Q&A: 'Pro-Palestine protests have broken West's gaslighting industry'

Israel's brutal and indiscriminate bombing of Gaza has killed more than 21,000 people in the besieged Palestinian enclave and triggered one of the biggest humanitarian crises in modern history.

Simultaneously, the occupied West Bank has witnessed increased Israeli atrocities, including settler violence and the detention of more than 3,200 Palestinians by Israeli security forces since the October 7 cross-border Hamas attack.

Israel, along with Western allies like the US, have framed Israel's war on Gaza and its collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza and occupied Palestinian territories as a 'war on terror', likening Hamas to organisations like Daesh.

This rhetoric has been further amplified by recent statements, like the US President Biden echoing Israeli misinformation of alleged Hamas atrocities and unsubstantiated claims that portray Palestinians as 'savages', rekindling a post-9/11 atmosphere marked by growing hate crime in the West against Muslims and Arabs.

Against this backdrop, the advocacy group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has reported a record number of complaints of anti-Muslim bias since October 7, headlined by the murder of a six-year-old Palestinian-American Wadea al Fayoume, who was stabbed to death by his landlord. His mother was also injured in the attack.

In this regard, TRT World spoke to Salman Sayyid, Professor of Rhetoric and Decolonial Thought at the University of Leeds and Head of the School of Sociology and Social Policy, whose work has pioneered critical Muslim studies.

In the free-wheeling interview, Professor Sayyid shares his insight on Israel's Western-backed narrative on Gaza and debunks the prevailing perspective on resistance and terrorism and its global implications.

TRT WORLD: How do you view the narrative surrounding Israel's war on Gaza, particularly regarding the interplay between resistance and terrorism on one hand and occupation and self-defence on the other?

Salman Sayyid: Tel Aviv's right to self-defence does not trump the Palestinian right to self-defence. It is important to contest the narrative… that defends its occupation and subjugation of the Palestinians, (that the) Palestinian right to protect their lives and livelihood should be considered any less.

The use of (the ruse of) terrorism is polemical rather than analytical, and this has been fairly well-established in literature. Until the end of the Cold War, this was the dominant position. The terms "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" were not objective and descriptive categories but were determined by the perspective of the observer.

With the 'war on terror'...US description of terrorism has become hegemonic, and the very idea of armed liberation struggles has been marginalised in the lexicon of international discourse.

This means that groups such as the Rohingya, Uighurs, Kashmiris, and, of course, Palestinians, among many others, find their resistance continuously re-described as terrorism, thereby deprıvıng them of legitimacy.

It doesn't require special awareness to notice the contrast with the Ukrainian resistance, how Ukraine has been presented by the Western powers, and what measures they have taken to support Kiev in the name of universal principles.

The narrowing down of the space for liberation struggles goes beyond including armed resistance; it extends to logistical or rhetorical support. As a consequence, the discourse around terrorism is attempting to foreclose politics itself.

Is the narrative changing?

SS: Currently, there are two narratives. One is a pro-Zionist narrative that accepts everything that Tel Aviv is doing and saying and is considered legitimate and reasonable.

The other is a pro-Palestinian narrative that considers Tel Aviv to be a colonial-racial state, an armed colonial settlement dedicated to the subjugation of Palestine and the establishment of apartheid.

The investment in Tel Aviv's narrative by ruling powers is so great that it would require a major effort to dent that. And that can only come about through a transformation of these countries' ideas of who they are. It is necessary to complete the process of decolonisation.

The demonstrations in favour of Palestine provide us with hope that this transformation can begin and we can work towards a world that sees justice for the Palestinian people.

This means the end of apartheid, the end of Islamophobia and the restoration of the primacy of civil rights throughout the world.

Can you expand upon the impact of this rhetoric on hate crime and Islamophobia and how states' stances and actions affect that? What does it imply for the security of Muslim and/or Arab communities living in Western countries?

SS: The global impact of Islamophobia is twofold. Firstly, it makes the world unsafe for expressions of Muslimness, thus threatening the lives and livelihood of Muslims and those considered to be adjacent to Muslims.

This lack of safety manifests itself in a variety of ways, ranging from street violence and institutional discrimination in employment, housing, social engagement and participation to segregation, apartheid, and even ethnic cleansing and genocide.

It's important not to become too obsessed with simply framing Islamophobia as an issue confined to the West. Islamophobia is a global phenomenon and can be found being practised in New Delhi, Tel Aviv, Beijing, Naypyidaw, and the rulers of many parts of the Global South.

There was a persistent illusion among many Muslims, especially those committed to interfaith dialogue, that Western countries would be immune to Islamophobia because of their liberal-democratic laws and values.

The experience of Muslims in Austria, France, Germany, Britain, and the US does not offer any comfort in this regard. It is quite clear that established Western regimes are capable of abandoning their principles of civil and human rights in order to regulate and discipline Muslimness.

The second element of the impact of Islamophobia is that it affects the social contract in different societies, between governments and the governed, and between rulers and the ruled. Many measures taken by institutions (and not just individuals) take away the ability of Muslims to exercise citizenship.

What we are witnessing is the intensification of Islamophobia, which creates a state of exception – a permanent situation where Muslimness is on the margins of legitimacy for those marked by traces of Muslimness.

It begins with violent extremist Islamists, then extremist Islamists, then those labelled as extremist Muslims, then moderate Muslims, then those considered to be adjacent to Muslimness, and finally, even those who are neutral. The state of exception becomes the new normal not just for Muslims but for all people.

We are witnessing the hollowing out of accountable governance throughout the planet, and Islamophobia is a vector for this development. Thus, the struggle against Islamophobia is not just a struggle for justice for Muslims but for all people.

In light of current reactions and developments, can you shed light on how international actors, law, and institutions have historically responded to decolonisation struggles? Do you perceive a similar trajectory unfolding today, or are there notable differences?

SS: The world order has historically been designed to maintain what the great social theorist W.E.B. Du Bois described as the 'international colour line'. This division between the West and the rest was enforced militarily, economically, and philosophically.

To sustain the colour line, i.e., to preserve the colonial-racial order of things, civilised nations unleashed violence of unrelenting intensity and scale. Torture cells, chemical weapons, and ethnic cleansing were all undertaken to defend the British, French, Dutch, American, and Belgian empires, just to name the most obvious examples of racial empires.

A system of apartheid operated in all European empires – which, without exception, were racial states, even those that proclaimed to be democratic. Liberalism and democracy were not antithetical to colonialism and racism.

They were compatible and complicit with it. Many ideologies of liberalism took diametrically opposed positions depending on whether they were talking about the West or the rest.

For example, (French diplomat and political scientist) Alexis de Tocqueville goes to America and sees how religion is wonderful in building social cohesion and is a secret of American progress. Two years later, he goes to Algeria and reports how religion is terrible for Algerian society and prevents progress.

At the same time, this violence of colonialism was re-described as a civilising mission in school textbooks and university courses. An active amnesia was encouraged. We see a similar logic at play today. The violence of the occupation and siege of Gaza, the apartheid state, is elided in commentary emanating from many Western ruling establishments.

What is your perspective on the significant discrepancy between the governments' positions and public opinion? Could the public's unwavering stance influence state actions?

SS: One of the slogans heard in pro-Palestinian marches in English-speaking countries goes like this: "In our thousands, in our millions, we are all Palestinian".

This is not only a declaration of solidarity with the suffering Palestinian people but also a recognition that global Palestinisation awaits us all as technologies of government control become normalised and are used to undermine civil and human rights.

The hostility towards the Palestinians is an expression of hostility towards the very idea of "we the people".

It is clear that pro-Palestinian marches have done much to influence state actions, and if these demonstrations become bigger and more insistent, their influence will grow. There are two aspects to this.

In the West, these protests have done much to raise awareness and break the illusions created by the Western ruling establishment's global gaslighting industry, from Guantanamo to Gaza.

In Islamistan (the Muslim world), these marches have the potential to become an exercise in people power and can bring about regime change, toppling the pro-Western tyrants who are seen as complicit in the genocide unfolding in Gaza.