In 1917, Lieutenant General Stanley Maude marched with the British army into Baghdad — then part of the Ottoman Empire — with a proclamation. “Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators,” he said.
No one within earshot believed him.
The Iraqis all knew the British came as colonizers, and the iron fist of British domination proved them right. By 1920, British rule was so despised in Iraq that a popular rebellion uniting the country’s many divisions of sect (Sunnis and Shiite), class (merchant and laborer) and geography (urban and rural) broke out. To quell the uprising, the British resorted to a massive aerial bombing campaign, killing thousands of Iraqis.
In January 1991, then-US president George H.W. Bush held a televised announcement of his invasion of Iraq. He told the world that Americans “have no argument with the people of Iraq.”
“Indeed, for the innocents caught in this conflict, I pray for their safety. Our goal is not the conquest of Iraq,” he added.
Yet, for more than a decade after, US-sponsored sanctions brutalized Iraqi infrastructure. In 1996, then-US ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright was asked on the TV show 60 Minutes if she believed the UN-reported deaths of possibly more than 500,000 Iraqi children due to the sanctions was “worth it” (as leverage over then-Iraqi president Saddam Hussein). Albright immediately responded.
“We believe the price is worth it,” she said.
In 2003, then-US president George W Bush launched his invasion of Iraq with his own televised speech.
“If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you... We will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free,” he said.
A 2013 study estimated that in Iraq between 2003 and 2011, “close to half a million excess deaths are attributable to the recent Iraq war and occupation.”
After more than a century of such speeches, Arabs have become accustomed to such talk. It is the language of colonialism. The words might suggest high-minded notions of performative concern, but the reality is entirely the opposite: pure dominance delivered with bullets and bombs from the land, the sea and the sky.
On Tuesday last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to give his version of Maude’s speech to Lebanon, but with a malevolent twist. Maude had told his Iraqi audience that “your lands have been subject to the tyranny of strangers, your palaces have fallen into ruins, your gardens have sunk in desolation, and your forefathers and yourselves have groaned in bondage.”
Like Maude, Netanyahu sought to paint a sovereign people lost to the existence of a foreign power.
“Do you remember when your country was called ‘the pearl of the Middle East’? I do. So what happened to Lebanon?” he said.
His answer was hardly convincing.
“The country that actually conquered Lebanon is not Israel,” he said. “It’s Iran.”
I have spent a considerable amount of time in Lebanon, a gorgeous country full of multilayered histories and a dynamism that is as unique as it is vibrant. While it is true that Iran has influence among some sectors in Lebanon, it is equally true that the US has even greater influence in even more sectors in Israel. Whether you like it or not, Hezbollah is an indigenous and multifaceted Lebanese political party and social movement.
Netanyahu’s allegation that Hezbollah is merely an Iranian proxy that has taken over Lebanon should be seen for what it is: a ploy to stoke as much sectarian division in Lebanon as possible, and a brazen attempt to lead the country into yet another disastrous civil war, all for Israel’s benefit.
More frighteningly still is Netanyahu’s statement to Lebanese.
“You have an opportunity to save Lebanon before it falls into the abyss of the long war that will lead to destruction and suffering like we see in Gaza,” he said.
Not that it was worth anything, but in the past, the colonial script focused on the (usually false) promises of a better future. Netanyahu, on the other hand, heads right to the threat, saying that Israel would turn Lebanon into Gaza. Worse yet, his threat utilizes his own ongoing campaign of unspeakable carnage in Gaza, an offensive labeled as plausibly a genocide by the International Court of Justice.
As Netanyahu posted his “message” to Lebanon, Israeli forces were once again besieging the northern Gaza Strip, bombing schools turned into shelters, encircling the Jabaliya refugee camp, killing more journalists.
How is Netanyahu’s speech to the people of Lebanon not an example of terrorism? He is clearly menacing civilians with death from the skies (Israel is already responsible for more than 2,000 deaths in Lebanon), certainly thus terrorizing them, all to generate a political change favorable to him in Lebanon — or is the charge of terrorism reserved only for Arabs and Iranians?
Israel is telling the Lebanese people that it will destroy Lebanon unless the Lebanese kill their own neighbors. This is cruel and amoral. Who is going to stop Netanyahu and his monstrous policy? Certainly not the US, which feigns concerns for civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon, while arming Israel to the teeth.
In the readout of the latest call between US President Joe Biden and Netanyahu on Wednesday last week, the word “ceasefire” did not even appear. After a year of Biden arming Israel’s assaults on the region, we can only conclude that this massive destruction is US policy, all those curated reports of Biden’s pained concerns and complaints against Netanyahu notwithstanding.
There is a long history of outsiders raining death on Arabs. Have the West become so accustomed to it that it seems almost natural, so inured to it that yet another massacre passes them by with barely a notice? If so, what does that say about the West? And who will stop this madness?
Moustafa Bayoumi is a Guardian US columnist.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
Workers’ rights groups on July 17 called on the Ministry of Labor to protect migrant fishers, days after CNN reported what it described as a “pattern of abuse” in Taiwan’s distant-water fishing industry. The report detailed the harrowing account of Indonesian migrant fisher Silwanus Tangkotta, who crushed his fingers in a metal door last year while aboard a Taiwanese fishing vessel. The captain reportedly refused to return to port for medical treatment, as they “hadn’t caught enough fish to justify the trip.” Tangkotta lost two fingers, and was fired and denied compensation upon returning to land. Another former migrant fisher, Adrian Dogdodo
RSS