"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,” Frantz Fanon wrote in The Wretched of the Earth.
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 Eastern affairs, are still struggling with their relationship with the United States.
Though all signs indicate a rapid decline in US global status, many among our intelligentsia, possibly unwittingly, still believe that Washington holds all the cards and that any US administration that controls the White House naturally must 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 impact 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. And more …
However, the vibe radiating from many in the Middle East is that the doomsday scenario is real and that the big war is upon us. They ignore 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 checks. To warn of war while tens of millions are already suffering the outcomes of these western-funded wars reflects the degree of desensitisation and opportunism of the followers of western order.
Some of those crying over the supposedly imminent doom had initially presented the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, as the best worst-case scenario for Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. Though they may have acknowledged the genocide in Gaza, and even criticized 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 a saviour, the strong man who, with a stroke of a pen, will end all wars, Gaza included. They cited the man’s repeated emphasis 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 the political manipulation from the pro-Israeli lobby, and all other pressures.
Trump won. His crushing defeat of the Democrats on all fronts, including that of the popular vote, indicates that he would have won regardless of those who considered ending the war on Gaza a top political priority. But the early announcements that Trump’s future administration will include the who’s who in the pro-Israel Republican circle reignited the debate of the “bigger genocide” awaiting Palestinians and other fear-mongering tactics.
However, both sides of this inconsequential debate conveniently ignore obvious facts, that America’s ruling elites are rooted in pro-Israeli political allegiances; that though there might be a difference in style, US foreign policy, under the Democratic Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Trump’s future hire, Marco Rubio, is likely to be identical; that the Biden-Harris administration has given 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.
First, 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, Russia, among others.
Second, that several Middle Eastern countries are joining the increasingly influential BRICS alliance. The latter is not just a trade club, but 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.
Third, that 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 man dwelling in the White House.
If the political views of the American 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 the inherent US pro-Israeli bias. They didn’t, not due to the compassion of US administrations, but due to the sumoud, the resilience of the Palestinian people.
It is time that we abandon the archaic thinking regarding our collective colonial past, or present, that saw western leaders as masters, and our peoples as mere subjects, struggling to survive, imploring, though never obtaining, prudent westernforeign policies.
The world is vastly changing, and it is time for us to change as well. Fanon had already discovered the cure: We must clinically detect and remove the rot, not only from our land but from our minds as well.
In reply to Sian Lennox below.This 'critique' of Frantz Fanon lacks depth and misrepresents both his life and his ideas, substituting inflammatory rhetoric for substantive engagement.
Calling Fanon an "absurd idealist" disregards the empirical foundation of his work. His insights into colonialism arose from lived experiences, particularly as a psychiatrist in Algeria, where he observed systemic oppression and its psychological toll. His writings on violence do not glorify it but argue that violence is an inevitable mechanism in the decolonization process. Fanon believed colonisation itself is inherently violent, embedding domination into societal structures. For the colonised, reclaiming agency and dismantling oppression requires direct confrontation with this entrenched violence. He describes violence as a grim necessity rather than a romantic ideal.
The accusation that Fanon avoided conflict or relied on privilege misrepresents his life. Fanon’s service in World War II, his exile for supporting the Algerian FLN, and his prolific writing despite terminal leukemia reflect immense courage and sacrifice. Criticising his upper-class background is irrelevant; revolutionary contributions come from all strata of society.
The claim that Algeria’s revolution holds no significance overlooks its role in anti-colonial resistance. Algeria exemplified the global fight for self-determination and how colonised nations sought liberation. Fanon’s focus on Algeria is less about presenting it as an ideal and more about analyzing colonial dynamics and resistance strategies.
There is no evidence in his work of racism. Whilst we can argue that his work marginalises women, focusing heavily on male revolutionary agency many feminists have engaged with his writings to examine how colonialism intersects with patriarchy, using his analysis to explore the colonisation of women’s minds by patriarchal beliefs. Fanon’s exploration of how colonised peoples internalise the values of the coloniser offers a framework to understand how women, especially in patriarchal societies, are psychologically conditioned to accept oppression based on their sex. Although Fanon himself did not emphasise gender as centrally as race in his analysis, his work remains a powerful tool for feminist critique of the psychological and cultural impacts of colonialism on women.
The sweeping claim about "colonised minds" in the Islamic world is not only xenophobic but misrepresents Fanon’s broader critique of colonialism’s psychological effects. Fanon examined colonisation as a dehumanising force across cultures, avoiding simplistic or essentialist judgments.
Finally, the assertion that the West upholds free speech is absurd. Our minds in the west are colonsied by the way the west frames debate to support colonisation e.g. Israel's apartheid regime committing genocide against the people of Gaza. Cases like Julian Assange how the west seeks to destroy the lives of those who disagree. Criticising Fanon while ignoring such contradictions reflects your selective outrage.
Your dismissal is shallow and fails to engage with Fanon's contributions to revolutionary thought. You claim to be progressive and yet clearly, in all you say, show no evidence of being a progressive.
Ramzy Baroud is a Palestinian-American journalist who is a strong advocate for Palestinian rights and self-determination. Why should he waste his time replying to such a shallow reply to his article. His work highlights the ongoing struggle for justice, human rights, and a just solution to the conflict. Many in the west are not tired of his critique why do you think you can speak for the whole of the west? Outside of the west Israel and the US (plus France, Germany and the UK) are being seen for the imperialist monsters which, to my mind, we are. This genocide has opened my eyes to the nature of the USA's forever wars - there is nothing to choose between Biden and Trump when it comes to this.
Every time a woker uses the word Decolonise, and every time they cite Fanon - an absurd idealist who spouted violence but, like most leftists, couldn't handle actual conflict without crying or leaving his upper class privilege and study for the streets - a million working class people sign up for X and then join Trump and his rightwing allies worldwide. And a hundred people who actually understand the context of colonization laugh until they think, f$$k it, I give up on the Left. They are so simple.
As if Algeria represents any kind of enlightenment. And a racist, sexist person from a century ago matters?
There are no more colonized minds than 99% of Islamic men, then and now.
Go live in the Middle East please. The West is tired of your critique. See if you can write freely there.