‘Genocide’ vs ‘Bigger Genocide’ in Gaza: Time to decolonise our minds

“Imperialism leaves behind germs of rot which we must clinically detect and remove from our land but from our minds as well,” wrote Frantz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth (1961). What the iconic anti-colonial philosopher and psychiatrist was essentially arguing is that the mind must be decolonised first, in order for the undoing of colonialism to succeed in all aspects of our liberation.

Many in the Global South, but especially intellectuals and analysts concerned with Middle East affairs, are still struggling with their relationship with the United States. Although all signs indicate a rapid decline of America’s global status, many among our intelligentsia, possibly unwittingly, still believe that Washington holds all the cards, and that whoever controls the White House must naturally also rule the world.

Of course, US domestic and foreign policies are relevant to global affairs, as financial decisions by the US Federal Reserve, for example, will affect US-global trade volumes, and will have an impact on the interest or disinterest in purchasing US treasury bonds. Some countries that are keen on standing at an equal distance between the US and China often jockey to refine their positions and to protect themselves in case of seismic political changes in the US.

The vibe radiating from many in the Middle East is that the doomsday scenario is real, and that the big war is upon us.

However, they ignore the fact that for many nations around the world, from Gaza to Lebanon to Ukraine to Sudan and elsewhere, wars have already arrived, many of which are bankrolled by western funds and political blank cheques. To warn of war while tens of millions are already suffering the outcomes of western-funded wars reflects the degree of desensitisation and opportunism of the followers of western order.

READ: Lebanese army prepares to deploy in southern Lebanon after ceasefire

Some of those crying over the supposedly imminent doom had initially presented the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, as the best worst-case option for Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. Although they may have acknowledged the genocide in Gaza, and even criticised the Joe Biden administration for enabling it, they recoiled at the mere suggestion that the Democrats must be punished for their many sins in the Middle East and beyond.

Another crowd presented Donald Trump as the saviour, the strong man who, with a stroke of a pen, will end all wars, the one in Gaza included. They cited the man’s repeated claim that, “I’m not going to start a war, I’m going to stop the wars.” They even went on to argue that Trump, who would be serving a second and final term in office, is now immune to political manipulation from the pro-Israel lobby and all other pressures.

Trump won, of course.

His crushing defeat of the Democrats on all fronts, including in the popular vote, indicates that he would have won regardless of those who considered ending the war in Gaza to be a top political priority. However, the early announcements that Trump’s administration come January will be a who’s who of the pro-Israel Republican circle has reignited the debate about the “bigger genocide” awaiting Palestinians and other scare-mongering tactics.

Both sides of this inconsequential debate conveniently ignore obvious facts: that America’s ruling elites are rooted in pro-Israel political allegiances; that although there might be a difference in style, US foreign policy under Democratic Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Trump’s future hire, Marco Rubio, is likely to be identical; and that the Biden-Harris administration gave Israel all the help it needed to sustain its wars in the Middle East over the course of 13 months and counting.

This stifling debate, however, misses some of the most critical points that should be discussed, and urgently so. For example, the Middle East region is not a single political monolith. It has its own political calculations, conflicts, alliances and options that include other political heavyweights, such as China and Russia, among others.

Moreover, several Middle Eastern countries are joining the increasingly influential BRICS alliance. The latter is not just a trade club, but also a powerful economic alliance with a strong political discourse to match.

Thus, the future and survival of the Middle East does not hinge on US economic policies.

Finally, the war in Gaza is a war that also involves the Palestinians, the Lebanese and their Arab and international allies. The people of occupied Palestine and Lebanon have agency, choices and strategies that are not wholly dependent on the ideological identity or political inclinations of a lone American ensconced in the White House.

If the political views of the US president were indeed the most decisive aspect in the fate and future of the Palestinian people, Palestinian aspirations would have been suppressed decades ago due to America’s inherent pro-Israel bias. They weren’t, not because of any compassion on the part of US administrations, but due to the sumud, resilience, of the Palestinian people.

It is time that we abandon the archaic thinking regarding our collective colonial past, or present, that views western leaders as our masters, and our people as mere subjects, struggling to survive, imploring, though never obtaining, prudent western foreign policies.

The world is changing, vastly, and it is time for us to change as well. Fanon gave us the cure decades ago: We must clinically detect and remove the rot, not only from our land but from our minds as well.

OPINION: No more ‘deals’: what Palestinians want and will fight to achieve

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.