This is How the West Looks When Afraid

In his 1988 book “The Collapse of Civilization: Thinking after the Holocaust,” German-Jewish historian Dan Diner coined the term Zivilisationsbruch—a historical concept denoting events that radically undermine civilized norms, shaking the foundations of humanity, law, and morality. He regarded the Holocaust as a unique, non-repeatable example of such civilizational collapse.

Diner does not view the Palestinian tragedy, including the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, as a similar breakdown in civilized values, much less comparable to the Holocaust. To him, the Middle East conflict must be understood in nationalistic and geopolitical contexts. Any attempt to draw parallels between Palestinian suffering under Israeli state actions and the persecution of Jews in the 20th century is “immoral,” according to Diner. Indeed, the term “massacre” is used specifically concerning the events of October 7, 2023.

The concept Diner formulated gained traction in cultural and literary studies. There’s a tacit academic consensus in the West that such a civilizational collapse occurred only once, specifically during the Holocaust in World War II.

Despite World War II’s devastating nature, the West considers it not a collapse of civilization but a harsh lesson encapsulated by the phrase “Never Again”—a lesson often specifically linked to the protection of Israel. Thus, from Germany to the broader Western world, “Never Again” becomes contextually bound to preserving the Jewish state.

Comparisons between Gaza’s current situation and the historical persecution of Jews remain highly sensitive. Even Pope Francis, in his recent book “Hope Never Disappoints: Pilgrims on the Way to a Better World,” cautiously suggested that events in Gaza might require comprehensive legal investigation due to potential genocidal implications. Though the Pope stopped short of explicitly labeling it genocide, his statements were enough to cross established red lines.

Notably, the Pope’s subsequent illness attracted minimal media attention in the West—an omission possibly linked to his comments regarding Israel and Gaza. It seems Western societies, notably Germany, are willing to risk undermining foundational principles to demonstrate that they’ve “learned the historical lesson.”

Criticism of Israeli military actions in the manner employed by the Pope—linking them to genocide—could pose an existential threat to Israel, according to Austrian theologian Gregor Maria Hoff. Consequently, Western democracies insulate Israel within a sacred theological bubble, untouched even during the peak of Cold War hostilities, with both Moscow and Washington steadfastly backing Israel.

Journalist Mohamed Hassanein Heikal recounts in his book “Secret Negotiations between Arabs and Israel” how even Soviet leaders subtly marginalized Palestinian representatives, underscoring Israel’s unique geopolitical immunity.

The Gaza conflict ignited cultural battles across Western societies, evident in punitive measures against journalists and academics critical of Israeli actions. President Trump’s administration even enacted measures to ban references to Palestine in federal communications and attempted to place Columbia University’s Middle East Studies department under security scrutiny.

Furthermore, the crackdown on student activism supportive of Gaza highlights a dangerous erosion of core democratic principles: freedom of thought and expression. Cases like Mahmoud Khalil’s—facing deportation for pro-Gaza activism—recall historical episodes like the Dreyfus Affair, underscoring deep ethical compromises.

Western academia and media often operate within what Noam Chomsky termed the “Manufacture of Consent,” limiting discourse on Israel through ethical, philosophical, and linguistic frameworks. Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression, including academic discourse, proves severely constrained when discussing Palestine.

A comprehensive 2024 survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) revealed alarming self-censorship rates among U.S. academics: 35% moderated their writings out of fear, quadruple the figures from the McCarthy era. Specifically on Palestine, 70% reported self-censorship.

Chomsky vividly depicted media freedom: newspapers primarily serve advertisers rather than truth, trading readers’ attention for advertising revenue, rendering genuine freedom of expression secondary.

Throughout the Gaza war, Western media personnel visibly recoiled when confronted with rhetoric outside accepted narratives, reflecting deep-seated fear of moral and ethical confrontation. Silence became the default response, illustrating liberal democracies’ preference for ignorance or passive disregard when moral dilemmas threaten economic or political interests.

Ultimately, the West’s silence regarding Gaza serves its interests—political, economic, and religious. The ongoing violence surpasses thresholds recognized by institutions like the International Court of Justice as approaching genocidal levels, yet mainstream Western media seldom acknowledge these realities explicitly.

British journalist Owen Jones provocatively asks in his Guardian article: “What if everyone aware of these atrocities spoke out? Ministers would resign, Israeli crimes would dominate headlines, demands for sanctions and arms embargoes would become impossible to ignore. Those complicit in genocide, rather than opponents, would face public exclusion.”

Such is the nature of Western fear—a deeply entrenched reluctance to confront unsettling truths when those truths challenge foundational narratives and alliances.