In an article last month, Catte Black and Iain Davis argued that we should oppose the multipolar world order just as vigorously as we might any other model of tyranny.
Because the multipolar world order, led by the BRICS nations, is the same agenda that you’ve heard from the talking heads of the “Western Empire,” the US, its allies and its so-called military-industrial complex.
The following is paraphrased from an article written by Catte Black and Iain Davis titled: Interrogating “Multipolarity”: A Response to “Understanding Power Dynamics”. Published on 18 January, it was written to challenge points made in an article written by Professor Piers Robinson and Vanessa Beeley.
The Robinson/Beeley article maintains that multipolarity represents a positive alternative to Western Imperialism. While there is much that Black/Davis agree with, they do not agree that humanity could free itself via the proposed “multipolar world order.” On the contrary, Black and Davis suggest we should oppose the multipolar world order just as vigorously as we might any other model of tyranny.
“What some might call ‘multipolarity’ does NOT represent any real alternative and that neither ‘side’ – whatever the depth of the objections to each other – have the welfare of ordinary people as their goal,” Black and Davis wrote.
The Robinson/Beeley article suggested that the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are the result of “the continued projection of power by the US and its allies.” However, Black/Davis contend that the assertion that the “Western Empire” is essentially the sole driver of all evils is oversimplified and makes it hard for Robinson/Beeley to present a fully cohesive analysis of current events.
“Are we looking at a simple binary here? Red versus Blue? East versus West? Unipolar versus Multipolar? Or is that very projection of simplicity something we need to be wary of?” Black and Davies asked.
Although Black/Davis provides an analysis in the context of both Ukraine and the Middle East, we have only highlighted their arguments relating to Palestine/Israel.
It seems Hamas’ Al-Aqsa Flood attack on Israel on 7 October was, at the very least, an Israeli LIHOP false flag attack. That is to say, it appears to have been “orchestrated.”
If so, assuming Israel is part of the identified “Western Empire,” it could be argued that Hamas’ attack – lauded by many as a blow against Western tyranny – was, in fact, the “projection of power” by Western Empire.
Further evidence suggests this possibility.
It is unlikely that Hamas would exist in the form it does today without the support of the Israeli state. In addition, when US-led coalition sponsored an Islamist insurrection against the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad, Hamas backed the so-called rebels. Essentially, Hamas aligned with the US coalition and Israeli interests at the time.
Notably, the Hamas 7 October attack also served as a claimed casus belli for Israel. Hamas isn’t mentioned in Robinson/Beeley’s article but as they pointed out, Israel’s military response evidently “meets the criteria of genocide.”