Has the conflict in Gaza become the main manifestation of the Wests double standards ?
Almost a year into the first live-streamed genocide, originating in Gaza and swiftly extending into the occupied West Bank, mainstream Western media continue to reject the term "genocide" to characterize Israel's destructive onslaught.
As the genocide worsens and Israel's starving blockade of the enclave persists, the atrocities become increasingly difficult to conceal, and Gaza receives less coverage.
The biggest offender has been the BBC, as it is the sole publicly sponsored broadcaster in Britain. Ultimately, it is expected to be accountable to the British public, who are legally obligated to pay its license fee.
It has been utterly absurd to watch the billionaire-owned media fervently criticize the BBC for alleged "BBC bias"—not against Palestinians but against Israel. Yes, you heard that right.
We are referring to the same "anti-Israel" BBC that just published another headline—this time following an Israeli sniper's shooting of an American citizen in the head—that strangely neglected to identify her killer. A casual reader would mistakenly conclude from the title “American activist shot dead in occupied West Bank” that a Palestinian gunman was responsible.
After all, it is Hamas, a group ''classified as a terrorist organization'' by the British government, that represents the Palestinians, as the BBC consistently reminds us.
And it was the supposedly "anti-Israel" BBC that attempted to obstruct the efforts of 15 aid organizations, collectively known as the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), to conduct a significant fundraising campaign via the nation's broadcasters.
There is a clear understanding regarding the BBC's reluctance to take part. The DEC has selected Gaza as the recipient of its most recent aid initiative.
The committee encountered a similar issue with the BBC in 2009, when the corporation declined to participate in a Gaza fundraising on the dubious grounds that it would violate its principles of "impartiality."
In the eyes of the BBC, the act of saving Palestinian children's lives is indicative of bias, whereas the act of saving Ukrainian children's lives is not viewed similarly.
During its 2009 assault, Israel "only" killed 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza, not the many tens of thousands, or perhaps hundreds of thousands—no one truly knows—it has this time around.
The late, independent-minded Labour politician Tony Benn infamously disregarded the BBC’s DEC ban by reading out details of how to donate money live on air over the protests of the show’s presenter. As he stated at the time, his message remains even more relevant today.
“People will die because of the BBC’s decision.”
According to sources from both the committee and the BBC, the corporation's executives are terrified, as they have been in the past, about the "backlash" from Israel and its powerful lobbyists in the UK if it endorses the Gaza appeal.
A BBC spokeswoman said that the fundraiser failed to satisfy all the requisite conditions for a national appeal, despite the DEC's opinion that it does, but noted that the potential of broadcasting an appeal was "under review."
The establishment media's consistent leniency towards Israel fundamentally contributes to Israel's ability to perpetrate a genocide, with the active assistance of Western governments.
Readers and viewers are not informed that Israel is perpetrating systematic war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, let alone a genocide.
Journalists tend to characterize events as a “humanitarian crisis” to absolve Israel of accountability for causing the crisis. It focuses on the consequences and pain rather than the origin: Israel.
Even worse, these journalists consistently obfuscate the truth with absurd counter-claims to imply that Israel is the victim rather than the aggressor.
Consider, for instance, the recent "study" into alleged BBC anti-Israel bias, conducted by a British attorney residing in Israel. A faux-horrified Daily Mail warned that the:
“BBC is FOURTEEN times more likely to accuse Israel of genocide than Hamas … amid growing calls for inquiry”.
However, upon examination of the text, it is remarkable that during the specified four-month interval, the BBC used the term "genocide" in relation to Israel a mere 283 times across its extensive array of television and radio channels, websites, podcasts, and diverse social media platforms, catering to numerous audiences both domestically and internationally.
The Mail and other right-wing media fail to acknowledge that none of those references would constitute the BBC's own editorializing. Even Palestinian guests attempting to utilize the term during broadcasts are swiftly silenced.
A significant number of the references pertain to BBC News coverage of a case by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, which is investigating Israel for what the world's top court described in January as a "plausible" risk of genocide in Gaza.
Unfortunately for the BBC, it has been impossible to broadcast the story without referencing the term “genocide,” as it is central to the legal case.
What should truly astonish us is that an ongoing genocide, in which the West is completely involved, was referenced by the BBC’s extensive media network only 283 times in the four months following October 7.
The World Court's preliminary verdict about Israel's genocide is an essential context that should be prominently featured in all media stories concerning Gaza. Instead, reports typically omit or conceal it at the end, leaving few readers with knowledge of it.
In January, South Africa submitted a genocide case to the World Court, which the judges deemed "plausible." The BBC notoriously provided minimal coverage of this case. In contrast, it presented Israel's complete defense to the same court.
Following the recent intimidation campaign by billionaire-controlled media, the BBC will probably be even more reluctant to mention the genocide, which is the intended objective.
The Mail and the broader establishment media should have been far more astonished when the BBC aired 19 references to a Hamas "genocide" within the same four-month timeframe.
The claim that Hamas can perpetrate a "genocide" against Israel or Jews is as disconnected from reality as the fictional tale of it "beheading babies" on October 7, or the unsubstantiated allegations still lacking any evidence of "mass rape" on that day.
Hamas, an armed organization including thousands of fighters, is presently constrained in Gaza by one of the most powerful militaries in the world, rendering it impossible to commit a “genocide” against Israelis.
This explains why the World Court is not investigating Hamas for genocide, and why only Israel's most fanatic supporters propagate fairy tales, claiming either that Hamas is committing genocide or that it may potentially attempt to do so.
No one takes claims of a genocide by Hamas seriously. The indication was the global astonishment when the group successfully escaped from the Gaza concentration camp for one day on October 7 and wreaked havoc on their Israeli colonizers.
The notion that Hamas could perpetrate something worse than that or even replicate the assault is just ridiculous. Hamas's optimal strategy is to conduct a guerrilla war of attrition against the Israeli forces via its underground tunnels, which is precisely what it is doing.
Another noteworthy statistic from the recent study is that during the same four-month period, the BBC employed the phrase “crimes against humanity” 22 times to characterize the ''atrocities'' perpetrated by Hamas on a single day last October, in contrast to only 15 instances for Israel's more egregious atrocities committed consistently over the preceding year.
The ultimate effect of the recent media uproar is to intensify pressure on the BBC to yield further concessions to the self-interested, right-wing political agenda of billionaire-owned media and the corporate interests it embodies.
The responsibility of the state broadcaster is to set limits on allowable thought for the British populace—not on the right, a duty assumed by papers like the Mail and the Telegraph, but rather on the opposing end of the political spectrum, which is misleadingly labeled as “the left.”
The BBC's role is to delineate what constitutes permissible speech and actions—as deemed acceptable by the British establishment—for those seeking to challenge its domestic and foreign policy.
In recent history, two progressive left-wing opposition leaders have arisen: Michael Foot in the early 1980s and Jeremy Corbyn in the late 2010s. In both instances, the media collectively vilified them.
Such a revelation should surprise no one. Designating the BBC as a whipping boy—labeling it as “left-wing"—is a a persistent type of gaslighting aimed at rendering Britain’s extreme right-wing media appear centrist while simultaneously normalizing the effort to shift the BBC further to the right.
For decades, media owned by billionaires have shaped public perception to suggest that the BBC epitomizes the farthest reaches of alleged "left-wing" ideology. The further the corporation is compelled to go rightward, the more the left confronts an undesirable dilemma: either align with the BBC's rightward trajectory or risk being widely disparaged as the extreme left, the woke left, the Trot left, or the militant left.
The journalist-servants of Rupert Murdoch and other press tycoons can interpret any protests by BBC staff as additional evidence of the corporation's leftist or Marxist bias, reinforcing this self-fulfilling argument.
The media system is rigged, and the BBC serves as an ideal instrument for maintaining this state.
The BBC and other mainstream media are minimizing not just the facts surrounding Israel's genocide in Gaza but also the evident genocidal intent of Israeli authorities, the wider society, and their apologists everywhere.
It is indisputable that Israel is perpetrating genocide in Gaza, as articulated by officials, including the prime minister, who have explicitly stated this intention.
Instances of genocidal rhetoric by Israeli officials filled pages in South Africa's case presented to the World Court. For instance, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to the Palestinians as "Amalek," a biblical story that every Israeli schoolchild is familiar with, in which God commands the Israelites to eradicate an entire people, including their offspring and livestock.
Individuals active on social media have encountered a barrage of similarly genocidal comments from predominantly anonymous Israel advocates.
Those genocide cheerleaders recently gained a face—two, in fact. Video footage featuring two Israelis podcasting in English under the name "Two Nice Jewish Boys" has gained widespread attention, depicting them advocating for the extermination of all Palestinian men, women, and children.
A podcaster remarked that “zero people in Israel” are concerned about the potential killing of babies resulting from a polio spread attributed to the devastation of Gaza’s water, sewage, and health infrastructure, noting that Israel's agreement to a vaccine initiative is solely motivated by public relations considerations.
In a separate segment, the podcasters concur that Palestinian hostages in Israeli prisons merit to be:
“Executed by shoving too large of an object up their butts.”
They explicitly indicate their willingness to activate a genocide button to eradicate the Palestinian population:
“If you gave me a button to just erase Gaza—every single living being in Gaza would no longer be living tomorrow—I would press it in a second... And I think most Israelis would. They wouldn’t talk about it like I am, they wouldn’t say ‘I pressed it’, but they would press it.”
While such inhumane remarks can easily distress us, the outrage this duo provokes is likely to overshadow a more significant issue: their comments are entirely emblematic of the current state of Israeli society. They are not on the fringes of Israeli society. They do not constitute outliers. They are well entrenched in the mainstream.
The evidence extends beyond the systematic abuse of Palestinian prisoners by Israel's citizen army, including acts of sodomy and beatings, the deliberate shooting of Palestinian children in the head, the celebration of the destruction of universities and mosques, the desecration of Palestinian bodies, and the imposition of a starvation blockade on Gaza.
The wider Israeli society is accepting this unyielding depravity.
Following the release of a video depicting soldiers sodomizing a Palestinian prisoner in Israel's Sde Teiman torture camp, Israelis expressed their support for the soldiers. The severity of the prisoner's interior injuries necessitated hospitalization.
Following the events, Israeli pundits—self-described "liberals"—sat in television studios to debate whether the state should systematically orchestrate such violations as part of its official torture program, or whether troops should have the autonomy to decide whether to commit rape against Palestinians in detention.
One of the soldiers implicated in the gang rape case chose to relinquish his anonymity after receiving support from journalists who conducted interviews with him. He is currently regarded as a small celebrity on Israeli television programs.
Polls indicate that the vast majority of Jewish Israelis either endorse the destruction of Gaza or desire an escalation of such actions. About 70% of Jewish Israelis support banning and prohibiting expressions of sympathy for civilians in Gaza on social media networks.
This is not novel. The situation became far more ostentatious following Hamas's strike on October 7.
After all, some of the most startling violence that day occurred when Hamas fighters encountered a dance festival near Gaza's concentration camp, which they got out of.
The harsh confinement of 2.3 million Palestinians, coupled with a 17-year siege that deprives them of basic necessities and significant freedoms, has become so normalized among Israelis that trendy, freedom-loving Israeli youths can joyfully host a rave in proximity to this mass human suffering.
“It’s nice to know that you’re dancing in a concert while hundreds of thousands of Gazans are homeless, sitting in a tent.”
His partner interrupted:
“Makes it even better … People enjoy knowing they [Palestinians in Gaza] are suffering.”
This monstrous indifference to, or even enjoyment in, the suffering of others is not confined to Israelis. There’s a whole army of notable advocates for Israel in the West who firmly defend Israel's genocidal crimes.
The commonality among them is the Jewish supremacist ideology of Zionism.
In Britain, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis has neither condemned nor remained silent on the mass slaughter of Palestinian children in Gaza. On the contrary, he has given his blessing to Israel's war crimes.In mid-January, as South Africa commenced its public case against Israel for genocide, which the World Court deemed “plausible,” Mirvis addressed a public audience, characterizing Israel’s activities in Gaza as “the most outstanding possible thing.”
He referred to the troops, who were plainly documented committing war crimes, as “our heroic soldiers,” thereby oddly equating the conduct of a foreign Israeli army with those of the British army.
Even if we presume he was genuinely unaware of the war crimes in Gaza nine months prior, there are no excuses now.
In September, Mirvis criticized the British government for implementing a small and limited restriction on military shipments to Israel, following legal advice indicating that such weapons were likely employed by Israel to perpetrate war crimes.
In other wards, Mirvis explicitly urged his government to disregard international law and provide arms to a regime perpetrating war crimes, as stated by UK government lawyers, as well as a "plausible genocide," according to the International Court of Justice.
Apologists such as Mirvis occupy prominent positions throughout the West.
In a late August television appearance, his French counterpart Haim Korsia urged Israel to "finish the job" in Gaza and expressed support for Netanyahu, who the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is pursuing for war crimes.
Korsia declined to denounce Israel's killing of at least 41,000 Palestinians in Gaza, arguing that those killed were “not of the same order” as the 1,150 Israeli casualties on 7 October.
It was difficult to avoid the conclusion that he regarded Palestinian lives as worth less than Israeli lives.
Approximately 30 years ago, Israeli sociologist Dan Rabinowitz released a book titled Overlooking Nazareth, which contended that Israel was a significantly more racist society than often perceived.
His work has taken on a new relevance—not just for Israelis—since October 7.
In the 1990s, as is the case today, external observers presumed that Israel was polarized between the religious and secular, the traditional and modern, between vulgar recent immigrants and more enlightened "veterans.”
Israelis frequently perceive a geographical division within their society: between peripheral communities where prevalent racism thrives and a metropolitan center surrounding Tel Aviv characterized by a refined, cultured liberalism.
Rabinowitz dismantled this idea thoroughly. He chose the small Jewish colony of Nazareth Illit in northern Israel as his case study, known for its strong right-wing views, which included endorsement of the fascist movement under the leadership of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.
Rabinowitz attributed the city's politics mainly to the state's construction over Nazareth, the largest Palestinian community in Israel, aimed at containing, controlling, and oppressing its historical neighbor.
He contended that the Jews of Nazareth Illit were not more racist than the Jews of Tel Aviv. They were far more exposed to a Palestinian "Arab" presence. Indeed, considering that few Jews opted to reside there, they were significantly outnumbered by their Palestinian ''Arab'' neighbors. The state had positioned them in direct, confrontational competition with Nazareth for land and resources.
The Jews of Tel Aviv, meanwhile, rarely encountered a Palestinian "Arab" except in a servant’s role, such as a waiter or worker on a construction site.
Rabinowitz observed that the Jews of Nazareth Illit faced their own racism on a daily basis. They had rationalized and become comfortable with their own racism. Jews in Tel Aviv could feign open-mindedness as their bigotry was never really tested.
However, 7 October altered everything. Suddenly, the "liberals" of Tel Aviv faced an unwelcome, vengeful Palestinian presence within their state. The Palestinian "Arab" ceased to be the subjugated, docile, subservient individual they had grown accustomed to.
Unexpectedly, the Jews of Tel Aviv perceived an encroachment against a space they considered entirely theirs, akin to the experience of the Jews of Nazareth Illit over several decades. They replied in just the same manner. They justified their internal fascism. Overnight, they became comfortable with genocide.
The feeling of "invasion" transcends Israel.
On 7 October, Hamas's surprise attack was not solely an assault against Israel. The escape of a small group of warriors from one of the largest and most fortified prisons constituted a startling challenge to the complacency of Western elites—specifically, their conviction that the world order they had established via force for their own benefit was both permanent and inviolable.
The events of 7 October significantly undermined their confidence in the perpetual containment of the non-Western world, its obligation to serve Western interests, and its endless subjugation.
The Hamas attack swiftly revealed the hidden fascism within the Western political, media, and religious elite, who have long masqueraded as custodians of a supposedly enlightened, humanitarian, and liberal civilizing mission.
The act succeeded because the world was ordered in such a way that they could easily pretend to themselves and others that they stood against the barbarism of the Other.
The West's colonialism was primarily concealed, delegated to expansive, exploitative, environmentally detrimental Western corporations and a network of around 800 US military bases abroad, established to intervene if this new, indirect economic imperialism faced challenges.
On October 7, Hamas, whether deliberately or unintentionally, revealed the facade of that deception. The facade of an ideological divide between right-wing Western politicians and an alleged "left" crumbled abruptly. They were all members of the same war party; they all became adherents of the genocide party.
All have demanded Israel's alleged "right to defend itself," which, in reality, signifies its right to perpetuate decades of oppression against the Palestinian people by enforcing a blockade on food, water, and electricity for Gaza's 2.3 million residents.
All enthusiastically endorse equipping Israel for the slaughter and mutilation of tens of thousands of Palestinians. All have failed to implement a ceasefire, apart from paying lip service to the notion.
All appear more inclined to disregard international law and its supporting institutions than to enforce it against Israel. All condemn the large rallies against genocide as antisemitism, rather than denouncing the genocide itself.
October 7 was a significant moment. It revealed a grotesque savagery that is difficult to reconcile with. We will not succeed until we confront a harsh reality: the origin of this wickedness is far nearer than we ever imagined.