Nate Bear Do Not Panic
Yesterday Pete Hegseth triumphantly tweeted a picture of Iran’s Chabahar maritime port tower collapsing following an attack by the US regime. The image bore a striking resemblance to the collapse of the towers on September 11th.
Despite the fact this was, like most of the attacks on Iran, an attack on civilian infrastructure, it will not be labelled as such by the western media and political class. They will never call it terrorism or a war crime, despite the fact that it was both. Whether a civilian tower, a bridge, or a school full of children, western actions that result in mass murder will always simply be the product of a “strike.”
Benign language whenever the imperialist death machine starts slaughtering is a critical tool in maintaining consent for war crimes and state terrorism. And even though Hegseth literally tweeted a picture of this war crime, I‘ve yet to see an imperialist media outlet reproduce the image, because they know how bad it looks. This is a classic tactic we see over and over again: selective reporting and the omission of detail in order to bolster public support for state terrorism and war crimes abroad. Western media has already bundled this “strike” in with all the others in order to present a false equivalence between an illegal war of aggression on the one hand, and legitimate Iranian defence on the other (defensive actions which, by the way, are always labelled as “attacks.”)
The underlying psychology behind the double-standard is rooted in arrogance and supremacy: they’re the bad guys, and they do terrorism. We’re the good guys, and we “conduct strikes.”
And by we, I mean the forces of western imperialism, whether that’s the US or any other power that lines up behind the American regime, especially, but not exclusively, Israel. The use of the words “terror” and “terrorism” are also a critical rhetorical device, conditioning westerners to accept imperial violence as legitimate, and any resistance to that violence as illegitimate. This tendency was seen starkly of course after October 7th. Hamas does terrorism, while Israel merely strikes. Those strikes can be genocidal, they can reduce entire cities to dust, destroy hospitals, schools, universities, water treatment plants, grain silos and the means of life for two million people. They can kill tens of thousands of children in all manner of sadistic and gruesome ways, they can wipe out entire bloodlines, but they are never labelled terrorism. They are, and always will be, simply strikes. Because terrorism is bad, and we’re the good guys.
This is why a state was so crucial to the Zionist project. Before 1948, the groups that became the IDF, from the Haganah, to the Lehi and the Irgun were explicitly called terror groups. And their members were Jewish terrorists. These labels were widely used by western media, and the existence of Jewish terrorism was not controversial. In a 1948 Guardian editorial, in the aftermath of the King David Hotel bombing, the paper referred to “Jewish terrorists” who it said are “ruthless men corrupt by the sickness of the time, caring nothing for the sufferings of the individual Jews in Europe” for whom “every school boy’s jest is another argument for Zionism.”
But as soon as the Jewish Zionists got their own state, the terrorists were absorbed into the military arm of the state, and their violence, which months before was clearly identified as terrorism, was legitimatised by the recognition of a state. And this legitimisation of Israeli state terrorism went hand-in-hand with the decades-long campaign to legally designate resistance to state terrorism as the real terrorism, a campaign which led us inexorably towards the genocide of Gaza.
Genocide. Another word reserved by the hegemonic media only for the victims of the imperial enemy, and not for those slaughtered by the imperial ally.
So for the western media, terrorism isn’t terrorism, genocide isn’t terrorism, and it’s not even genocide. Despite the almost universal belief of genocide scholars, holocaust scholars, and international legal experts that what has taken place, and continues to take place in Gaza, is a genocide, the term is almost never used. The Guardian can even write an article with the title ‘Israel committing genocide in Gaza, world’s top scholars on the crime say’, and in the majority of its subsequent coverage, refer to it as a war. Their main hub for coverage of the genocide, ten months after that headline, is titled Israel-Gaza War. If they had the courage of their supposed progressive convictions, if the truly believed in experts, as all good liberals profess to do, they would accept the evidence they presented themselves, and refer factually to genocide.
They don’t because the western mind, in matters of imperialism requires dissonance. It requires references to “strikes” not terrorism, to “wars” not genocides and to “foreign policy,” not imperialism. This is especially true of the professional media mind which must filter, process and present the news from the imperial core. My guess is that some of the benign, consent manufacturing language is intentional, and some is simply the product of subconscious western supremacy and the dehumanisation of the periphery. Because to fully internalise the evil committed by the system you not only live within but help uphold would require the instant rejection of that system. And well, you’ve got bills to pay. The genocide can be the war if it means making that next installment on your mortgage.
As the terror attacks on Iran and Gaza continue, and as the genocide deepens, we’ll hear only of strikes and wars from a media class fully complicit in both.
(Hugely grateful to my readers for your generosity. If you appreciate my writing you can support me by making a donation here or upgrading your subscription)
Please share this story and help us grow our network!
