In a thought-provoking reflection, Hamid Dabashi (a professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University) encourages readers to imagine a fictional scenario where countries like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Turkey, supported by Russia and China, bomb Tel Aviv for three months. The grim portrayal includes the murder of tens of thousands, countless injuries, and millions left homeless, all justified under the pretext of seeking Israeli Prime Minister and his war cabinet. Dabashi challenges readers to consider how the US, UK, EU, Canada, and Australia would respond to such a hypothetical scenario within 24 hours.
The vivid imagery painted by Dabashi prompts us to ponder the swift and resolute international reaction that would likely follow such an attack on Tel Aviv. The suggestion is that the existing world order, under the influence of powerful nations, would not tolerate such military aggression. The prompt raises questions about the consistency of global responses to conflicts and the role of major players in maintaining peace and stability.
Returning from this imaginary scenario to the stark reality, Dabashi directs attention to the plight of the Palestinian people. Since October 7 and for decades prior, Tel Aviv’s western allies, including the US, have not only witnessed but actively supported Israel’s actions against the Palestinian population. This support comes in the form of military equipment, bombs, munitions, and diplomatic cover. Furthermore, American media outlets are accused of providing ideological justifications for what the author terms as the “slaughter and genocide” of Palestinians.
Dabashi contends that the stark contrast between the hypothetical scenario and the actual situation reveals a double standard in the international community’s approach to conflicts. The military backing and diplomatic support provided to Israel by the US, Europe, Australia, and Canada are portrayed as a form of “military thuggery” that marginalizes the suffering of the Palestinians. This, according to the author, is not merely a political reality but extends to the moral and philosophical framework of what is often referred to as “the West.”
The exploration of this hypothetical scenario serves as a powerful tool to underscore the inconsistencies in global responses to conflicts. The juxtaposition of a potential international outcry against an attack on Tel Aviv with the longstanding support for Israeli actions against Palestinians challenges readers to reflect on the ethical and moral dimensions of geopolitical decisions. Hamid Dabashi’s words beckon us to critically assess the prevailing global order and the role of powerful nations in shaping the destiny of vulnerable populations caught in the crossfire of conflict.
