It is a well-established precedent now in Western circles that excessive criticism of the wholesale Israeli slaughter of Palestinians, and more to point unconditional backing for these war crimes, can have devastating consequences for one’s career and professional standing. No matter what "Tel Aviv" does or how explicit its intentions may even be, to dare to even speak up against the killing of Palestinians has become a damning incitement and personal risk. 

In the political arena, criticizing Zionism has completely become taboo and forbidden, hence in the British Labour Party, the leadership of Keir Starmer brutally purged those who did not conform to his foreign policy vision, with the press having waged a smear campaign under the pretenses of “anti-Semitism” to undermine his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn. But whether it is in media or any circles, there is simply no debate to be had; legitimate criticism of "Israel’s" unlawful acts has become a topic that must never be spoken about.

Although this was always the case more so in the United States, the doubling down on pro-"Israel" narratives in the West at large is part of a trend that emerged in the pivotal year of 2016, whereby owing to the events of that year. Then, governments and establishments began to more aggressively enforce a notion of “narrative control” to the population, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. This resulted in the effective closure of legitimate public debate, critical thinking, and dissent on these particular topics.

Why 2016, to be exact? The year 2016 was a political earthquake whereby the political consequences of social media culture, combined with economic and political discontent, manifested themselves in outcomes that drastically challenged the status quo like never before. That year, Britain voted to leave the European Union in a referendum, and, in addition, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. Neither result was expected, but the march of right-wing populism created a crisis in the Transatlantic elite and establishment, which posed a risk to the political center ground and liberal hegemony at large.

Related News

Why the Israelis cannot win in Gaza or Yemen

Trump 2.0: One hundred days of institutionalizing injustice

From hereafter, western governments began consolidating power by aiming to exert greater control over narratives and social media platforms. New terminology entered the lexicon, such as “misinformation”, but more to the point, a vitriolic campaign was launched to attribute these “unwanted” political outcomes to the political interference of the Russian Federation. The “Russia narrative” sought to not only discredit Trump’s victory but also silence dissenting opinion in the West writ large by pretending every unpopular or unorthodox view was, in fact, an articulated campaign from the Kremlin. The liberal center ground subsequently bought into this and subsequently began using accusations of foreign collusion to bash opponents.

In the years that followed, this cultivated paranoia has been amplified aggressively as the strategic goals of US-led Western policy have shifted from “counter-terrorism” to a state of geopolitical competition, that is a power struggle between states for hegemony. The US seeks to contain the rise of China by economic and military means, strategically defeat Russia, and, in addition, it seeks to subjugate Iran in the Middle East too as a more regional competitor, with Washington never having made it a secret of its goal to terminate the revolutionary state. 

These insecure conditions, which are arguably the worst the world has ever faced since World War II, have all amplified and centralized the process of narrative control, whereby the mainstream media, backed by an industry of state and defense-backed think tanks, have policed and officiated which views are legitimate on foreign affairs, with every non-conventional view being dismissed as propaganda or misinformation. In addition, pressure on major social media platforms to conform to these narratives also has increased with every single global crisis. This is particularly evident in Elon Musk’s recent decision to meet Benjamin Netanyahu. 

As a result, the breakout of "Israel’s" invasion and wholesale bombardment of Gaza is taking place under the new regime of Western narrative centralization. Although, of course, Western support of "Israel" has always been unconditional and elitist, the political space to contest so has been drastically reduced as Western states become increasingly intolerant of foreign policy criticism amid the insecure environment of geopolitical competition. This has had the run-on effect of giving "Israel" free reign to conduct a scale of unparalleled destruction and desolation, while people are routinely punished with their careers and reputations among other things, for speaking out against it. 

In a nutshell, it has become the norm now that freedom of speech is being replaced with growing pressures to follow the “official view” on issues, or at least not to be seen as challenging it. The world has changed in a way that makes Western governments increasingly insecure about their own global standing. The result is that we now live in a world plagued by greater state conflicts and uncertainty, and it is yet again the people of the Middle East and the Global South who are paying the price for it.