growth of Hamas to damage the secular Fatah. “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” according to one of the Israelis who worked on this clever project.
As with 9/11, the attacks on Israel could only have succeeded on the scale they did because of the monstrous incompetence of the relevant leaders. “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” the CIA told George W. Bush in August 2001. Bush ignored this. Dick Cheney actually pushed back at the intelligence world’s many warnings because he believed Al Qaeda was merely feinting and trying to get the U.S. to expend resources preventing something that would never happen. Likewise, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was apparently warned by Egypt that something bad was coming but ignored it. We’ll inevitably learn shocking details soon about Netanyahu’s general indifference to what was on the horizon.
This is all of a piece with the irrelevance of citizens’ lives to leaders like Netanyahu and Bush. They gnash their teeth and rend their garments about how enraged they are by attacks by foreigners, yet in their hearts they don’t care about us at all. Immediately after 9/11, the Bush administration falsely told New Yorkers that the city air was perfectly safe to breathe.
Finally, the revenge that Israel will now exact will be hideous, as was that taken by the U.S. There is nothing on earth like the fury of the powerful when they believe they have been defied by their inferiors.
This is something my neighbors and I agreed on as we drank those awful wine coolers on 9/11. We were frightened deep in our guts by what had happened that morning. For anyone who wasn’t in New York then, let me tell you — Al Qaeda truly put the terror back in terrorism. But what we were most scared of was what our own government was about to do next. Ever since that moment, my dream has been that someday the regular people of the world — all of us, on every “side” — will form an alliance against our grotesque leaders.
link: https://theintercept.com/2023/10/09/israel-hamas-september-11/
archive: https://archive.ph/Fbwmn
I took the exact opposite conclusion from the article. It seems to be a condemnation of the US’s actions in the wake of 9/11, and thus also a condemnation of the actions the author believes Israel are about to take in the wake of the Hamas attack.
The difference seems to be that you read the article.
To be honest, I think they might be thinking about two different things. The article itself criticized the parroting of “this is 9/11” and explicitly decides to explain why it is Israel’s 9/11 but reaching obviously different conclusions that many that repeat the same thing.
You were supposed to take that conclusion.
Shaking your head and saying “hey look violence is violence, and it’s all terrible”, is a false equivalence of devastating military action versus deliberate, persistent genocide.
The conclusion pushed by this article makes genocide easier to swallow. Israel is not “about to take” any actions it has not already pursued against the Palestinians for fifty years, they just have more support now, and Israel is committing these military actions against Palestinians civilian and military targets alike because, as the defense minister says, Palestinians are “animals”.
I really don’t see how? Everything about the article condemns these actions?
The whole idea of twisting the media’s line of “this is Israel’s 9/11” makes it more impactful, rather than making it easier to swallow.
Yes, agreed. And the article is supportive of that conclusion too. It takes a mocking tone at the idea that the attacks “came out of nowhere” and specifically states that the US, and Israel, played a key role in creating the conditions that give rise to the attacks that they then use as a justification for further escalation.
Everything about this article sounds like it condemns certain actions but reductively concludes that overreactive violence is the same as overreactive violence regardless of the rest of the story, equating internationally condemned military action(Iraq) with internationally supported persistent genocide(Israel).
It’s the same argument pundits and idiots use to trick you into believing that the far left and the far right are the same people, even though the far left argues for affordable education and healthcare and the far right argues for bounty hunting rape victims and unlimited corporate election funding.
Equating this genocide with 9/11 does make this genocide more impactful by lending credibility to ongoing genocide.
But the article isn’t the one originating the line that “this is Israel 9/11”. It is taking that line from other sources, sources who are directly making that comparison, and showing that while there are indeed similarities, they aren’t what those sources might want people to believe.
And it goes on to suggest that we should be condemning Israel’s actions in the same way that the US’s actions have been condemned. That there should not be that popular support for this genocide. That we know how wrong the US’s actions were, and that we should not be fooled into believing that what is happening now is as simple as a reaction to the Hamas attacks.
At worst, I see the article as not addressing the full story, because it’s only addressing the specific media line comparing this to 9/11. And I can see your reasoning about comparing a military action to a genocide and how that’s inadequate. But to say it’s “lending credibility” to genocide… I don’t really get where you are getting that from. Is the complaint mostly just that, while it is condemning Israel’s actions, it isn’t going far enough in the condemnation?
The problems begin and end with the broad false equivalence this article posits that you(and I expect most people) are agreeing with.
Look at these concluding sentiments:
“This is all of a piece with the irrelevance of citizens’ lives to leaders like Netanyahu and Bush.”
Pretty sentence, right? Sounds like a reasonable comparison if you ignore what actually happened:
Bush said that the US military would dismantle al Qaeda and capture bin Laden.
Netanyahu has consistently stated that he’ll never allow a Palestinian state, literally redrew a map without Palestine, has actively invaded, attacked and colonized Palestine, and is now leading the israeli military in deliberately attacking civilians as a means of retaliation.
These are not equivalent motivations or actions.
“Finally, the revenge that Israel will now exact will be hideous, as was that taken by the U.S.”
The US military dismantled Al-Qaeda and captured bin Laden, apologizing more than once for the horrific amount of civilian casualties, and left Iraq.
Netanyahu has redrawn a map of the Middle East without Palestine in it after 50 years of stealing Palestinian territory and executing civilians, and now the Israeli military is punitively withholding food, water, gas, and electricity to Palestinian civilians because according to the Israeli defense minister, Palestinians are animals.
These are not equivalent motivations or actions.