Israel as Bond Villain
Imagine a Hollywood movie. The American hero has to find a way to stop the Arab villain who has managed to place explosive devices in the hands of people connected to the police force. The hero has a few hours before the bomb goes off killing dozens and injuring thousands. For a brief time he is captured by the Arab madman who laughs maniacally before the hero makes his daring escape and attempts to save the day.
Does that sound like something close to a typical James Bond script?
Now imagine that we’re not talking about a movie; we’re talking about real life. And the villains aren’t Arab, they’re American and Israeli.
Of course we don’t have to imagine because that’s exactly what happened on September 17, 2024.
The mainstream media, mysteriously, are trying to spin this as if it were a legitimate attack on Hezbollah, a “terrorist” organisation. But if the tables were turned, if dual use IDF/Civilian infrastructure had been booby trapped and detonated, is there any doubt as to how the Western media would be portraying the story?
In this age of misinformation and confusion, it is important to keep some degree of moral clarity. A few things are clear:
The word “terrorist” has no meaning in the current day and age. I would suggest we expunge it completely from the discourse. If it’s applied fairly - targeting of civilians - this was a terrorist act. But practically speaking “terrorist” is an epithet used to attack enemies of the US empire and its vassal states, including the Zionist settler colonial project sometimes referred to as Israel.
No matter what names you want to call those who are doing their best to protect the Palestinian people from the fate of genocide, they have been far more restrained than the Zionists have been. Those who follow what Israeli leaders say know that this is by design. Israel has stated its objective to be seen as a “mad dog” in the region, a phrase first coined by Moshe Dayan. The statements coming from Hezbollah have been measured and reasonable by comparison.
What the Zionist forces did on September 17 is a war crime. This would have been the case even if it had been a much more limited operation and only targeted Hezbollah commanders. The UN High Commission for Human Rights (OHCHR) makes it clear that extrajudicial assassination is a war crime. Indiscriminate targeting that seems to have killed many civilians including a 10-year-old girl is much worse than that crime would have been. So we’re talking about the most serious of war crimes - deliberate targeting of civilians for political ends (which is the technical definition of terrorism).
By consistently and repeatedly violating international law (and not even pretending otherwise) the US/Zionist project is putting the whole world at risk. We live in an age of nuclear weapons. The choice we face at this moment more than any other is the choice between collective suicide (what used to be called MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction) and the rule of law.
Those recklessly working to expand the genocidal occupation of Palestine into a war between great powers risk the collective suicide of all of humanity. They have the right to kill themselves, I suppose. They don’t have the right to take all of us with them. By backing the murderous Israeli regime no matter what it does, the USA is playing a very dangerous game.
Going forward, there are three options: a) The USA and its allies abide by international law voluntarily, b) they abide by international law because they have no choice, or c) the world descends into a violent apocalypse characterised by the afore-mentioned mutually assured destruction. Option a) seems unlikely, and option c) is not something worth contemplating, but what about option b)? What would it take to compel the USA to comply with basic human rights law?
There are potentially answers in the September 17 action itself. Motorola, the manufacturer of the pagers that exploded, may or may not have been involved in planting the bombs that were detonated in their devices. If they weren’t involved, it seems likely that their supply chain was compromised. Whether or not they were involved, it makes sense to view all US-backed supply chains with intense scepticism. If the US can allow this kind of sabotage, to what else would they be willing to turn a blind eye? What is the guarantee that your smart phone won’t blow up in your face someday?
There are alternatives to US supply chains. China, Russia and some of the other BRICS nations have been working with countries upon which the US has imposed sanctions to build up those alternatives. It might be time for every country in the world to stop trade with the United States and its genocidal allies, for every country to voluntarily put itself on the US sanctions list.
To some extent this may already be happening. Saudi Arabia, the country most allied with the United States in the region apart from Israel, joined the BRICS this year, an event that can’t be seen favourably in Washington. Events in Lebanon may speed up efforts to ensure that Israel, the United States and other rogue actors can no longer disrupt global supply chains with bombs, sanctions or anything else. Eventually efforts to exclude the US from global trade may threaten US interests enough that they have no choice but to admit the truth written in their own declaration of independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all… are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
