espite the announcement of the Israel-Hamas deal on Wednesday to release hostages over a four-day pause in the conflict, it’s a pause and not a ceasefire.

Buried beneath the surface of the glaring question on everyone’s mind is the perplexing stance of the West: why the persistent denial of a ceasefire, opting instead for surreal amendments to the United Nations’ resolution at its General Assembly?

However, in a world ensnared by the perplexities of the Gaza war, one cannot ignore the powerful counterpoint the relentless global protests present to liberal rebuff.

Liberal denial

All the strategic rationalities, diplomatic parsing and semantic acrobatics aside, a pressing inquiry demands our attention— to dissect the mechanisms behind this denial. Beyond the clutter of news headlines, how do we know what underlies the wellspring of liberal denial concerning Palestinian rights, and in this case, the urgency of a ceasefire?

In Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics, Mitchell Plitnick and Marc Lamont Hill, dissect the unsettling phenomenon of liberal denial when it comes to Palestinian rights. In tandem, in Tolerance is a Wasteland, Saree Makdisi, an American literary critic, goes beyond the surface, meticulously mapping out the rhetorical and physical domains where this denial finds its stronghold.

He posits, “How can a violent project of colonial dispossession and racial discrimination be repackaged… into something that can be imagined, felt and profoundly believed in as though it were the exact opposite: the embodiment of ecological regeneration, multicultural tolerance and democratic idealism?” Within this intricate landscape, the roots of denial become palpable, intricately entwined with the accumulation of affirmations, concepts and actions. Furthermore, as Makdisi sheds light on Israel’s strategic ploys, flipping accusations of racism and apartheid by asserting their supposed opposites: pluralism and openness.

Within the intricate tapestry of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is crucial to acknowledge that this complex struggle transcends mere policy decisions. There are three elements that unravel a knotty tale of calculated maneuvers in the ongoing discourse surrounding the relentless Israeli assault on Gaza and the historical Israel-Palestine imbroglio.

Western media

complex

The first element is the Western media complex and its reportage of the ongoing war between Israel and Gaza. The latest missive by eight UK-based journalists employed by the BBC, alleged in a 2,300-word letter to Al Jazeera that BBC is “…guilty of double standards in how civilians are seen.”

Underlining the constant dehumanisation of the Palestinian lives, the letter implored, “Thousands of Palestinians have been killed since October 7. When will the number be high enough for our editorial stance to change?”

Further, it alleges, “the BBC has failed to accurately tell this story – through omission and lack of critical engagement with Israel’s claims – and it has therefore failed to help the public engage with and understand the human rights abuses unfolding in Gaza.”

Yet, in the West, a profound discord has erupted between the states and their citizens over the narrative dictated by proponents of asymmetrical compassion. The persistent and fervent protests advocating for a ceasefire serve as a potent rebuttal to the media’s portrayal of the Middle East conflict.

Simultaneously, the state’s decision to ban protests, along with their associated signs, symbols and slogans labeled as anti-Semitic, has only exacerbated the already tense situation, inviting further scrutiny and criticism.

Similarly, the most recent case of the discovery of the “letter to America” by the TikTok generation is illuminating. On November 13 a TikTok user posted a video reading excerpts from Osama bin Laden’s Letter to America.

In this letter, the deceased justified the 9/11 attacks by citing US support for Israel‘s occupation of Palestinian territories.

Given the ongoing Israel-Gaza war, a generation born after 9/11 found greater resonance in the content of the letter. Another journalist, Yashar Ali, shared a compilation of the TikTok videos on X, garnering over 38 million views. By the mid-week, TikTok announced a ban of the hashtag and numerous similar variations but not before TikTok videos with #lettertoamerica had already accumulated over 15 million views.

Many of the videos on TikTok were posted after the British newspaper The Guardian, which had hosted a copy of bin Laden’s letter, removed it. The two-page Letter to America, which was published by The Guardian in 2002, featured bin Laden’s reasoning for the 9/11 terror attacks that killed almost 3,000 Americans in 2001.

Some TikTokers said the removal was proof of the letter’s wisdom and importance, leading them to further amplify it as a result. However, TikTok spokesman Alex Haurek said that the company was “proactively and aggressively” removing videos promoting the letter for violating the company’s rules on “supporting any form of terrorism” and said it was “investigating” how the videos got onto its platform.

Terrorism is a

cul-de-sac

The second element is whose terrorism are we really talking about? Terrorism has become an all encompassing term for any political violence, often used as a synonym or sometimes as an adjective. It has become a convenient shorthand to invoke a binary of good and evil; of us and them for framing a public discourse and to evacuate one’s regime from its own pressing problems. But in reality terrorism is a useless term in that it does not help one understand the political discourse of violence.

Political violence often disguises itself under the deceptive veneer of terrorism. While one could argue that October 7 was the proximate cause, the original sin remains the enduring brutal occupation of a people - the people of Palestine. Therefore terrorism conceptually offers us a false start to understand the Israel-Palestine conundrum. Terrorism is a cul-de-sac, presenting a deceptive façade that, at best, offers only a superficial entry point for understanding the deeper intricacies at play.

In numerous polities, the line between war and peace is elusive, blurring into a daily ritual of crisis that persistently probes the boundaries of vulnerability, a concept intricately tied to one’s understanding of security. The evolving dynamics of language in shaping this reality become crucial, as the elasticity of terms such as war, peace, human rights, justice and hate allows us to stretch and redefine their contours, demanding a nuanced and imperative approach to the emerging political discourse.

Rules-based order

The third element is the grandiloquence of a rules-based order, a favourite phrase parroted by Trudeau, his deputy and the global affairs minister. Cloaked in rhetoric, this phrase has become a well-worn trope in the political lexicon of the West, often expanded to include the term ‘international.’

It is about how under the banner of the rules-based order, the allies were blindly banded together, paving the way for the loss of hundreds of innocent Palestinian lives.

This glaring hypocrisy and deceit seem to serve as a means to claim moral high ground without tethering to established political institutions and their charters.

The repeated invocation of the rules-based order is a potent weapon for those lacking scruples, providing a convenient cover to legitimise policies that may trample on human rights. This not only reveals a disdain for traditional principles of fairness but also poses a direct threat to the very bedrock of the rule of law.

Western foreign policies have championed the commitment to a rules-based international order, harking back to a post-World War II narrative. Implicit in this emphasis on a rules-governed world is the suggestion that the United States aligns itself with these rules, portraying itself as a benevolent global leader in stark contrast to perceived adversaries. Adhering to unspoken guidelines, the compliant Western mainstream media remains conspicuously silent, turning a blind eye to an ongoing travesty of justice.

Feeding this rules based order is the compact of the neoliberal society that breeds euphemistically principal ideas of freedom, democracy, sexual freedom and progress and empathising with multiple political sites —in our case Israel — instinctively identifying with and gradually aligning itself with its cause. The Western media offers the perfect interface to complete this loop of political behaviour.

A recent reportage on the hostage deal pause in Foreign Policy reiterates the complexity of the situation. Citing a poll that indicates that “70 percent Israelis want the objective of the war to be to ‘eliminate Hamas’ but others display a more complex public view.”

Earlier, on November 5 and 6, a flash survey [Gaza War Survey 4] held by Israel Democracy Institute, resulted in a majority of the Jewish public believing that the government’s emphasis on the judicial overhaul significantly influenced the timing of Hamas’s October 7 attack. It underlined “the increased support for negotiating the release of hostages in Gaza, yet most people still think the fighting should not come to a halt.”

While the urgency of bringing the region back from the brink stares us in the face, the case for ceasefire is not yet settled in the eyes of the US. On the flip side, the nations seen as adversaries by the US—China and Russia—have been resolute in their calls for a ceasefire and vocal about their concerns for the Palestinians’ predicament.

Narendra Pachkhédé is a critic, essayist and writer. He splits his time between Toronto, London and Geneva.