Answers by Andrew Korybko Nov 6, 2016
The first thing to remember is that the Zionists’ military-industrial complex is interlinked with that of the US and Western Europe, and that the political-lobbyist bodies active in those areas are very strong and influential.
Moreover, establishment voices in those states reflexively accuse anyone of “anti-Semitism” the moment that they try to raise awareness about ‘Israel’s’ crimes , hoping that this will succeed in defaming and silencing all opposition. Journalists and politicians alike who dare to exercise their rights to free speech and critical thinking stand to lose their careers and thus be unable to sustain their livelihoods, which is especially threatening if they have a family to take care of.
These factors combine in such a way as to self-censor many political and media activists who would otherwise do the right thing by talking about this issue. Sometimes, though, those who speak up are part of the ‘controlled opposition’ that works to discredit this cause, so this further complicates the whole state of affairs and is responsible for why social justice has yet to be served.
How similar are the Zionist and American officials’ mindset about state terrorism?
There is no difference between the two because they are one and the same entity. The interlinked military-industrial complexes between the two are supported by political-lobbyist ties that seal them together. ‘Israel’ is the 51st state of the US just as much as the US is the godfather of ‘Israel’. They are inseparable and thus have the same grand strategic outlook as one another.
In pertinence to the question, this means that they both support state terrorism and actively practice it whenever it suits their interests. A perfect example of these actors working together can be seen through the decades-long oppression of the Palestinians and the War of Terror on Syria, both of which are tragedies that would never have taken place had it not been for the complicity of these two entities in working hand-in-hand with one another.
Zionist intelligence service confirmed its role in killing Iranian nuclear scientists, over the last few years. The occupying forces of Palestine also have committed the most heinous crimes and atrocities against Palestinians during past decades. Is it safe to say the Zionist entity is the flagrant instance of state terrorism?
Absolutely. The creation of the Zionist entity itself is due to a combination of state terrorism and what Harvard scholar Kelly M. Greenhill termed as “Weapons of Mass Migration” in her 2010 publication of the same name. Everyone needs to “Acknowledge Weapons of Mass Migration Or ‘Legitimize’ “Israel””, but the main point is that European governments encouraged the post-World War II mass migration of their Jewish citizens to Palestine for the purpose of colonizing it on the grounds that this is some sort of geopolitical “reparation” for everything that this demographic suffered during the war.
This ‘normative’ pretext is exposed for the shallow falsehood that it always has been when one considers that the Palestinians have been forced to undergo similarly torturous hardships as the Jews did during World War II, except this time it’s ironically one of the victimized classes of that global conflict inflicting this on a people that had absolutely nothing at all to do with their wartime suffering.
Which of the running US presidential candidates would serve more to the idea of state terrorism?
The differences between the Bush and Obama Presidencies in regards to their support and defense of state terrorism are only stylistic and superficial. Both Presidents unwaveringly pursue this policy in their own country’s actions, they just carried it out in different ways.
Bush was brash and unashamedly told the whole world what he was doing, whereas Obama is much craftier and cunningly disguises his actions behind the rhetoric of “human rights” and “democracy”, taking care to also exploit the fact that he’s the US’ first black president in order to infer that all of his critics are “racists”. In my opinion, this makes Obama infinitely more dangerous that Bush ever was, because at least no one in the world was fooled by Bush, though so many people have fallen under Obama’s spell.
Concerning the Zionist occupation of Palestine, Bush was a loud defender of the state terrorism being committed against the original inhabitants, although Obama has sought a more publicly nuanced approach. The personal animosity that defines relations between the sitting US President and Netanyahu is well known, but this hasn’t had any negative effects whatsoever on ties between the two polities.
This is attributable to the fact that both of their “deep states” (the permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies) are in coordinated alignment as to their shared grand strategic goals, so public drama between their two leaders is of no tangible consequence to the essence of their deeper relationship. It’s important at this point to mention that Obama’s actions in this regard are just posturing intended to mislead Muslim audiences and disarm the suspicions of their gullible audiences into falsely thinking that the US supports them.