At the heart of different interpretations and notions of concepts and terms such as “defense” and “security” is what is known as “interpretation of danger.” Based on factors such as history and identity, different people and different groups will in turn have different “interpretations of danger.” As a result, analysis and criticism of U.S. foreign policy and Zionist expansionism inter alia revolve mainly around the issue of “interpretation of danger.”
For the liberal mind, anything that is colored can be perceived as “dangerous” to varying extents. Also, criticism of Zionist violations of international norms and rules will tend to be perceived as “antisemitic” and will be perceived as stemming from “terrorist ideology.” Hence, anything that is not white or pro-Zionist is likely to be perceived as a “danger” by mainstream discourse, and in turn the liberal and Zionist “interpretation of danger” will prompt peculiar actions and rhetoric in the name of “defense” and “security.”
As a result of a different “interpretation of danger,” there are double standards as well as racist standards in mainstream society which cannot be denied. The latest display of these double standards and racist standards was the shopping mall fight between two teenagers in New Jersey, one of which was white and the other was black. Both teenagers were equally belligerent, yet there was a stark difference in the way the white teenager was treated by the two police officers at the scene versus the way the black teenager was treated by the officers. Thus, the “interpretation of danger” stemming from liberal and Zionist discourse stems from double standards based mainly on racial bias as well as a sense of racial superiority.
Also, one can legitimately argue that the liberal and Zionist “interpretation of danger” is in fact the biggest source of danger for the overwhelming majority of people in the public sphere in this day and age. For instance, while Iran is seen as a “threat,” everyone tries to avoid taking into account the demolition of Palestinian homes, settlement expansion, displacement, settler extremism, apartheid policies, censorship, the threat of taking away people’s livelihoods for uttering one word about Israel, and the use of advanced weaponry against an unarmed populace among other things which pose as a severe threat to the international community. The sheer ruthlessness and heartlessness by which an entire populace is treated in the name of “defense” and “security” is something which warrants discussion and focus. Yet, Washington chooses to focus on Russia. As they say: “Silence is violence.”
Plus, nothing was more threatening over the past two or three decades than the way by which American neocons stormed into an entire region of the world in a modern-day crusade and killed, displaced, tortured, and abused millions of people. Thus, it begs the question: who is the real “danger” and “threat” to the world? Arguably, Chinese, North Korean, Russian, and Iranian actions are essentially a reaction to the dangers and threats which have manifested from the other side over the course of the past two or three decades. In sum, liberal and Zionist discourse is in dire need of intense education and therapy, because the “interpretation of danger” and the threat perception which emanates from this type of discourse is harmful and threatening for the 90 or 95 percent of the world’s population that is non-white and non-Zionist.