You criticize a fringe figure Max Blumenthal before centrists who are more upset about what someone like Max Blumenthal says than what their govs allow in Palestine, Sudan, West Papua or Western Sahara. People who bring up Venezuela but are relaxed about Argentina. People who are 'inversionists'.
We can guess that everyone who has replied to you supports Ukraine. But do they oppose Morocco's actions in Western Sahara? Do they care that most Western governments support annexation of Western Sahara by invader & occupier Morocco against int. law, int. courts & UN decisions? 'Inversionists.'
Among those in this thread who mock Corbyn & claim he's like Max Blumenthal (which he isn't), how many know or care that while preaching the sanctity of Ukraine sovereign territory United Kingdom included occupied Western Sahara in a trade deal with Morocco & UK court allowed it? 'Inversionists.'
Western Sahara has been on UN's Decolonization list since 1963. World Court dismisses Morocco's claim 1975. Morocco has blocked UN referendum since it was agreed 1991. War restarted 2020. UK backs annexation by Morocco. Does Eliot Higgins & his audience care? www.bbc.com/news/article...
Fringe figures like Max Blumenthal just do the same thing that people who rule the world: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Which they usually aren't. Problem is that people who should be concentrating on issues like why UK supports annexation of sovereign nation care more about Blumenthal.
This should be a huge scandal: "The UK has backed Morocco's plan for ending a territorial conflict in Western Sahara, as part of a deal that will secure lucrative investment projects in the 2030 men's football World Cup." But it isn't. It really should be. www.bbc.com/news/article...
Now imagine Sir Keir Starmer would support annexation of Ukraine in exchange of British business getting a slice of Russian money. It would be a huge scandal. It would end him politically, it would end Labour. But now? 'Inversionists' don't care. Morocco is a friend. www.bbc.com/news/article...
Criticising Western hypocrisy is important. Many governments do selectively apply human rights, ignore occupied territories like Western Sahara, and enable abuses. That’s not in dispute, and it’s not what inversionism refers to.
Inversionism isn’t a term for people who focus on Western abuses. It’s for those who reflexively deny or excuse crimes by regimes that oppose the West, purely because they oppose the West.
It’s not about what issues you care about. It’s how you respond to evidence. If someone denies chemical attacks in Syria, or defends Russia bombing civilians, not based on facts, but because “the West lies,” that’s inversionism.
So yes, Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara deserves far more scrutiny. So does Western support for it. But recognising that doesn’t require us to deny Assad’s barrel bombs or excuse Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara demands action, noty just scrutiny. European Union supports Ukraine but says Saharawis should accept limited autonomy under Moroccan occupation, autonomy defined by occupier - basically because Morocco gives EU companies lucrative contracts in Western Sahara.
And it's also this blatant duplicity & hypocrisy that lets fringe figures like Max Blumenthal to get & keep an audience, & its also why the Global South isn't keen to support Ukraine whe the West demands it. If people want to get rid of figures like Blumenthal, get rid of the duplicity & hypocrisy.
Okay, but it's nothing to do with inversionism, it can be criticised on its own terms.
Assad is gone. Israel is dropping barrel bombs in Gaza. Israel is using old, remotely controlled armoured personnel carriers filled with explosives to attack hospital. Sudan's military is dropping barrel bombs to areas controlled by genocidal RSF / Janjaweed, which is backed by Western ally UAE.
People & organizations who were very vocal when Assad was using barrel bombs are now quiet. People & organizations who very vocal when Russia & the Baath regime bombed hospitals in rebel-held territory in Syria defend bombing of hospitals in Gaza. Very powerful people among them. 'Inversionists'.
Someone like Max Blumenthal should be consistent in opposing war crimes and crimes against humanity. But he's a fringe figure. The real problem is not Max Blumenthal, it's that the occupants of the Oval Office and Downing Street 10 don't differ one bit from him. And they have vast power.
Yes, double standards exist. Yes, some people are silent now who spoke out before, and others defend actions now that they condemned when done by Russia or Assad. That’s real, and it deserves criticism.
But that’s not what inversionism means. It’s not about hypocrisy or silence. It’s not about defending the West. It’s about reflexively inverting whatever “the West” claims, no matter the evidence, and siding with its enemies by default.
Inversionism is when someone denies Assad’s barrel bombings, defends Russia bombing hospitals, or claims chemical attacks were false flags, not because of facts, but because “Western media can’t be trusted.”
The problem isn't choosing which injustices to focus on. It’s replacing verification with narrative loyalty. Truth becomes secondary to alignment. That’s what inversionism means.
This isn’t a call for silence on Palestine, Sudan, or Western Sahara. It’s a call for consistency: evidence matters, regardless of who it implicates.
Why bother even responding to a pure, screamy gaslighting account? Meant to sow division and smear people.
Well it certainly took Bellingcat an inconsistently long time to publish anything on Gaza
Initially our staff were working on other projects, and we weren't in a position where we could just drop them and start something new, but we've done multiple in depth investigations into Gaza since then.
So if someone’s upset about Max Blumenthal, it’s not because he critiques Western empire, it’s because he often defends authoritarian regimes by attacking victims and denying verified atrocities. That distinction matters.
Why bother even responding to a (clearly) pure, screamy gaslighting account? Meant to sow division and smear people.
If I can't explain my positions then I'm not much use.
If the party line switched, a lot of these people would happily cheer on what's happening in Gaza, I'd suspect? That's really the point being made here?