Many historians and sociologists see that the circus, with all its clowns and magicians and the plethora of impressive tricks, aerobics, and animals—starting from the Roman Games, which were watched by the Emperor and tremendous crowds of people, all the way to sporting competitions—was merely theatrical and aimed at distracting the masses, providing them with entertainment then cruelty, apathy, and applause.

Perhaps the Israeli Jerusalem Post newspaper summarizes the situation in its entirety when they said that in the midst of an existential battle against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, "Israelis desperately need something to celebrate, and our Olympians have provided ample reasons to cheer."

The main takeaway from the previous discussion is that distracting the masses from the truth is a historical craft that remains alive to this day. One of the paradoxes of the present time is that animals rarely appear in the modern "circus" due to the proliferation of animal welfare organizations concerned with the inhumane treatment of animals in circuses. The real irony is that emotional numbness peaks when the stars of the show become real humans.

The media has provided entertainment to the masses, and global military history is filled with stories and incidents that highlight the importance of media. It seems that half of the battles fought throughout history have taken place in the media. Although the form of media has changed over time—from ancient poems and epics to radio, newspapers, television, and now social media—the role of media in strengthening the means of battle remains significant. While the media is not the entire battle, it constitutes half of it, and it can be a decisive factor in whether a party emerges victorious or defeated. This role is too significant to be ignored or underestimated. "Israel" understands and senses this, and thus it aims to impose its own narrative in this area.

In the current war on the Gaza Strip, the issue with Israeli media is not limited to military censorship but extends to the media's contribution to what Israeli media researcher Yizhar Be'er describes as "false consciousness." This phenomenon isn't just based on lies; it can also be achieved by withholding information and encouraging ignorance. The passion for ignorance is one of the strongest in a person's life, potentially even surpassing the passions of love and hate, as noted by French psychoanalyst and theorist Jacques Lacan.

Be'er points to a survey conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey in the past, which found that some news actually makes people know less. The study found that after systematically watching Fox News, viewers were less informed than a control group that consumed no news at all. Thus, the media has the ability not only to frame reality and fill consumers' minds with content and understanding but also to penetrate their minds and empty them of reliable information and political understanding that encourages reflection and insight altogether.

Israeli media has had its moments in this regard, which did not begin during Netanyahu's rule, as he is not the sole protagonist of this approach to blindness or willful ignorance. In the Israeli narrative, the Palestinian victim in Gaza is erased and completely absent, resulting in a narrative where there is bombing without victims, glorification of Israeli military power, dehumanization of the Palestinian population in Gaza, and justification of violence against them. Said absence renders the victim invisible, and the level of dehumanization in "Israel" has reached a degree of complete disregard, allowing the use of force and violence without accountability or guilt for the perpetrators.

Related News

'Israel' stops unfunded diplomacy ahead of UN, October 7 memorial

Iran, Lebanon discuss Gaza crisis, regional tensions in Doha

Why Al Mayadeen?

First: The Israeli narrative almost became the only one. Al Mayadeen treated the media war as a real war, not as a luxury or a secondary front that could be disregarded. It took the responsibility seriously by putting Gaza on air months ago, taking it upon itself to pull the public away from being targets and rendering them consciously fortified.

The war on Gaza, in many aspects and outcomes, was revealing to everyone, showing which side every state, leadership, people, and individual stood on. That "Israel" views Al Mayadeen as an adversary is a source of pride and honor for the channel.

Second: Another point that needs to be considered to understand the Israeli anger towards Al Mayadeen is the analysis presented by Professor of Political Psychology Daniel Bar-Tal. He discusses the Israeli political leadership's, and earlier Zionism's, dedication to perpetuating a sense of insecurity and constant fear among Israeli Jews to distort collective Israeli consciousness. "Israel," therefore, operates on the idea of scaring its people and instilling fear of their surroundings, while, paradoxically, the resistance discourse is not based on enhancing fear but on affirming rights and strengthening pride. These positive meanings terrify "Israel."

"Israel" might not be bothered by channels that lament massacres and foster a spirit of defeat and despair as much as it is pained by a channel that challenges and resists, seeing a seed of victory amidst efforts of destruction.

Third: There is a fact we must consider today in dealing with Benjamin Netanyahu's personality. In short, he wants war and nothing else. He seeks a comprehensive war with a scenario that doesn't end until one side is completely finished. Netanyahu, emboldened by the US Congress' applause for his crimes, continues, for months, to empty his arsenal and bring out new tools, with an insatiable appetite for more. He carried out massacres without concern and executed assassinations without care. He certainly didn't heed the advice of Sima Shine, former head of research at Mossad, who suggested that "Israel should adopt a more modest policy towards Iran, a large country with a population of 90 million (larger than Germany), and a huge country in terms of size, with which 'Israel' should not become embroiled in confrontation." Shine advises every responsible leader in "Israel" to "remember our true size; a little humility won't hurt us."

Netanyahu has opened confrontations on all fronts and in various directions.

Fourth: "Israel" says in its narrative: We decide what you see, hear, want, and desire, and even how you think. We hold the coloring pencils to draw the scene we want. The Israeli authority also owns communication and media channels to broadcast and promote information that aligns with the narrative it wants to establish, and it commands others, either by order or voluntarily. But Al Mayadeen was resistant, first with its staff and second with its audience.

"Israel" wants to convey that the keys to stopping or starting the war are in its hands, and it wants to deafen ears to an alternative narrative or blind eyes to the real picture. Perhaps Netanyahu believes he holds the keys in his hands, but what lies beyond the doors he opens or closes are worlds over which he has no control. Closing eyes to disasters, whether by force, coercion, or distraction, does not mean they do not happen. And when they do happen, the truth cannot be killed.