We talk to friend of the show Prof. Gerald Horne about current geopolitical affairs and the necessity of studying history when resisting capitalism and imperialism.
Thank you Prof Horne, Karim and Peter for another illuminating session. Prof Horne is a veritable walking-talking encyclopaedia of history. It’s a true pleasure listening to him.
Recently, I have watched a discussion on BettBeat Media (Dr Gerald Horne-US Settler Colonial Chaos: Trump, Gulf State Imperialism, and Algerian Resistance) wherein co-host Peter Beattie asked Prof Horne for guidance on why the international boycott and divestment campaign that brought about such radical change to the South African society, is sorely lacking in its popularity and intensity for our Palestinian brothers and sisters. In addition to Prof Horne’s scholarly response, please allow me to venture a few pointers:
1. South Africa, being at the most southern tip of Africa, has barely been considered as an indispensable country for world hegemony by the western elites.
2. Although the nationalist apartheid regime positioned itself as the most southern bulwark against communist expansion and thereby acquiring relevance, the odium of absolute white domination at some point, became too onerous to defend.
3. At this stage, most of the country’s mineral wealth had been plundered and concentrated in powerful western corporations. South Africa, once the world’s number one producer of gold, has seen an 80% reduction in production for the past 35 years leaving it in 8th place of gold production worldwide.
4. Foreign investors, major corporations and industries, left the country in droves on the instigation of their governments which left the once powerful Rand struggling against the western countries where it sourced most of its materials and supplies. In exports, the country could simply not compete on the world stage any longer as a result of its severely emasculated monetary unit. Military aid, cooperation and sales came to a grinding halt and hence the creation of Armscor in 1968, the apartheid regime’s hubristic answer to military self-sufficiency.
5. Communism as we knew it, was in ICU and on life-support, which meant that the rationale for the existence of white minority rule in an overwhelmingly “Black” Country, simply ceased to exist. Perpetuating this system would have caused more problems for the western world than they were willing to endure, both domestically and internationally.
6. Concurrently, the Afrikaner business and political leadership in concert with the western elite, held numerous secret meetings with the ANC leadership and in effect secured an agreement that would replace a “white” oppressor with that of a “black” oppressor replete with a capitalist neoliberal ideology.
The parallels that the Palestinian cause shared with apartheid South Africa, reside in the violent oppression of a nation on their own land by a colonial power and thereby creating an intransigence to that nation’s aspirations for nationhood and self-determination. The institutionalised oppression and racism which the apartheid regime foisted on the oppressed population, and the violent defence of this iniquitous system, cannot compare in scale and intensity to the brutality and viciousness of the genocide that the Israeli Jews are visiting on the Palestinians, currently, and for past 77 years. The apartheid regimes’ reticence to effect its own genocide perhaps existed in the knowledge that they never had the political support of the western world to engage in such a vulgarity. The regime’s solution to these obviously “intractable” problems, of its own making, was to construct “Black homelands” or “bantustans” complete with their own dictatorships more or less similar to the incontiguous parcels of fallow land offered to the Palestinians as respite. Besides the fact that these “apartheid” systems have been and still are being employed against the oppressed masses with the inherent racism this presupposes, this is where the congruence ends. In 2025, what are the Palestinian people up against compared to what the oppressed people of South Africa in all probability, have escaped:
1. The creation of the state of Israel on Palestinian land, and the subsequent militarisation of that society “in a volatile region” solved a major geopolitical problem for the western powers.
2. The Six Day War of 1967, cemented Israeli supremacy in the region. Although Egypt and Syria launched largely futile attacks on Israel in 1973, the Arab states’ desperate wars with Israel waned significantly after they had been repelled and defeated variously. These defeats only served to emboldening Israel to play an even more aggressive role in regional politics and synchronously to stymie Arab unity that could threaten or compete with the hegemonic ideals of especially the United States.
3. The critical importance of a strong militarised Israeli presence in the region to safeguard American interests (oil), can never be underestimated. South Africa under the apartheid regime, on the contrary, never had such a geopolitical “advantage” that required the military protection of the United States. This, in retrospect, is a blessing. The insignificance of this country and the region, is substantiated by the fact that the West has never considered it an imperative to establish military bases in Southern Africa.
4. Even though over time a practice of politician acquisition has developed in mainly America, it is this symbiosis that has guaranteed the impunity with which Israel could exercise its death grip on the Palestinian people for so long ultimately culminating in the genocide that we witness today.
The dictates of capitalism, as personified by the elite, are so powerful that it will sacrifice entire nations to preserve its survival. The demos’ stratagem of mass protest, marches, boycott and divestment, which ultimately have as a goal to convince the elite and governments to suspend the tyranny of capitalism for humanitarian reasons, is only as commanding as the elite would allow it to be. The civilian support for these humanitarian causes still needs the cooperation from their governments to be efficacious. Since the main protagonists, the United States and the United Kingdom, are duopolies at best, I seriously doubt that voter considerations play any role in their decision whether to act altruistically or not. In the current political climate, where it appears that the elites have lifted their masque and a moribund democracy is in free fall, western governments simply ignore their people in the knowledge that they hold the levers of power.
(Please be advised that my comments do not purport to be instructive)
Thank you Prof Horne, Karim and Peter for another illuminating session. Prof Horne is a veritable walking-talking encyclopaedia of history. It’s a true pleasure listening to him.
Recently, I have watched a discussion on BettBeat Media (Dr Gerald Horne-US Settler Colonial Chaos: Trump, Gulf State Imperialism, and Algerian Resistance) wherein co-host Peter Beattie asked Prof Horne for guidance on why the international boycott and divestment campaign that brought about such radical change to the South African society, is sorely lacking in its popularity and intensity for our Palestinian brothers and sisters. In addition to Prof Horne’s scholarly response, please allow me to venture a few pointers:
1. South Africa, being at the most southern tip of Africa, has barely been considered as an indispensable country for world hegemony by the western elites.
2. Although the nationalist apartheid regime positioned itself as the most southern bulwark against communist expansion and thereby acquiring relevance, the odium of absolute white domination at some point, became too onerous to defend.
3. At this stage, most of the country’s mineral wealth had been plundered and concentrated in powerful western corporations. South Africa, once the world’s number one producer of gold, has seen an 80% reduction in production for the past 35 years leaving it in 8th place of gold production worldwide.
4. Foreign investors, major corporations and industries, left the country in droves on the instigation of their governments which left the once powerful Rand struggling against the western countries where it sourced most of its materials and supplies. In exports, the country could simply not compete on the world stage any longer as a result of its severely emasculated monetary unit. Military aid, cooperation and sales came to a grinding halt and hence the creation of Armscor in 1968, the apartheid regime’s hubristic answer to military self-sufficiency.
5. Communism as we knew it, was in ICU and on life-support, which meant that the rationale for the existence of white minority rule in an overwhelmingly “Black” Country, simply ceased to exist. Perpetuating this system would have caused more problems for the western world than they were willing to endure, both domestically and internationally.
6. Concurrently, the Afrikaner business and political leadership in concert with the western elite, held numerous secret meetings with the ANC leadership and in effect secured an agreement that would replace a “white” oppressor with that of a “black” oppressor replete with a capitalist neoliberal ideology.
The parallels that the Palestinian cause shared with apartheid South Africa, reside in the violent oppression of a nation on their own land by a colonial power and thereby creating an intransigence to that nation’s aspirations for nationhood and self-determination. The institutionalised oppression and racism which the apartheid regime foisted on the oppressed population, and the violent defence of this iniquitous system, cannot compare in scale and intensity to the brutality and viciousness of the genocide that the Israeli Jews are visiting on the Palestinians, currently, and for past 77 years. The apartheid regimes’ reticence to effect its own genocide perhaps existed in the knowledge that they never had the political support of the western world to engage in such a vulgarity. The regime’s solution to these obviously “intractable” problems, of its own making, was to construct “Black homelands” or “bantustans” complete with their own dictatorships more or less similar to the incontiguous parcels of fallow land offered to the Palestinians as respite. Besides the fact that these “apartheid” systems have been and still are being employed against the oppressed masses with the inherent racism this presupposes, this is where the congruence ends. In 2025, what are the Palestinian people up against compared to what the oppressed people of South Africa in all probability, have escaped:
1. The creation of the state of Israel on Palestinian land, and the subsequent militarisation of that society “in a volatile region” solved a major geopolitical problem for the western powers.
2. The Six Day War of 1967, cemented Israeli supremacy in the region. Although Egypt and Syria launched largely futile attacks on Israel in 1973, the Arab states’ desperate wars with Israel waned significantly after they had been repelled and defeated variously. These defeats only served to emboldening Israel to play an even more aggressive role in regional politics and synchronously to stymie Arab unity that could threaten or compete with the hegemonic ideals of especially the United States.
3. The critical importance of a strong militarised Israeli presence in the region to safeguard American interests (oil), can never be underestimated. South Africa under the apartheid regime, on the contrary, never had such a geopolitical “advantage” that required the military protection of the United States. This, in retrospect, is a blessing. The insignificance of this country and the region, is substantiated by the fact that the West has never considered it an imperative to establish military bases in Southern Africa.
4. Even though over time a practice of politician acquisition has developed in mainly America, it is this symbiosis that has guaranteed the impunity with which Israel could exercise its death grip on the Palestinian people for so long ultimately culminating in the genocide that we witness today.
The dictates of capitalism, as personified by the elite, are so powerful that it will sacrifice entire nations to preserve its survival. The demos’ stratagem of mass protest, marches, boycott and divestment, which ultimately have as a goal to convince the elite and governments to suspend the tyranny of capitalism for humanitarian reasons, is only as commanding as the elite would allow it to be. The civilian support for these humanitarian causes still needs the cooperation from their governments to be efficacious. Since the main protagonists, the United States and the United Kingdom, are duopolies at best, I seriously doubt that voter considerations play any role in their decision whether to act altruistically or not. In the current political climate, where it appears that the elites have lifted their masque and a moribund democracy is in free fall, western governments simply ignore their people in the knowledge that they hold the levers of power.
(Please be advised that my comments do not purport to be instructive)
End.