Metsfanmax wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:The most plausible explanation is the USG was covering up for the Israelis who were busy committing a human rights violation (or violation of the Geneva Convention). The reason for 'national security' is that the USG didn't want to be known as an accomplice in this violation. It would hurt the imagined perception of the US from its citizens. How is the USG not responsible? The USG owes some obligation of justice toward its own servicemembers and full heartedly supporting an organization at a moment where it intentionally kills your own troops is anything but uninvolved.
But your explanation is self-defeating here. If the government intentionally killed its own servicemembers, it would have very little reason to uphold its obligation of justice towards its servicemembers. If the government is hiding the fact that Israel did it knowingly, then why is it hiding this fact? One explanation that comes to mind is that we are willing to look past this incident for the greater U.S. interests in the region (e.g. we opposed Israel's action in this case, but revealing what happened would cause a massive international uproar against Israel, and the U.S. needs this ally in the Middle East for its own security and economic interests).
I'm not saying the USG intentionally killed its own people; it's unknown whether or not USG chiefs coordinated with their Israeli counterparts in this affair (again, intentions can't be revealed unless a head of state or some chief bureaucrat explicitly reveals that). We can definitely surmise that the US let Israel off the hook.
From a Machiavellian perspective, I understand why the USG would not want to incriminate its ally of two terrible acts, so of course it's not going to advertise that reason to Americans or the world; otherwise, people would start viewing the USG as the disgusting organization which it really is--a supporter of a nation engaging in mass murder. There's no 'we' about that, unless you feel comfortable in identifying yourself as someone who looks the other way when his friends kill innocent allied soldiers and POWs. (Do you? Or was 'we' a slip of the old nationalism?)
I do not adhere to the perspective that the government is separate from its people. 'We' Americans are collectively responsible for this if in fact we are supporting a nation that has engaged in an instance of mass murder. None of us get off the hook because we disagreed with the government narrative. We still elected the representatives who make the ultimate decisions, so we cannot abdicate responsibility here.
People who didn't vote for such representatives aren't liable for the acts the government, and generations of citizens who didn't exist nor could/did vote during this incident aren't responsible either. I've seen this line of thinking, and it may indicate some mix of the following: your beliefs are tinged with nationalism, you wish to feel less guilty yet supportive of despicable USG acts by including more people like you within it, or somehow voting for politician A who votes against US subsidies to Israel or who has no role in shaping USFP somehow means that voter is responsible for that incident.
The government is definitely separate from the people abstaining to support it, and it's separate in degree as demonstrated through voters and many representatives' inability to shape USFP, which is predominantly up to the discretion of a narrow elite within the USG with a democratic selection method (president with his typical 33% of voter support; a few key congressmembers with their lesser total voter amounts) and an authoritarian selection method (president selects war cabinet; chief bureaucrats and mid-level bureaucrats shape their own organizations). Clearly, 'the people' and the government are separate in these regards. The only clear connections between a minority of voters and USFP are presidential elections, a small minority of legislative elections, and public opinion polls (which can involve a majority).
Think of it this way, if you donated $10,000 to a Seemingly Reputable Charity, which you later discover has spent the money on pimping out prostitutes, I wouldn't find you guilty or responsible because you'd be a victim of
fraud. When the USG commits fraudulent acts, 'the people' who didn't expect/want such acts, can't be held responsible. Of course, if people expected such acts from the USG, then they're responsible--to some degree, depending on whether or not they voted for the relevant, influential politicians.
Metsfanmax wrote:We're getting on a tangent (which I don't mind), but the national security argument really undermines anyone's insistence on maintaining a liberal democracy. Preventing people from knowing what your president and/or chief bureaucrats are doing serves no beneficial purpose for democracy--in that, you'd want citizens to be informed so that they can judge whether or not the USG is fulfilling the desires of its constituents.
But if the very informing of the citizens endangers those citizens, then what?
I don't see how this would endanger citizens. If anything, their being informed would cut short USG's occasional steps toward authoritarianism, which has obvious negative implications for the well-being of citizens.
At worst, Israel would be hated by groups that already hate it, and US citizens and Israeli citizens would be more reluctant to willingly support the interventionist dreams of their governments. Israel would have still won the war against Egypt; Americans, who typically don't care about USFP anyway, would perhaps have been less reluctant to subsidize Israel--but I doubt it; and the UN nor any international institution have been able to force Israel to respect its court summons. And regardless of the release of such information, larger factors still mitigate imagined dangers to citizens--e.g. Israel developing nuclear weapons has resulted in no neighboring country engaging Israel in a large-scale convention war. Instead, substitutes like insurgencies/terrorism have been used which result in relatively less casualties thus danger for citizens.
Such information is clouded because it grants lower costs and greater freedoms for the least democratic organizations of the government. It's win-win for them under the guise of national security arguments which many citizens gobble up because they don't know any better.
