Who killed the antiwar movement?
By Gabriele Zamparini
Online Journal Guest Writer
Oct 5, 2007, 00:44
After the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington -- and in
spite of nationalist propaganda of unprecedented levels coming from the
warmongers and their bowing and scraping servants in the media -- the hopes for
a global, really internationalist antiwar movement for peace and justice were
Many objective factors contributed to those hopes: the most
despicable American citizen was co-opted to be the White House�s resident by
his father�s friends sitting at the Supreme Court; a well known gang of
bloodthirsty psychopaths formed his infamous Junta; important parts of the
American establishment were critical or very critical of the Bush Junta�s criminal
plans and many governments voiced their opposition to those plans, which would
bring the unprecedented 2003 UN tsunami.
Even though the brainwashing for the war of aggression
against Afghanistan worked very well, there was a very high and organized opposition
in the US and in the UK for the coming war of aggression against Iraq. That
opposition was much higher in the rest of the world and possibly for the first
time in history, thanks also to the Internet, we experienced a real
internationalist movement connected and mobilized against the world�s warlords.
On 15 February 2003 millions of people took the streets of the world to
denounce their opposition to the mass murderers� plans; where the United
Nations failed, the United Nations� Peoples claimed their democratic
sovereignty: DON�T ATTACK IRAQ -- NOT IN OUR NAME.
Four and half years later, the antiwar movement is just a
shadow of itself while in Iraq the genocide of a whole people and the
annihilation of the whole country is business as usual; the banality of evil in
21st Century flavour.
Of course, everybody agrees with Howard Zinn, �there is
no magical panacea, only persistence." But in these past few years the
antiwar movement�s establishment has taken all the wrong decisions and the
In the US especially, the antiwar planners wanted to go
The oldest, most experienced and committed segments of the
movements have been isolated because too �old fashioned� and not presentable to
the �new friends,� the generous foundations linked to the Democratic Party.
Socialism and Marx can�t really be welcomed at fundraising dinners and cocktail
In spite of the many antiwar planners� claims that the
Israel Lobby has no real power to influence the US government�s policies, that
Lobby is so very powerful to influence even the antiwar movement from within.
The Palestine issue needed to be downplayed and many Palestine supporters and
campaigners have been marginalized.
That part of the movement who would keep asking questions
about the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington (please, note: questions
doesn�t mean conspiracy theories) have also been isolated and now whoever dares
to question the official truth of those events is labeled a conspiracy nut.
We all rightly criticized that most of the mainstream media
journalists have been embedded with the US Army, but at the same time the
antiwar movement�s establishment has been in bed with the Democratic Party. In
both cases, the show hasn�t been pretty.
Continuously lecturing about democracy, the antiwar
movement�s planners have taken the most important decisions in name of the
antiwar movement without consulting with anybody, let alone a real democratic
process where those guidelines were discussed and chosen or rejected.
While Iraq was being consciously brought into a civil war by
the occupation, who decided the support given by the antiwar movement to the
infamous political process and the outrageous
welcome given to Maliki?
Who decided the shameful, complete silence of the antiwar
movement when the legitimate president of Iraq was being illegally lynched by
that scandalous trial and then finally brutally assassinated by those sectarian
collaborationists who were also carrying out mass murdering and ethnic
cleansing against innocent people? Who decided the almost unanimous support for
Moqtada al-Sadr�s movement while its militia, the Mahdi Army, has been carrying
out atrocious crimes against humanity? Why has there been such a complicit
silence, when not an active defense, toward the notorious Iraq Body Count. Who
decided that the antiwar movement couldn�t express sympathy to the Iraqi
All these and many other important decisions, important also
for the antiwar movement�s direction, were taken by a very tiny minority of
intellectuals and planners, in the solitude of their Ivory Tower. No open
debate was allowed. The result has been a complete catastrophe, when not
associating the antiwar movement with ethnic cleansing in Iraq, as in the case
of the shocking support to Moqtada al-Sadr and the silence around his murderous
Mahdi Army, a support and a silence that still persist in spite of tons of
documents, reports, testimonies, denouncements, articles and an ocean of blood.
(Just read one of the latest of those documents, the recently published Amnesty
International�s report, Iraq: human rights abuses against Palestinian refugees).
The antiwar movement�s elites have barred any open debate on
many fundamental questions, imposing on the antiwar movement a direction
decided in other quarters and leaving the millions of people with the only
choice to take it or to leave it. Millions have left.
Zamparini is an independent filmmaker and freelance writer living in London.
He's the producer and director of the documentaries "XXI CENTURY" and
"The Peace!" DVD and author of "American Voices of Dissent"
(Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at email@example.com. More about him
and his work on thecatsdream.com/.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor