Western media enabling Gaza genocide and rewriting history, say experts
As Israel's war on Gaza intensifies and expands across the Middle East, media analysts and human rights advocates are raising concerns over the lack of international accountability and the role of Western news outlets in shaping public perception of the conflict.
At a panel hosted by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) in London on Saturday, experts accused mainstream Western media of contributing to the denial and distortion of atrocities unfolding in Gaza.
The Centre for Media Monitoring (CFMM) presented findings highlighting how often leading media organisations downplay or dismiss claims of genocide. Faisal Hanif, a media analyst at CFMM, said the BBC had shut down references to genocide in its Gaza coverage more than 100 times over the past year.
Omar al-Ghazzi, Associate Professor of Media and Communications at the London School of Economics, called the trend 'a war on history.' He warned that the use of media narratives as future historical sources could shape how upcoming generations understand the events in Gaza.
The panel also pointed to specific language patterns in coverage. Hanif noted that the term 'massacre' appeared 18 times more often when referring to Hamas attacks than to Israeli attacks on Palestinians. He said this imbalance reflected a wider rhetorical bias and an uncritical acceptance of Israeli government claims—particularly those targeting local journalists in Gaza.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
British-Israeli journalist Rachel Shabi said Israel has consistently framed its ban on international reporters entering Gaza as a safety measure, while accusing Palestinian journalists of links to Hamas. She criticised international media outlets for accepting these narratives without challenge.
'Israeli society has taken a genocidal turn,' says Daniel Levy. Speaking at the Genocide in Gaza conference in London, he warns that Israel's war on Gaza marks a new phase of settler colonial overreach, backed by Western complicity. pic.twitter.com/6KOvf0dGOM — Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) June 29, 2025
'They fall for the trap without calling it out,' Shabi told the audience.
She added that even when Palestinian voices are included, their suffering is often discredited or doubted. 'The media has not only excluded Palestinian voices conveyed through local journalists' reports, but, at times when it has included them, it has effectively put Palestinian victims 'on trial,' portraying them as unreliable narrators of their own stories and suffering.'
'A new dark age'
Historian Avi Shlaim described Israel's media strategy as an aggressive propaganda campaign designed to suppress criticism by labelling opponents as antisemitic.
Professor Martin Shaw, a leading scholar on war and genocide, said such tactics amounted to a third form of genocide denial—'implicatory denial'—where actors acknowledge atrocities but take no meaningful action.
'The media is starting to shift, but it still lags behind the reality,' Shaw said. 'Even when governments and media recognise genocide is taking place in Gaza, they don't act to stop it.'
He argued that the era of rhetorical devices such as 'responsibility to protect' and 'humanitarian intervention' had ended. 'The powerful do what they want without dressing it up,' he added.
Al-Ghazzi agreed, saying the West continues to control language and historical narrative, positioning itself as the sole 'moral arbitrator.'
Speaking to Middle East Eye at the panel 'Genocide in Gaza, War on Iran: What's Next for Palestine?' part of the Genocide in Gaza conference organised by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) in London, Wadah Khanfar, founder and executive director of the… pic.twitter.com/Ad5I88uYh7 — Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) June 29, 2025
The panel also connected media complicity to broader geopolitical ambitions. Wadah Khanfar, president of Al-Sharq Forum and former director general of Al Jazeera, said the West remains determined to engineer a 'new Middle East' and marginalise Arab voices in shaping the region's future.
He singled out Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling him 'truly arrogant' for believing he can design that future alone.
The panel agreed that Israel's impunity could further destabilise the region. Khanfar warned that the ongoing war may plunge the world into 'a new dark age.'
He cited Israel's strikes on Iran as an example of escalating risk, arguing they push the Middle East towards either a nuclear-free zone or widespread nuclear deterrence.
Broad disillusionment in Israel
Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, questioned the viability of Israel's long-term strategy, suggesting it may be driving the country toward collapse. 'Is this the third Jewish kingdom?' he asked.
Channel 4 to show Gaza war crimes documentary rejected by BBC Read More »
Speakers warned that Israel's actions were eroding the foundations of the international legal system. Tayab Ali, director of the ICJP, said international legal frameworks remain 'excellent in theory' but are selectively applied in practice.
'This selectivity reinforces Israel's belief that its rights will be protected—even in the face of violations targeting Palestinians,' Ali said.
Levy criticised the Western defence narrative that assumes peace will follow Iran's elimination, calling it legally flawed and strategically naive.
Ali added that Israel's strikes on Iran violate international law under the principle of self-defence. He said growing public scepticism—even within Israel—shows that official justifications for military actions are becoming harder to sustain.
Levy pointed to a rising reluctance among Israelis to report for military reserve duty. 'There's a broader disillusionment,' he said. 'More and more Israelis see these campaigns as leading the country toward a place of no return.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
11 minutes ago
- The National
West Bank tensions soar after arrests and settler attacks
Israel is grappling with fresh tensions in the occupied West Bank after a wave of arrests in Hebron and riots by Israeli settlers against the military that have revealed split loyalties in the far-right government. Israel's internal security agency, the Shin Bet, said it had arrested more than 60 Hamas operatives over the past three months with the help of the police and military. The series of operations announced on Sunday is one of the most intense in years against Hamas in the West Bank. A statement from the agency said the arrests hit 'large-scale Hamas infrastructure' in Hebron in an operation it described as the most complex it has undertaken in a decade. It added that the cell was working 'to carry out shooting and bombing attacks against Israeli targets', and that forces also uncovered weapons caches. The operation in Hebron raises fears about the possible expansion of Israel's unprecedented campaign in the north of the occupied West Bank, which has seen it occupy, destroy and evict the populations of refugee camps in cities such as Tulkarem and Jenin. Like those areas, Hebron has a history of Palestinian militancy, including during the Second Intifada in the early 2000s. This city has, however, experienced less Israeli military activity since the Gaza war began, in comparison to northern areas. News of the wave of arrests came as settlers launched a series of attacks against Israeli soldiers. In the latest incident, an army installation in the West Bank was torched, causing millions of shekels' worth of damage. Hundreds of settlers rioted at the same time, with some holding signs calling a battalion commander a "traitor" after warning shots were fired to disperse settlers during a previous incident. The clashes sparked condemnation across Israeli politics, including in the far-right governing coalition that itself contains many extremist settlers. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said 'no civilised country can tolerate' the vandalism that took place and that 'whoever commits such acts undermines the rule of law and harms the country'. He nonetheless praised the wider settler movement, calling it an 'example and role model for the development of the country'. Far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said the violence crossed a 'red line' and that the 'beautiful face' of the settlement project had 'no connection whatsoever to the type of incidents that were reported this morning'. Mr Smotrich was widely criticised for taking the side of settlers after the earlier clash with Israeli soldiers in which the battalion commander fired warning shots. A 14-year-old Israeli in the area was taken to hospital with a bullet wound. The Israeli military has not confirmed whether the bullet came from its forces. In the aftermath of the incident, Mr Smotrich posted on X that 'live fire against Jews is a forbidden and dangerous crossing of a red line which requires an in-depth investigation'. The clash took place in the village of Kafr Malik, near the Palestinian capital, Ramallah, which has been the scene of an increased rate of settler attacks against Palestinians in recent weeks. On Wednesday, three Palestinians were killed by Israeli gunfire in the village. There has been a major acceleration in the rate of settler attacks against Palestinian communities, with attacks on people, property and livestock since the Gaza war began. Israeli politicians rarely condemn the attacks and perpetrators are almost never brought to justice.
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Macron's plan to recognise a Palestinian state was doomed from the start
On 9 April, French President Emmanuel Macron made the surprise announcement that Paris could recognise the state of Palestine at a UN conference due to be held in New York on 17-20 June, co-sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia to revive the 'two-state solution'. The move - already made by 148 countries out of 193 - was hailed as a long-awaited constructive sign after years of despair and destruction. Macron had repeatedly said that he was waiting for the 'right time' to make this political gesture, meaning that he wanted it to be a transformative step towards peace, and a leverage to restore French diplomatic influence in the Middle East. It seems that, so far, he has failed to reach both goals. The conference was postponed after Israel's attack on Iran, and France, along with most Western countries, proclaimed Israel's 'right to defend itself'. The 'two-state solution' appeared, once more, swiped off the agenda. The French president has reportedly not given up his project and is believed to be keeping it for more favourable circumstances. However, even if he managed to get the UK and Canada - as well as other European countries - on board, it is doubtful that the dynamic that he hopes to impulse can convince Israel to change its policy. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Macron's proposal immediately hit the wall of Israeli and US rejection. Tel Aviv slammed it as a 'crusade against the Jewish state' and the French president as an 'antisemite' - an accusation the latter has himself abundantly used since 7 October to disqualify voices critical of Israel. 'They will recognise a Palestinian state on paper, while we will build the Jewish Israeli state on the ground,' Israel's Defence Minister Israel Katz claimed, warning against threatening his country with sanctions. The Unites States also put pressure against the move. US President Donald Trump warned that he would consider a recognition of a 'conjectural' Palestinian state a hostile act and made clear his response would be harsh. The US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, even ironically suggested that France could 'carve out a piece of the French Riviera and create a Palestinian state'. Illusion of the 'two-state solution' Israel and the US have their own plan for the region, and it is not a 'two-state solution'. On 18 July 2024, the Knesset passed a resolution stating that a Palestinian state would pose 'an existential danger to the state of Israel and its citizens, perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and destabilise the region'. The massacre of the Palestinian people in Gaza and their concentration into small areas of the destroyed enclave ahead of their planned deportation are steps in this blood-paved track. The annexation of the largest part of the occupied West Bank is now written down in law. The judaisation of East Jerusalem meets no obstacle, and Al-Aqsa Mosque is in the crosshairs of messianic groups who dream to build the 'third Temple' there. Israel and the US have their own plan for the region, and it is not a 'two-state solution' Meanwhile, the annexation of the occupied Syrian Golan Heights has been recognised by the US. Israeli troops are settling in Lebanon on the south bank of the Litani River, and are pushing their pawns in Syria. Trump is more prosaic than his evangelical Christian supporters who pray for the final battle of Armageddon to come. He dreams of changing Gaza into 'the Riviera of the Middle East' and a lucrative business opportunity, similar to Netanyahu's 'Gaza 2035' project. Huckabee proposes to create a Palestinian state elsewhere in the Muslim world. In other words, US and Israeli leaders are working to achieve the so-called 'voluntary transfer' of Palestinians and the 'Greater Israel' the Zionist founding fathers have long dreamed about. The gap between the reality on the ground and the so-called 'two-state solution' is now too wide and deep, unless the balance of power dramatically changes - which does not seem close to happening. A recognition under Israeli conditions Hoping to curb these projects saturated with Jewish messianism and Christian millenarianism, and brutally carried out with a shameless disrespect for international law, French diplomats worked for weeks to convince Israel the conference was actually intended to help it. The recognition of a Palestinian state, they explained, would come under an array of conditions that would meet Israelis demands. They include the release of the hostages kept in Gaza, 'a reform of the Palestinian Authority [PA] and the establishment of governance in Gaza under its authority, excluding Hamas, which must be disarmed'. The French also required that the PA commits to stop 'terror salaries', in reference to the financial aid to the families of Palestinians killed, injured or imprisoned by Israel, as well as so-called 'incitement against Israel' in textbooks. UK and France abandon plans to recognise Palestinian state at conference Read More » The objective, recalled Macron, is 'a demilitarised Palestinian state which recognises Israel's existence and security, backed by an international stabilisation mission'. Paris assured that the Arab countries which had planned to participate in the conference agreed to lend their support to these demands. Even PA President Mahmoud Abbas sent Macron what the French president called 'a letter of hope, courage and clarity' in which he expressed the PA's 'readiness to assume sole governance and security responsibilities in the Gaza Strip' and 'the need for Hamas to hand over its weapons and military capabilities'. In addition, Macron suggested that French recognition of the Palestinian state should be linked to a 'reciprocal' normalisation of Arab states' relations with Israel, starting with Saudi Arabia. But none of these attentions assuaged Israeli and American hostility. Eventually, France reportedly abandoned the idea to recognise the Palestine state during the conference, which would instead focus on 'steps towards recognition'. Once more, Palestinians are expected to wait for their existence to be recognised and to rely on an uncertain peace process to have their rights granted, while Israel continues to transform the reality on the ground to its advantage. A Palestinian bantustan The most striking element in this scheme is what remains untold. In 2002, the Arab League offered to normalise Arab countries' ties with Israel in return for a full withdrawal from the occupied territories, a "just settlement" of the Palestinian refugee issue, and the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. What Macron expects from the Arabs states is to offer the last card in their hand for free, without the slightest guarantees from Israel about settlements and borders, the preservation of the Palestinian character of East Jerusalem, the release of the thousands of administrative detainees, the economic viability of a future Palestinian state, the free movement of Palestinian citizens, etc. The very word 'self-determination', a right which should suffer no condition, appears nowhere. Macron wants to offer Israel control over a 'Palestinian state' deprived of sovereignty and call that 'peace' All these basic conditions of sovereignty are therefore left to the goodwill of the Israelis. However, history teaches us that Israel, in such situations, always takes what is offered and never gives what it vaguely promised in return. France did not give any indication on how it would pressure Israel to 'end its illegal settlement activity, which compromises the viability of a Palestinian state', as it acknowledged. It also failed to ask Israel to comply with the obligation 'to end its unlawful presence, policies in occupied Palestinian territory within one year', as stated by the UN General Assembly in September following an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) saying Israel's occupation was unlawful. If nothing happens to alter the current dynamic, a Palestinian state would be established on a territory fragmented by Israeli settlements and bypass roads, squeezed into a few urban centres isolated from each other, and suffocated by a total economic dependence on Israel. Its capital would be the remote suburb of Abu Dis, which is separated from Jerusalem by a wall. Its borders would be under Israeli control. It would have no military force to oppose the Israeli army's operations. And it would be ruled by a Palestinian Authority which has become a corrupt police regime, subjugated to Israeli security requirements. There is a precedent for such a state, in apartheid South-Africa: it is called a Bantustan. Trump's Gaza plan: The century-old Zionist illusion of 'voluntary' emigration of Palestinians Read More » In other words, Macron wants to offer Israel control over a 'Palestinian state' deprived of sovereignty and call that 'peace'. This is the cruel outcome of years of impunity which allowed Israel to methodically destroy the material basis for a Palestinian state. Europeans bear a heavy responsibility in this disaster. Macron's plan is therefore too little too late. Still, even this is too much for Israel and the US, whose President Donald Trump urged countries to skip the UN conference, before it was eventually cancelled. Israel's logic has remained unchanged for decades: it wants to 'spirit across the border' the non-Jewish presence on the 'promised' land, as suggested by the father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl. It wants to be the only military power in the Middle East and expects unconditional support from the world. In its vision, Arabs and especially Palestinians have no choice but to accept their defeat. They have to bear the brunt of European guilt for its antisemitic past - and be accused of antisemitism if they resist their dispossession and erasure. As long as France is not ready to fight this logic and make Israel accountable for its violations of international law, its diplomatic efforts towards a just peace will remain a hypocritical show, only aimed at keeping an illusion of morality. 'Israelisation' of French politics France does nothing to stop a genocide Macron even refuses to name. It does nothing to break the humanitarian blockade of Gaza. It keeps on selling arms to Israel, muzzles as too 'radical' those who dare speak of 'colonialism' and 'apartheid', and criminalises anti-Zionism as antisemitism. When Israel illegally launched its attack on Iran, Macron stuck to the Israeli script: Iran is a threat for the region and should never get the nuclear bomb, Israel is entitled to conduct 'preemptive' strikes, etc. The bottom line of the whole sequence is that France has lost its diplomatic influence in the Middle East. The bottom line of the whole sequence is that France has lost its diplomatic influence in the Middle East Since the 1960s, French diplomacy had followed the tradition of President Charles de Gaulle, whose cardinal rule was independence. After the 1967 war, Paris played a leading role in shaping a political solution to the conflict. It advocated for the self-determination of the Palestinian people, promoted the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) as their representative, convinced PLO leader Yasser Arafat to opt out of the armed struggle and recognise Israel. However, since the end of the Cold War and the first war on Iraq in 1991, the US has taken the lead. Between hyper America and intransigent Israel, France, bound by a divided European diplomacy, has no leeway anymore. Since the 9/11 attack, most of the French political and media elite has fully endorsed the Israeli narrative and its endless 'war on terror'. Besides, the domestic obsession about 'Islamism' and immigration interferes more and more with France's Middle East policy. This 'Israelisation' of French politics reached a paroxysmal level after the attack of 7 October 2023. In such a framework, Macron's initiative was doomed to fail, as it is flawed by a total lack of understanding of the Palestinian experience and history, and by a denial of the colonial nature of the situation. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
How US-Israeli strikes on Iran made our world more dangerous
The recent hostilities between Israel and Iran, and the entrance of the US into the conflict at the behest of its regional ally, are once again posing serious questions about diplomacy, international order and nuclear proliferation. Israel's launching of strikes against Iran drew from the same playbook it has employed in its multiple interventions across the region in recent years. This strategy comprises assassinations and the targeting - in addition to military sites - of civilian infrastructure, such as universities and hospitals. Israel's recent strikes killed hundreds of civilians in Iran. One need not be an expert in international affairs to see that this offensive was designed to derail the delicate diplomacy that had been taking place between Iran and the US since President Donald Trump's return to power. Washington's participation in this conflict not only rode roughshod over Trump's promise to end costly American interventions abroad, but it also highlighted the continuing hold that Israel maintains over US policy in the Middle East. Despite Tel Aviv's boasts of air supremacy, and its stated desire to curtail Iran's offensive capabilities, Tehran remained able to launch devastating attacks against military targets in Israel. It also made a performative, symbolic strike against the American al-Udeid airbase in Qatar. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The triumphalist messaging from the US in the wake of its initial hits against Iran's nuclear sites has now been overshadowed by a frenzied debate over the relative success or failure of the strikes, and the whereabouts of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile. Predicting the next moves is beyond the purview of even the most seasoned observer, especially given the continued fragility of the ceasefire. The leadership in Tehran long ago telegraphed what its response would be to direct US attacks on Iranian territory, as evidenced by the carefully calibrated al-Udeid strike. Disrupting shipping through a closure of the Strait of Hormuz was tabled, while a more forceful response might have seen a targeting of Israel's own nuclear sites - facilities that face no international oversight, with Israel remaining the Middle East's only nuclear-armed state. Global insecurity Fanciful notions of an 'unconditional surrender' by Iran were always highly unrealistic. If Trump's attempt to impose a ceasefire on Israel and Iran fails, then the stage could be set for a costly war of attrition, in which Israel and the US can ill afford to get bogged down. By attacking a non-nuclear-armed state, Israel and the US have massively increased incentive for other states to weaponise their own nuclear programmes Iran's nuclear knowledge cannot be bombed away, despite Israel's strategy of scholasticide. A further dangerous aspect is Trump's regular changes of direction, extreme even by his own highly capricious standards - with a seeming desire for negotiations being immediately followed by US attacks against nuclear facilities, before swinging back to diplomacy again. Running in parallel with confused statements about Washington's stance on regime change in Iran, this lack of direction makes it very difficult for Tehran to read the US president's true intentions. This makes calibrating a response even more precarious. Ultimately, two nuclear-armed powers might have violated international law to pre-emptively disable a perceived threat emanating from Iran's nuclear programme, despite intelligence estimates to the contrary. Concurrent hopes of somehow fomenting a viable domestic challenge to the Islamic Republic were also naive, and showed that regime change is not something that can be imposed under aerial bombardment. Domestic political polarisation and questions over the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic still exist within Iran, but expecting change to come through external military force shows a total lack of understanding of Iran's history and its people's response to foreign intervention. By allowing Israel to bomb Iran, Trump is pushing Tehran to go nuclear Read More » The Israeli-US action has created a world that is now far more insecure. These developments will increase calls within Iran to weaponise its nuclear programme as a deterrent against further action. By attacking a non-nuclear-armed state, Israel and the US have massively increased the proliferation risk, giving other states an incentive to weaponise their own nuclear programmes as a means of ensuring their survival. Having a nuclear deterrent has worked for Israel so far, whereas pursuing nuclear diplomacy has thus far not worked for Iran - so other states with nuclear ambitions will look to this moment to help shape their own decision-making. Finally, the weak, copy-pasted response by European states to Washington's entry into the conflict only further undermined the foundations of the 'rules-based order' they hold so dear. With their reputation for upholding this vision already in tatters over the double standards applied in relation to Ukraine and Gaza, their cowardly submission to US and Israeli 'security interests' further underlines both their hypocrisy and ineffectiveness. As the US and Israel pursue a 'might is right' strategy, their impunity trashes any sense of international norms or consensus, resulting in greater insecurity for all. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
