Note/On Necessary Illusions and Hypocrisy

“Across a broad spectrum of articulate opinion, the fact that the voice of the people is heard in democratic societies [such as ours] is considered a problem to be overcome by ensuring that the public voice speaks the right words.” ¹ (p.19)

Hence in our democratic system, the ways in which thought and understanding are shaped in the interests of domestic privilege—the “necessary illusions”— cannot be imposed by force. Rather, they must be instilled by more subtle means. What is essential is to constrain debate within proper bounds as that has a reinforcing character.

“Controversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns.” ¹ (p.48)

In that sense, vigorous debate regarding U.S. military aid to Israel is bounded between the hawks, who ardently commit to fully support Israel’s right to defend itself with President Joseph Biden as their lead advocate, and the doves, who fear that the resort to violence to attain Israel’s ‘sacred’ inherent right of self-defense resulting in the mass slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians, fully facilitated by U.S. military aid, might prove too costly, and therefore call for restrictions on arms shipments. The New York Times article cited by former Director at the U.S. Department of State Josh Paul is a perfect example of this principle.

Incidentally the article points out that “in the fall of 2016, the Obama administration sealed a major military agreement with Israel that committed the United States to giving the country $38 billion in arms over 10 years.” ² The agreement was struck during a period of relative calm for Israel and was therefore “uncontroversial,” according to the New York Times. The thought that bolstering Israel with military aid worth $3.3 billion per year, along with another $500 million annually for missile defense, has had the exact opposite effect of “ensuring a secure and democratic future for the Jewish state of Israel” ³, is inexpressible, and dismissed with derision.

The basic presupposition of discourse as outlined by then-President Barack Obama assumes that it is perfectly legitimate to flood Israel with a “continued supply of the world’s most advanced weapons technology [to] ensure that [it] has the ability to defend itself from all manner of threats”, in full accord with Biden’s current stance.

The thought that the same principle of supporting allies to defend themselves against state terror and outright aggression extends to say Iran is inconceivable. The apparent contradiction is dispelled when we give the proper interpretation to “allies,” namely U.S. allies. It is the task of the media, and the elites generally, to ensure that the hypocrisy “walks Invisible, except to God alone”, as John Milton famously wrote in Paradise Lost.