This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To receive TomDispatch in your inbox three times a week, click here.
I was uptown in New York City on September 11, 2001, but I still remember the distant smoke that you could see over the Hudson River. If you had told me then that, thanks to those four hijacked planes and a tiny group of al-Qaeda operatives, my country would launch a 20-plus-year "Global War on Terror" -- with two full-scale disastrous invasions of distant lands -- and that, even today, it's never quite ended, I would have thought you mad. Yes, I remember the shock of seeing a plane plow into the World Trade Center tower on television and how it felt as if it were all too literally happening out of the blue. As TomDispatch regular Maha Hilal makes clear today, 9/11 has unfortunately remained an out-of-the-blue event for most Americans (justifying so much).
Who even remembers how the CIA, while pouring money into the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, would indirectly support a wealthy young Saudi named Osama bin Laden? Chalmers Johnson would later call him "a former protege of the United States" in his classic book Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (published before 9/11). Who remembers how bin Laden had been part of Washington's secret war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, forming a group he would call al-Qaeda ("the Base") to battle the Red Army? Who even remembers that, as Johnson wrote so long ago, this country played a significant role in luring the Soviet Union into that very war, in the end sending the Red Army home in defeat and leaving the Soviet Union at the edge of dissolution? As President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski proudly put it so long ago, "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the [Afghan] mujahidin began during 1980, that's to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan. But the reality, kept secret until now, is completely different: on 3 July 1979 President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained that in my opinion this aid would lead to a Soviet military intervention."
So, yes, there was a long history leading up to 9/11 (of which I've only mentioned a part) that was conveniently forgotten or ignored after al-Qaeda struck so devastatingly. Today, Hilal, author of Innocent Until Proven Muslim, reminds us of the ways Israel has used 9/11, when it came to launching devastating wars, and of the similarities between that country's response to its own 9/11, the Hamas attacks of October 7th, and the earlier American one. Tom
Israel, the United States, and the Rhetoric of the War on Terror
From September 11, 2001, to October 7, 2023 (and Beyond)
By Maha Hilal
In a New Yorker piece published five days after the attacks of September 11, 2001, American critic and public intellectual Susan Sontag wrote, "Let's by all means grieve together. But let's not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen." Sontag's desire to contextualize the 9/11 attacks was an instant challenge to the narratives that President George W. Bush would soon deploy, painting the United States as a country of peace and, most importantly, innocent of any wrongdoing. While the rhetorical strategies he developed to justify what came to be known as the Global War on Terror have continued to this day, they were not only eagerly embraced by Israel in 2001, they also lie at the heart of that country's justification of the genocidal campaign that's been waged against the Palestinian people since October 7, 2023.
On September 20, 2001, President Bush delivered a speech to Congress in which he shared a carefully constructed storyline that would justify endless war. The United States, he said, was attacked because the terrorists "hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." In that official response to the 9/11 attacks, he also used the phrase "war on terror" for the first time, stating (all too ominously in retrospect): "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated."
"Americans are asking," he went on, "why do they hate us?" And then he provided a framework for understanding the motives of the "terrorists" precluding the possibility that American actions prior to 9/11 could in any way have explained the attacks. In other words, he positioned his country as a blameless victim, shoved without warning into a "post-9/11 world." As Bush put it, "All of this was brought upon us in a single day -- and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack." As scholar Richard Jackson later noted, the president's use of "our war on terror" constituted "a very carefully and deliberately constructed public discourse" specifically designed to make the war seem reasonable, responsible, and inherently 'good.'"
Your Fight Is Our Fight
The day after the 9/11 attacks, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon gave a televised address to Israelis, saying that "the fight against terrorism is an international struggle of the free world against the forces of darkness who seek to destroy our liberty and way of life. Together, we can defeat these forces of evil." Sharon, in other words, laid out Israel's fight in the same binary terms the American president would soon use, a good-versus-evil framework, as a way of rejecting any alternative explanations of those assaults on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in New York City that killed almost 3,000 people. That December, Sharon responded to an attack in Jerusalem by two Palestinian suicide bombers by saying that he would launch his own "war on terror" with all the means at our disposal."
On the day of Bush's September 20th speech, Benjamin Netanyahu, then working in the private sector after holding various positions within the Israeli government, capitalized on the president's narrative by asserting Israel's enthusiastic support for the United States. In a statement offered to the House Government Reform Committee, emphasizing his country's commitment to fighting terrorism, Netanyahu stated, "I am certain that I speak on behalf of my entire nation when I say today, we are all Americans -- in grief, as in defiance."
Israel's "9/11"
Just as the 9/11 attacks "did not speak for themselves," neither did Hamas's attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023. In remarks at a bilateral meeting with President Biden 11 days later, however, Prime Minister Netanyahu strategically compared the Hamas attacks to the 9/11 ones, using resonant terms for Americans that also allowed Israel to claim its own total innocence, as the U.S. had done 22 years earlier. In that vein, Netanyahu stated, "On October 7th, Hamas murdered 1,400 Israelis, maybe more. This is in a country of fewer than 10 million people. This would be equivalent to over 50,000 Americans murdered in a single day. That's 20 9/11s. That is why October 7th is another day that will live in infamy."
But 9/11 doesn't live in infamy because it actually caused damage of any long-lasting or ultimate sort to the United States or because it far exceeded the scale of other acts of global mass violence, but because it involved "Americans as the victims of terror, not as the perpetrators" and because of the way those leading the country portrayed it as uniquely and exceptionally victimized. As Professor Jackson put it, 9/11 "was immediately iconicized as the foremost symbol of American suffering." The ability to reproduce that narrative endlessly, while transforming 9/11 into a date that transcended time itself, served as a powerful lesson to Israel in how to communicate suffering and an omnipresent existential threat that could be weaponized to legitimize future violent interventions. By framing the Hamas attacks on October 7th similarly as a symbol of ultimate suffering and existential threat, Israel could do the same.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
