Return to: Home | World Affairs

Bringing down the new Berlin Walls

John Pilger

Published 14 February 2008

The last thing the west wants is to dismantle the barriers separating "us" from "them". They are vital for justifying invasion, plunder and nuclear proliferation.

The recent breakout of the people of Gaza provided a heroic spectacle unlike any other since the Warsaw ghetto uprising and the smashing down of the Berlin Wall. Whereas on the occupied West Bank, Ariel Sharon's master plan of walling in the population and stealing their land and resources has all but succeeded, requiring only a Palestinian Vichy to sign it off, the people of Gaza have defied their tormentors, however briefly, and it is a guarantee they will do so again. There is profound symbolism in their achievement, touching lives and hopes all over the world.

"[Sharon's] fate for us," wrote Karma Nabulsi, a Palestinian, "was a Hobbesian vision of an anarchic society: truncated, violent, powerless, destroyed, cowed, ruled by disparate militias, gangs, religious ideologues and extremists, broken up into ethnic and religious tribalism, and co-opted [by] collaborationists. Look to the Iraq of today - that is what he had in store for us and he nearly achieved it."

Israel's and America's experiments in mass suffering nearly achieved it. There was First Rains, the code name for a terror of sonic booms that came every night and sent Gazan children mad. There was Summer Rains, which showered bombs and missiles on civilians, then extrajudicial executions, and finally a land invasion. Ehud Barak, the current Israeli defence minister, has tried every kind of blockade: the denial of electricity for water and sewage pumps, incubators and dialysis machines and the denial of fuel and food to a population of mostly malnourished children. This has been accompanied by the droning, insincere, incessant voices of western broadcasters and politicians, one merging with the other, platitude upon platitude, tribunes of the "international community" whose response is not to help, but to excuse an indisputably illegal occupation as "disputed" and damn a democratically elected Palestinian Authority as "Hamas militants" who "refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist" when it is Israel that demonstrably refuses to recognise the Palestinians' right to exist.

"What is being hidden from the [Israeli] public," wrote Uri Avnery, a founder of Gush Sha lom, the Israeli peace movement, on 26 January, "is that the launching of the Qassams [rockets from Gaza] could be stopped tomorrow. Several months ago, Hamas proposed a ceasefire. It repeated the offer this week . . . Why doesn't our government jump at this proposal? Simple: to make such a deal, we must speak to Hamas . . . It is more important to boycott Hamas than to put an end to the suffering of Sderot. All the media co-operate with this pretence." Hamas long ago offered Israel a ten-year ceasefire and has since recognised the "reality" of the Jewish state. This is almost never reported in the west.

The inspiration of the Palestinian breakout from Gaza was dramatically demonstrated by the star Egyptian midfielder Mohamed Abou treika. Helping his national side to a 3-0 victory over Sudan in the African Nations Cup, he raised his shirt to reveal a T-shirt with the words "Sympathise with Gaza" in English and Arabic. The crowd stood and cheered, and hundreds of thousands of people around the world expressed their support for him and for Gaza. An Egyptian journalist who joined a delegation of sports writers to Fifa to protest against Aboutreika's yellow card said: "It is actions like his that bring many walls down, walls of silence, walls in our minds."

In the murdochracies, where most of the world is viewed as useful or expendable, we have little sense of this. The news selection is unremittingly distracting and disabling. The cynicism of an identical group of opportunists laying claim to the White House is given respectability as each of them competes to support the Bush regime's despotic war-making. John McCain, almost certainly the Republican nominee for president, wants a "hundred-year war". That the leading Democratic candidates are a woman and a black man is of supreme irrelevance; the fanatical Condoleezza Rice is both female and black. Look into the murky world behind Hillary Clinton and you find the likes of Monsanto, a company that produced Agent Orange, the war chemical that continues to destroy Vietnam. One of Barack Obama's chief whisperers is Zbigniew Brzezinski, architect of Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan, which spawned jihadism, al-Qaeda and 9/11.

This malign circus has been silent on Palestine and Gaza and almost anything that matters, including the following announcement, perhaps the most important of the century: "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction." Inviting incredulity, these words may require more than one reading. They come from a statement written by five of the west's top military leaders, an American, a Briton, a German, a Frenchman and a Dutchman, who help run the club known as Nato. They are saying the west should nuke countries that have weapons of mass destruction - with the exclusion, that is, of the west's nuclear arsenal. Nuking will be necessary because "the west's values and way of life are under threat".

Where is this threat coming from? "Over there," say the generals.

Where? In "the brutal world".

An identifiable target

On 21 January, a day prior to the Nato announcement, Gordon Brown also out-Orwelled Orwell. He said that "the race for more and bigger stockpiles of nuclear destruction [sic]" is over. The reason he gave was that "the international community" (basically, the west) was facing "serious challenges". One of these challenges is Iran, which has no nuclear weapons and no programme to build them, according to America's National Intelligence Estimates. This is in striking contrast to Brown's Britain, which, in defiance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has commissioned an entirely new Trident nuclear arsenal at a cost believed to be as much as £25bn. What Brown was doing was threatening Iran on behalf of the Bush regime, which wants to attack Iran before the end of the presidential year.

Jonathan Schell, author of the seminal Fate of the Earth, provides compelling evidence in his recently published The Seventh Decade: the New Shape of Nuclear Danger that nuclear war has now moved to the centre of western foreign policy even though the enemy is invented. In response, Russia has begun to restore its vast nuclear arsenal. Robert McNamara, the US defence secretary during the Cuban crisis, describes this as "Apocalypse Soon". Thus, the wall dismantled by young Germans in 1989 and sold to tourists is being built in the minds of a new generation.

For the Bush and Blair regimes, the invasion of Iraq and the campaigns against Hamas, Iran and Syria are vital in fabricating this new "nuclear threat". The effect of the Iraq invasion, says a study cited by Noam Chomsky, is a "sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks".

Behold Nato's instant "brutal world".

Of course, the highest and oldest wall is that which separates "us" from "them". This is described today as a great divide of religions or "a clash of civilisations", which are false concepts, propagated in western scholarship and journalism to provide what Edward Said called "the other" - an identifiable target for fear and hatred that justifies invasion and economic plunder. In fact, the foundations for this wall were laid more than 500 years ago when the privileges of "discovery and conquest" were granted to Christopher Columbus in a world that the then all-powerful pope considered his property, to be disposed of according to his will.

Nothing has changed. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation and now Nato are invested with the same privileges of conquest on behalf of the new papacy in Washington. The goal is what Bill Clinton called the "integration of countries into the global free-market community", the terms of which, noted the New York Times, "require the United States to get involved in the plumbing and wiring of other nations' internal affairs more deeply than ever before".

This modern system of dominance requires sophisticated propaganda that presents its aims as benign, even "promoting democracy in Iraq", according to BBC executives responsible for responding to sceptical members of the public. That "we" in the west have the unfettered right to exploit the economies and resources of the poor world while maintaining tariff walls and state subsidies is taught as serious scholarship in the economics departments of leading universities. This is neoliberalism - socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. "Rather than acknowledging," wrote Chalmers Johnson, "that free trade, privatisation and the rest of their policies are ahistorical, self-serving economic nonsense, apologists for neoliberalism have also revived an old 19th-century and neo-Nazi explanation for developmental failure - namely, culture."

What is rarely discussed is that liberalism as an open-ended, violent ideology is destroying liberalism as a reality. Hatred of Muslims is widely advertised by those claiming the respectability of what they call "the left". At the same time, opponents of the new papacy are routinely smeared, as seen in the recent fake charges of narcoterrorism against Hugo Chávez. Having insinuated their way into public debate, the smears deflect authentic critiques of Chá vez's Venezuela and prepare the ground for an assault on it.

This is the role that journalism has played in the invasion of Iraq and the great injustice in Palestine. It also represents a wall, on which Aldous Huxley, describing his totalitarian utopia in Brave New World, might have written: "Oppo sition is apostasy. Fatalism is ideal. Silence is preferred." If the people of Gaza can disobey all three, why can't we?

www.johnpilger.com

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

28 comments from readers

Pencils
14 February 2008 at 12:32

Keep saying them things, Johnny boy!

Amihai
14 February 2008 at 13:35

When Hamas was permitted to participate in the Palestinian Arab elections in the territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and became the largest political power there – January 2006 – the world, including Israel, reached out to it and invited its leaders to participate in the peace process with Israel. The UN, EU, US, Russia, Arab states and the Palestinian Arab Presidency and the PLO requested of Hamas to take part in negotiations with Israel based on universally accepted norm in international relations. In essence, the entire international community requested of Hamas to:

1) Recognize in principle Israel's right to exist, or if you will the right of a member state of the UN to exist, in contrast to Hamas's Charter and official declarations to decimate any Jewish existence, including the state of Israel, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

2) Adhere to agreements already negotiated by the Palestinian Arab leadership and Israel and signed by the parties, in contrast to Hamas's declared refusal to adhere to agreements that it does not approve.

3) Cease all acts of terror and violence against Israel and Israelis. This of course is a redundant demand as it is included in the signed agreements, but Hamas, in contrast, continued to call for a continuation of all acts of "resistance", euphemism for acts of anti-civilian terror, aimed at the "liberation of the occupied territory", euphemism for the dismantling of the state of Israel in any part of this shared country of ours.

Having refused, to this day, to adhere to the above simple and universally accepted norms, Hamas has continued to attack Israeli civilians, mostly through the launching of Qassam rockets and mortars from the Gaza Strip at the socialist communities of Israel's western Negev and at the mostly working class towns of S'derot, Ofaqim and Ashqelon.

It is this behavior of those who later, through a brutal takeover of the Gaza Strip from the Palestinian Authority, that caused the entire international community, including Israel, to limit its ability to operate, by limiting – note, not by cutting off! - the amount of money transfer, electricity, petrol, etc., all commodities that Hamas used in its production of weapon systems used against Israel's civilian population.

It is interesting that this part of the relationships between the international community, including Israel, and Hamastan, after Hamas has taken over the Gaza Strip, is not mentioned by the writer of this article. I wonder why….!

Cybertiger
14 February 2008 at 14:25

"Look into the murky world behind Hillary Clinton and you find the likes of Monsanto, a company that produced Agent Orange ... "

Isn’t there enough wicked popery going on in the US without the democracy anointing this woman as pope to the Washington papacy.

Cybertiger
14 February 2008 at 15:57

I hear the Amihai, Avihu, Madav Katz cuckoos are still making deafening bird noises from the occupied Palestinian nest.

Riaz Ahmad
14 February 2008 at 20:46

It is not USA or Israel who are too strong and too clever, it is the Arabs who are to weak and brainless. Poor Gazans, they can only struggle, brave hunnger ans desaese in order to survice. Here is the justice of the free, fair and democratic west for all to behold. SHAME on both Arabs and the west.

Europhobe
15 February 2008 at 09:29

without even reading this article, i can tell it will pee me off. ARGH. why does this man continue to operate under the veneer of journalism

Avihu
15 February 2008 at 11:27

Can anyone explain to me - this the writer of this article will not dare do so - what is "heroic" about Hamas's launching Qassam rockets on a daily basis into the heart of the civilian socialist farming communities of the western Negev and into the heart of working class towns of S'derot, Ofaqim and Ashqelon, all with the intent to mass murder as many civilians as possible - man, woman and child - as part of the process of Islamising the whole region?

And, is the "progressive" publication of the New Statesman the place that should host such a writer who in essence calls for the continuation of the mass murder of civilians?

antileft
15 February 2008 at 12:18

"without even reading this article, i can tell it will pee me off. ARGH. why does this man continue to operate under the veneer of journalism"

Me too. I dont think Ill bother... The guy sure is a bore.

mitchy
15 February 2008 at 14:02

Heh. It never fails, John.

Interesting article, and hats off to the photographer. Very pleasing to see that crappy wall being trampled underfoot. It and its builders deserve no better.

Guy Bellairs
15 February 2008 at 17:36

The manufacturing economies of the USA, Israel and the UK, the prosperity of many billionaire proprietors and well-paid employees are now largely dependent upon the killing business. The Zionist-Palestinian War alone is the pretext for $3bn of 'defence' subsidy annually from the US to the Jewish state which bounces back in the form of arms orders. The outbreak of peace between Israel and Palestine would be a disaster for the 3 countries first named. It won't be allowed, whoever enters the White House..

Karl
15 February 2008 at 17:41

Hamas TV indoctrinates children with such hate

"But I, Assud, will get rid of the Jews, Allah willing, and I will eat them up, Allah willing, right?"

Watch the clip:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1679.htm

writeon
15 February 2008 at 22:06

The far right in Israel uses the Palestinian threat as a usful tool to keep political power. They like Hamas to fire their rockets and kill a few civilians to keep people on their toes and underline the necessity for a tough line in relation to the Palestinians. The Right doesn't want peace, it wants continual war, because continual war means continual power for them.

Why do they want power? They want power so they can rob Israel and steal all they can at the same time as they boast of how incredibly patriotic they are. Nationalism, Patriotism, Religion, Rascism; have always been used for two things; first to grab political power, and second to rob the people at the same time.

In this respect the Israeli Right has learnt a lot from the European Fascist movements it so closely resembles. It's just a shame, and deeply tragic, that Israeli public opinon is just a gullable and easily manipulated as the people of Germany were.

JimmyJames
15 February 2008 at 23:42

Thank you, John Pilger. Perfectly written. Authentic, investigative journalists like Pilger are hard to find.

Riaz Ahmad
16 February 2008 at 23:06

Avihu, count the numbers, who is killing who. Who is sitting on illegal land, who is enslaving who. Have you not learnt any lesson, not even a tiny one, from attrocities so cruelly perpetrated against the jewish race for centuries?? Are you blind of mind?

Avihu
17 February 2008 at 07:22

Riaz Ahmad, No I am not blind! I see reality for what it is, here, in my own country, in my own city of Jerusalem, and it is not the reality that you are being fed us by people who observe reality from abroad, without seeing it, without even being able to speak to the local population in its own languages of Hebrew and Arabic! And reality has been that at least 1920 - yes, 1920! - the Arabs of the region have, in an organized way, set out to decimate any Jewish collective existence here, including any political entity of course. Note, that was back in 1920 and it continued into the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s! This conflict did not commence in 1967 mind you. But this is of course a historic reality that is not comfortable for some to see; and they would rather see that which they wishfully paint for themselves.

I just wonder, why do the take to such painting.....!

Emmanuel
17 February 2008 at 07:41

Amazing how the Zionists distortionists are out in force peddling their hasbara. The so-called Memritv clip is from an organization that specializes in selectivity to demonize the Palestinians. Memri is run by former Mossad agents and is as credible as the allegation of existence of WMDs in Iraq.

Emmanuel

Emmanuel

BritishAirman
17 February 2008 at 08:35

A lesson you might like to read, Sunday 17 February 2008.

http://www.markatscotland.blogspot.com

writeon
17 February 2008 at 13:28

The part about the Nato discussion document and lowering the nuclear threashhold is important, and it's shocking how little attention this document has received in the media in general.

I think our rulers feel that the western way of life is under attack and they are preparing the ground to fight to secure western dominance of the world by any means necessary. This means using nuclear weapons to 'defend' our interests, simply because we don't have the enough soldiers willing to take up the struggle and also because it would be prohibitively expensive to do so.

Oh, we do want to fight, but by jingo,

We haven't got the men, or the money too!

To put it crudely, there are fanatical elements in the western ruling elite, that will fight tooth and nail to preserve their priviliged lifestyle, no matter the cost. They have identified nuclear weapons as the great leveller, the problem is, how does one find an excuse to use them and against which country? Using them would show we really mean business. I think Iran is the number one target for a number of reasons. Can our rulers really pull it off though, attacking Iran with nukes is a very high risk strategy indeed.

Serosch
18 February 2008 at 13:02

The Zionist goal of ruling all the lands between the Euphrates and Nile is the cause of the problems in the middle-east.

The Arabs need to grow a spine and combat the growing Zionist menace, sales of Oil both direct and indirect must cease to the illegal Zionist colony, the land borders must be sealed, all Zionist aircraft must be blocked from using Arab airspace. No visas should be issued by Arab nations to Zionists whether they live in the illegal colony or elsewhere. Zionist produced goods must be boycotted.

Each Arab nation must put 500,000 men into the field so that any incursion by Zionist terrorists is met with massive force.

Zionist propaganda must be challenged wherever it occurs.

Until they illegal Zionist colony is uprooted there will not be peace in that region.

Palestinians were not responsible for the holocaust, it was the Germans, therefore it should be the Germans who lose a part of their land; the Palestinians should not have to pay for the German crime.

nawawimohamad
18 February 2008 at 13:49

It is very rare to find such article written by John Pilger. Most of the articles that I have read are all about the good of the west and how poor, bad, inhuman, uncivilised, backward, stupid, facists.... you can continue..... are the rest of the world!

writeon
18 February 2008 at 22:21

The biggest propaganda falsehood is that we, in the rich and powerful west, are under attack by people who simply just hate us, hate us for no reason at all, because they are irrational, primative and backward. They hate our values and our democracy and our way of life. This is a comforting lie our rulers spread in order to conceal the real reasons we are at war.

It's us, in the west who are doing most of the attacking, it's us that have the weapons of mass destruction, it's us who are levelling cities and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people, it's us who are the real terrorists and mass murderers. Our leaders aren't liberal and moderate at all. They are war criminals and should be driven from office by any means necessary, don't vote them out, drag them out! Put them on trial, imprison them and throw away the key!

subprimate
19 February 2008 at 09:44

Writeon - hear, hear!!

Cybertiger
19 February 2008 at 10:54

"Our leaders aren't liberal and moderate at all. They are war criminals and should be driven from office ... Put them on trial, imprison them and throw away the key!"

Actually, I think Tony Blair should be extradited to a country that still deploys a primitive death penalty for crimes of inhumanity - the USA for instance.

Avihu
19 February 2008 at 14:48

Serosch,

May I ask you two questions:

1) When you refer to the "Zionists", don't you really mean to write the "Jews"?

2) Are you a member of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizballah or the Iranian Revolutionary Guards or only a supporter of one of these organizations?

I hope you don't find it offensive to answer this Israeli Jew who is actually fairly proud of his heritage and his citizenship.

Thank you,

Avihu

Pencils
19 February 2008 at 15:36

Note to newcomers:

Avihu (aka NadavKatz ) is actually a primitive zionist artificial intelligence device for generating mindnumbingly moronic propaganda - don't waste brain cells reading his posts.

stanlee
19 February 2008 at 17:54

Pilger has always spoken the otherside of the story, which normally goes "unnoticed". This article also stands out, given the crap we the readers get from the western press.

Tomatosoup
22 February 2008 at 00:03

Avihu! If the so-called "state" of israel, as i have heard, is a "state for jews", why does non-jews have equal right to settle there? Because the word "jew" means literally "descent of Judah", so therefore most of world "jewry" has actually nothing to do with being a "jew" non-what-so-ever. Even "zionism", the ultra-racial ideology, which was (and still is) the primus motor behind the "creation" of israel, was essentially founded by non-jews, namely by people of Khazar descent (Khazars was a tribe in caucasus, which converted to Judaism c.a. 700 AD). And another question: By which qriteria does the "state" of israel allow "citizenship", is it based on a)religion, b)race or c)something else? That´s one of the things i have been meditating, because if israel indeed is a "state for jews", then the word "jew" must be understood in pretty broad sense...

aussy2
10 April 2008 at 18:57

Avihu, It is the first time I have seen what you write, and thankfully there are many many Jews with understanding and the knowledge of the history of Palestina, something that it is shown you know nothing about.

The actual Jew State of Israel is behaving as bad or worse than the Nazis did in Germany.

I recommend you to go back to school, (perhaps not the Israel schools as I know they have changed history to suit their need) but an independent international one, and you could also study the U.N. reports about the Israel state.

Aussy2 from Spain

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

John Pilger

John Pilger, renowned investigative journalist and documentary film-maker, is one of only two to have twice won British journalism's top award; his documentaries have won academy awards in both the UK and the US. In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. "John Pilger," wrote Harold Pinter, "unearths, with steely attention facts, the filthy truth. I salute him."

Read More

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker