You cant, as a state, invade and occupy another country, or join a civil war in another country on one side or other, and not expect the conflict to have any impact on your own citizens, territory, etc. To assume this is to expect conflict to be contained, which enables its perpetuation. When the PLO mis-read American intentions at the end of the cold war, it was exactly this that they got wrong - Abu Iyad, Abu Mazen etc... thought the Americans would push towards the reduction of tensions in all theatres. In reality, the Americans pursued a policy of containing and perpetuating conflict. This has been very profitable for the financial west, preventing autonomous third world states from emerging out of the yoke of London, New York, the gulf allies, etc... Just look at Egypt/Israel - the major point of defeat for Egypt was the states inability to pay its debts after the October war. Same for Iraq - the major imperial tool was Iraqs debts to Kuwait and the USA after the conclusion of the Iran/Iraq war. If these local conflicts were in danger of spreading, in danger of actually impacting global stability or endangering American or English, or Gulf lives, then these goal financial powers would have an interest in pushing towards real reductions of tensions, which would include compromises from the stronger powers. The containment of conflict is therefore a major force of inertia which allows national injustices to persist around the world, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being just one very prominent and striking example, which is interesting to the West because its the centre of Christianity and because the West is obsessed with the Jewish question (otherwise it might not be any more interesting than the occupation of Western Sahara). But the bloodiest, most brutal results of the policies and practices of containing and perpetuating conflict are the brutal suppression of the Syrian Revolution, and the invasion/occupation of Iraq. What we should say when we see conflicts, which by force of arms and policy are for the most part contained to a specific territory, spreading into those states which are participating in them, we should not condemn the acts of unjust violence that make up that spreading any differently than we condemn unjust acts in the conflict area from which it is spreading. When we unwittingly condemn the spread of violence what we are effectively doing is approving of the policy of containing the conflict. This is straight up eurocentric supremicism, which says its ok for journalists to be killed in Syria, and for most part its also ok to kill journalists in Gaza, but if journalists are killed in Paris its an unacceptable, unimaginable catastrophe. This is bullshit. People are people. Parisians lives matter no more or no less than lives in Homs.
Posted on: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 22:08:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015