The war launched by Israel on the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023, has revealed an unfamiliar aspect of part of the Western media’s coverage of its events and developments. The Israeli narrative has dominated this segment of the media, which has adopted its arguments, defending and justifying them at times while ignoring the Palestinian narrative surrounding the war and images of mass killings, particularly of children and women, and turning a blind eye to United Nations reports regarding the situation in Gaza.
A significant portion of official Western media has aligned itself with the Israeli narrative either deliberately, lazily, or cowardly, so as not to contradict the prevailing opinion in media circles. Is it true that the era has passed when the German philosopher Hegel (1770-1831) stated: “Reading the morning newspaper is akin to morning prayer for the real person,” seeing as the media has become unattractive for observing both local and global events, leading the audience to approach traditional Western media (television channels, radio stations, and major newspapers) with caution? Here, we observe a growing gap over time between the audience and these media outlets, with many losing trust in them. This was clearly evident during the war on Gaza; it became apparent that Western citizens were unconvinced by their media’s portrayal of the conflict, which explains the large number of citizens in various Western countries participating in demonstrations supporting the people of Gaza, despite the heavily biased media coverage in favor of Israel and the legal restrictions and procedural harassments imposed by authorities.
In this context, the study addresses a problematic question regarding the signs of the crisis in Western media discourse, particularly in French media, in handling the war on Gaza, examining the levels and dimensions of this crisis: Does the perspective of media treatment of the war on Gaza in Western/French media represent a temporary crisis due to a misunderstanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or is it the result of a structural crisis within this type of discourse that has abandoned the universal principles established by Enlightenment philosophy in the eighteenth century?
To answer this question, the study is based on two hypotheses. The first asserts that the crisis of modernity itself is the structuring factor of this Western/French media discourse, which was condemned to betray principles of freedom and human rights, regardless of gender, color, or religion. This will be explored in the first axis of the study, verified in light of the thesis of German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, presented in his book “Critique of Cynical Reason,” where he criticizes the audacity of the powerful and those who solicit them for better positions. Those, including a segment of Western journalism, have changed their positions to become “insiders” against “outsiders.” This “insider” status will be evident in the attitudes of many Western journalists distancing themselves from those deemed “outsiders,” including Palestinians in their struggle against the Israeli occupation, which is categorized as an “insider” in this classification.
The second and third axes will investigate the second hypothesis, which is related to the first and also supports it. It argues that some Western journalists and the intellectuals surrounding them, who have built their social status through their programs and interviews—this aspect is what concerns the researcher regarding Western/French media in this study—have abandoned their role as a knowledgeable authority monitoring political and social affairs and alerting them to moral distortions. This abandonment or withdrawal occurred due to the close relationships these journalists cultivated with the dominant economic powers in Western politics. Thus, they played the role of “insiders” par excellence, becoming subservient to these powers—often defending their interests, which overlap with their own—and even advocating for these powers’ worldview, both domestically and internationally.
The second axis of the study draws on the thesis of academic Serge Halimi in his book “The New Guard Dogs,” which illustrates the relationships forged by some prominent French journalists and intellectuals with influential political figures and the world of finance and business, compelling them to adopt and promote the perspectives of these powerful individuals in their newspapers and channels. This pattern was repeated in the seventh war (“Iron Swords”/”The Flood of Al-Aqsa”) on Gaza through their vigorous defense of Israel and their portrayal of the Palestinian people’s struggle for freedom and independence as “terrorism and barbarism,” as these powers’ interests in the region are tied to Israel’s survival and superiority in the Middle East.
The third axis will revisit the thesis of French thinker Pascal Boniface in his book “Fake Intellectuals,” where he observes that some well-known intellectuals, frequently present on official channels and the pages of major French newspapers, do not hesitate to use ill-intentioned arguments to propagate lies and distort truths deliberately, indifferent to audiences they consider unqualified to grasp certain realities, most notably “the necessity of defending Israel” against what they describe as a “barbarism that must be eradicated at all costs.” This will be clearly evidenced in the war on Gaza, which provided these intellectuals with another opportunity to reaffirm what Boniface asserted about them more than a decade ago.
The methodological strategy for approaching the problematic question regarding the crisis of Western media discourse relies on case studies of models from French media to examine their cynicism at times and their collusion with political, financial, and corporate worlds at other times. These models (a purposive sample) include content from Europe 1, the TF1 Group, and writings by philosophers Alain Finkielkraut and Bernard-Henri Lévy, as well as journalists David Pujadas, Éric Zemmour, Alexandre Malafaye, Philippe Val, Mohamed Sifaoui, and academic Frédéric Encel, filmmaker Élie Chouraqui, and American lawyer and journalist Ben Shapiro.
1. Western Media Cynicism: The Mentality of Modern Self
Peter Sloterdijk uses the term “cynicism” in its modern usage to signify audacity; he considers the satirical writer Lucian of Samosata, known for his scoffing demeanor, (125-180) to be a model of “audacity that shifts its positions” according to its interests. In contrast, he proposes reviving the tradition of satire in the ancient philosophical sense, famously associated with the Greek philosopher Diogenes of Sinope (approximately 421-323 BC), whom Sloterdijk regards as a model for criticizing the powerful with biting sarcasm even in our modern era, using the term “kynicism” to refer to it. In their relationship with decision-makers and influential individuals, different factions adopt divergent stances towards them. The old cynical (satirical) position manifests itself today through its practice outside society for purposes of criticism. Before this, it directs its arrows of criticism toward the ruling elite and those orbiting them, who “dirty their hands to save themselves.” In contrast, modern cynicism is aimed at serving this governing elite and courting them to gain the privileges they provide.
Thus, Sloterdijk perceives modern cynicism as the prevailing mode of operation in contemporary culture at both personal and institutional levels, after faith in Enlightenment principles faltered. He describes it as “false enlightened consciousness. It is that miserable modern awareness that has been affected by Enlightenment successfully and in vain at once. It has profited from the lessons of Enlightenment, but has not applied them; perhaps it was never capable of doing so.”
1.1. Insiders and the Exclusive Right to Self-Defense
The benefit modern cynicism, as a false consciousness, derives from Enlightenment lies in its ability to employ concepts validated by Enlightenment philosophers that became reality in modern societies, such as freedom, democracy, and human rights, including the right to self-determination and resistance to occupation, which international law recognized in the twentieth century. However, the falsehood of this consciousness, which found fertile ground in Western media, will gradually reveal itself in its treatment of Western modernity’s concepts in a manner that has pursued a double standard. It recognizes these principles for some while denying them to others. This was clearly evident in the two wars that took place in Ukraine and Gaza; the “false consciousness” in the first war approached the events with a commitment to principles of freedom and human rights, defending “the right of Ukrainians to defend themselves” while considering “the Russians as aggressors” and President Vladimir Putin as a “war criminal.” Meanwhile, the war on Gaza was approached with cynicism, depicted in this media as “self-defense,” leading this part of the Western media to base its defense of the Israeli narrative on this premise.
Consequently, Israel is portrayed in most Western journalistic reports as a “victim defending itself” against Hamas’s attacks. For example, this narrative is defended by French writer and journalist Éric Zemmour, who states: “Israel has every right to defend itself.” He further added: “Therefore, I do not agree with a humanitarian ceasefire.” This modern cynicism thus overwhelms this type of Western media discourse when it avoids—without a shred of guilt—the discussion of Palestinians’ rights to defend themselves as they exist under the illegal Israeli occupation, according to the United Nations. Discussions in this segment of Western media, especially in the study sample regarding the war on Gaza, often erroneously start with events from October 7, ignoring the history of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories for over seven decades. This gives the Western audience the impression that the Palestinian resistance on that day was an attack on Israel. Here, a prominent figure in Western media and one of the most famous advocates of Zionism there, American lawyer and political analyst Ben Shapiro, justifies Israel’s actions since October 7 in killing Palestinian civilians by referring to “its right to defend itself,” going as far as blaming the Palestinian resistance for the deaths of these civilians in Gaza.
1.2. The Insiders’ Wars are Ideological Wars
Another model of Western media cynicism in the war on Gaza is represented by French philosopher and radio producer Alain Finkielkraut during a talk show hosted by French journalist David Pujadas. Finkielkraut, in his typical cynical manner, assumes that Israel is threatened in this war by extremist Islam represented by Hamas. Throughout the television interview, he avoids discussing the massacres inflicted on Palestinian civilians by Israeli bombings. What matters to Finkielkraut is to depict the Israeli assault as “part of an ideological war against Islamic extremism.” His audacity reaches its peak when another guest, French political analyst François Heisbourg, compares Hamas to “the Nazi Party,” asserting that “the West will win this war against Hamas as it triumphed over Nazism in World War II.” Moreover, Finkielkraut raises his rhetoric when calling for “the complete destruction of Hamas as a precursor to peace between Palestinians and Israelis.”
At no point was there any reference during the discussion on Pujadas’ show to the tens of thousands of civilians killed in Gaza. Here, one can spot the audacity discussed by Sloterdijk in the behavior of this elite that stands beside the powerful in this world; as they possess the ability to manipulate words to excel in disdain for the victims (‘the outsiders’) to the point of exclusion. Since Palestinian resistance (the outsiders’ model) is today the only force confronting Israel (the insiders’ example), the aggressive cynicism of this type of intellectuals relentlessly attacks it, and at best, ignores the legitimacy of its defense of its right to exist.
1.3. The Insiders’ Laughter at the Outsiders
In the models of the study sample, modern cynicism has reached a level of mockery in front of the cameras regarding the tragedies faced by Palestinians amid the devastation in Gaza. This was exemplified by the French writer and director Élie Chouraqui on the French channel LCI. While listening to the testimony of a resident of Jabalia camp in Gaza, which was bombarded by Israeli airstrikes resulting in dozens of fatalities, Chouraqui remarked: “He’s communicating well, isn’t he? And he speaks well in front of the camera,” then burst into laughter at the Palestinian who was providing his testimony. Regardless of the French director’s intentions, his laughter exemplifies modern cynicism at the height of its audacity. Indeed, Chouraqui’s laughter in such circumstances recalls Lucian of Samosata, a model of the cynical elite that has shifted its positions to the other camp, that of the powerful; Sloterdijk characterized his sarcastic disposition as “Lucian’s laughter is marked by severity; it cannot be cheerful; it reveals hatred more than dominance. In it, we perceive the evil of one who feels questioned.”
Chouraqui’s mocking laughter presents him as one of the “insiders.” His interventions on television showcase an unparalleled degree of ridicule of the suffering of Palestinians who, according to Hannah Arendt’s classification, are seen here as “outsiders.” Thus, Chouraqui casts himself as one of the heroes defending the slaughter of the weak at the hands of the powerful; like his predecessor, Lucian of Samosata, “he refrains from uttering any kind words about his victim,” except in the spirit of mockery.
On the other hand, this media adopts the Israeli narrative regarding “killing children” and “raping Israeli women” by members of the Palestinian resistance. Despite Israel’s failure to provide any evidence for this, major newspapers and global networks continued to broadcast and publish news supporting the Israeli narrative aimed at demonizing the Palestinian resistance. Here, modern cynicism is evident in a significant segment of Western media, as classified by Sloterdijk; this media favors the powerful against the weak, even fabricating— as shown in previous models—glaring indifference to the tragedies of those outsiders. At present, at least, it is unlikely that this media will become fairer in conveying the truth in light of the arbitrary expulsions facing many Western journalists who have shown sympathy for the Palestinian narrative. There are other interpretations we will discuss later.
2. Journalism, Finance, and Politics: Dangerous Relationships
By recalling the title of French philosopher Paul Nizan’s (1905-1940) book “The Guard Dogs,” published in 1932, Serge Halimi asserts that “guard dogs” have transitioned from philosophers (as described by Nizan) to journalists, analysts, and experts who have become the guards of the prevailing social and political system in favor of the powerful, justifying their actions. Halimi describes these new journalists and experts: “They possess beautifying expertise, a microphone, and often more than a scientific chair. As purveyors of social and political realities, both domestic and foreign, they grotesquely distort them. They serve the interests of the masters of the world. They are the new guard dogs.” If French philosopher Julien Benda (1867-1956) wrote about what he termed the practical writer, who seeks to satisfy the bourgeoisie around him in exchange for a halo of fame and awards, Halimi affirms: “We understood that it suffices to replace the word ‘bourgeoisie’— which is very old —with the term ‘decision-makers.’” In other words, there has always been a class of intellectuals orbiting around the powerful, cultivating close relationships with them while justifying their decisions, no matter how much distortion and lying at the expense of society’s other classes was required. Halimi particularly denounces the “Century Club” as a site of collusion between politicians and journalists, where the political, economic, and media elite congregate, representing a genuine opportunity to obtain valuable information from influential figures in finance and politics while increasing closeness to them.
2.1. The Fourth Estate: A Complex Relationship between Media Institutions and Journalists
It can be stated that the relationship between journalists, on one side, and political figures and the world of industry and finance, on the other, is more than mere collusion; it is a relationship of employers (operators) and journalists (employees). If media owners also hold large companies with close ties to Israel, it becomes difficult for journalists to deviate from the editorial lines set by the companies themselves. For instance, the Lagardère Group is active in media, publishing, and entertainment, effectively making it a media empire that controls numerous television stations, newspapers, magazines, and publishing houses. However, this group is also involved in arms trade with the European defense and aerospace company (the main military alliance in Europe), which collaborates closely with Israeli drone manufacturing companies. Military cooperation, particularly at the nuclear level, between France and Israel is also framed by this empire. From this perspective, one can understand the editorial line of the channels and magazines affiliated with the Lagardère Group. For example, Europe 1 sharply criticizes Hamas in many of its programs while merely reporting on Israel’s bombardment of civilians before reverting to blame Hamas for the war in Gaza and for civilian casualties.
Another example of this relationship between media and the groups managing it is journalist Alexander Malafaye, who has become a familiar face in the visual media in France, especially on Europe 1, defending Israel’s war in Gaza, considering it “a Western war.” What distinguishes Malafaye in many of his media interventions is the contradictory perspective he adopts, placing Israel and Ukraine in the category of the oppressed, in contrast to Russia and groups of Muslims whom he attributes motivations of confrontation with Israel as “political, racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, and anti-Western, rooted in the very origins of Israel.”
This stance is reflected in the ideas of philosopher and journalist Bernard-Henri Lévy, who believes that Hamas would amount to nothing without Iran and Russia’s support. In reality, Lévy’s concern is not to analyze the situation in the occupied territories but to promote his view that has been reiterated since the end of the 1970s regarding the West’s antagonism rooted in other cultures. Thus, the resistance in the occupied Palestinian territories is only one facet of this civilizational animosity toward the West and its values, to which Israel, as he perceives it, belongs. This means that any loss for Israel is a loss for the West. On another note, while some journalists and intellectuals have woven relationships with influential business and political figures, the case is somewhat different for Bernard-Henri Lévy, who is both a philosopher and a media figure as well as one of France’s leading businessmen, with a net worth exceeding 200 million euros. Consequently, he embodies the bourgeoisie, representing media that defends its interests. Lévy’s defense of the powerful against the weak is not in search of “insider” status away from the “outsiders,” but rather that of a bourgeois philosopher defending his class, “building his professional life through shameless lying,” as Pascal Boniface criticizes his “legendary audacity.”
2.2. Media in the Service of Bourgeois Families
The relationship between media and the world of finance is also evident in its strongest forms in a country like Belgium. Several large bourgeois families own significant media groups extending into the Netherlands and Luxembourg. For instance, the Van Thillo family owns DPG Media Group, the Leysen family owns Corelio, and the Baert family owns Concentra. These families have historical ties with KBC Bank, one of the largest banking institutions in Europe that has been named in international investigative reports; it is considered one of the Belgian and European banks financing Israeli companies involved in demolishing Palestinian homes, building Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories, providing surveillance equipment, and illegally exploiting Palestinian natural resources. The question here is: how can this type of media maintain the freedom to portray the Palestinian narrative, even if it desires to? These strong relationships between families and banks define the editorial policies of the media under their banner; they were established for defending these relationships. Hence, it is futile to expect this media’s stance on the Palestinian issue to change. This media, which possesses the largest base with its various branches in all forms of journalism (print, audio, and visual), can only act brazenly as it defends the Israeli narrative.
On another note, a solid example of Germany’s unwavering support for Israel can be considered. If this support is assumed to stem from German guilt towards Jews regarding what happened to them in World War II, it has become overwhelmingly enthusiastic during the Israeli war on Gaza. Even Germany’s leading thinkers, such as Jürgen Habermas, Nicole Deitelhoff, Rainer Forst, and Klaus Günther, who signed the “Principles of Solidarity” statement with Israel in its war on Gaza, unjustifiably justified its killing of civilians. German support for Israel enjoys a consensus among political actors and media without exception. Here, we can understand why dozens of German companies rushed to condemn Hamas and support Israel, including automobile companies, banks, and large media groups like Bertelsmann, owned mostly by the bourgeois Mohn family, well-established Protestants. The group’s statement was strong, affirming this media empire’s ties to Israel, despite it being among the few media empires not owned by Jews worldwide. The statement read: “Bertelsmann condemns the terrorist attacks on Israel in the strongest terms. We stand firmly with our Israeli friends and partners, as well as with the State of Israel. Over the past decades, Bertelsmann and Israel have developed close and stable friendships, extending from the Mohn family’s shareholders’ involvement and Bertelsmann Stiftung’s projects to Bertelsmann’s businesses and investments in Israel. Our solidarity with the people of Israel is absolute.”
In France as well, the Bouygues family, which owns most of Bouygues S.A. industrial group, is among the largest families defending Israel, investing in Israeli infrastructure. Bouygues also owns and manages the TF1 group, supportive of the Israeli narrative. The journalist David Pujadas exemplifies the necessary cynicism to present Israel as the “victim,” while Palestinians are characterized as “executioners,” with “the civilians among them differing from Israeli civilians in this war.” In one of his questions on his program airing on LCI, belonging to the TF1 Group, Pujadas questions whether some, feel that civilians in Gaza are partners “with Hamas?” He adds, “Shall we say that a civilian in Gaza equals a civilian in Israel?”
In reality, these dangerous relationships between the powerful in politics and finance, on one side, and the media on the other, are not new. The powerful in politics have historically worked to tame the press of all types. In an imagined dialogue of French writer and journalist Maurice Joly (1829-1879) between Italian thinker Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) and French philosopher Charles-Louis de Secondat (Montesquieu) (1689-1755), the Italian thinker says to the French political philosopher: “In parliamentary countries, governments always perish through the press. Well, I see a possibility to neutralize the press through the press itself. And since the press is a great power, do you know what my government will do? It will become journalistic and will materialize journalism itself.”
What Joly’s Machiavelli foreshadowed has indeed occurred in modern Western contexts; the reality of democracy provides no opportunity for politicians to muzzle their press, respecting the constitution and laws. However, they can create a subservient press, serving the interests of the powerful in the world of finance and politics, due to the interconnectedness of these spheres, as has been demonstrated in the study’s axes.
3. The Brazen Thought Serving the Powerful
In fact, this service is not only rendered by journalists to these influential figures, but there’s a category of intellectuals also playing this role. About them, Pascal Boniface states: “Everyone is aware that they stand in stark contrast to intellectual honesty and care little due to two reasons. The first: the end justifies the means for them; they consider that the general public is not mature enough to grasp matters, thus, it is suitable to direct them even through means unrelated to conscience. The second: as long as they defend the prevailing theses, they will never be punished for their abhorrent methods. Why then would they care about their conscience? Telling the truth demands an extra effort of conviction while lying no longer tarnishes one’s reputation. You need to be a fool to not benefit from that.”
These “false intellectuals”—despite being ignorant of truths that have become common knowledge for the audience thanks to social media and certain media outlets that sing a different tune from official subordinate media serving the powerful—still roam freely across the Western media landscape, despite their “audacity.” Therefore, the question arises: how do these individuals maintain their capacity to persist despite their frequent misleading and falling discourse? We acquire the answer from Pascal Boniface, who states that “despite the internet, which makes finding previous statements easier than ever (thus the animosity of most ‘falsifiers’ towards these mediums they cannot control), there is rarely thorough research. It requires time and entails the risk of forming powerful enemies. Those who denounce the lies of media intellectuals may not always have access to media outlets, for these individuals don’t want to critique themselves!”
Let us examine some models of these intellectuals to approach their positions regarding the war in Gaza and discuss them against the backdrop of their proximity to the powerful and their defense of the Israeli narrative as the prevailing thesis.
3.1. Mohamed Sifaoui: The “Democratic, Secular, and Left-Wing Muslim” who Aligns with Israel
Mohamed Sifaoui has gained notoriety in recent years for his media appearances on French channels concerning Islam, specifically what he labels as political Islam, which he likens to “Nazism,” claiming it is supported by 20% of Muslims worldwide. He believes these individuals should be re-educated or even politically, ideologically, and militarily fought. Regarding the Palestinian issue, Sifaoui asserts that he supports the right of Palestinians to establish a state, but he supports the Israeli army in its actions. In this context, he wrote in the introduction of a book published in 2009 about events in Gaza during that period: “In the war between Israel and Hamas, I absolutely support the Israeli army in its legitimate battle against this terrorist organization harboring this fascist ideology—Belief of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Sifaoui’s stance in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians does not appear contradictory to him, at least. He distinguishes between supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state and endorsing the Israeli army against Hamas. It is worth noting that Sifaoui consistently refrains from discussing the systematic killings of civilians by this Israeli army or its role in Gaza since the initial evacuation of Israeli settlements, termed the unilateral Israeli disengagement plan in 2005, to the recent war of 2023-2024. Consequently, he blames Hamas for the failure to establish a Palestinian state, which Boniface also confirms.
In the context of the seventh war on Gaza, Sifaoui endorses Israel’s actions, which, in his view, must achieve all its military objectives. When it comes to the high civilian death toll, Sifaoui denies that this constitutes genocide, insisting on the necessity to kill as many Palestinian resistance fighters as possible. He claimed: “It is utterly absurd to talk about genocide.” In fact, Sifaoui’s defense of Israel’s killing of civilians is a recurring theme in his talks and writings. He argues in his introduction to the aforementioned book: “In wars, civilian populations have always paid a heavy price. This does not necessarily make the one conducting the shelling a war criminal.” Here, Sifaoui’s cynicism is evident as he shamelessly justifies the killing of thousands of children and women in Gaza. His discourse primarily revolves around defending the “democratic” Israel, which he views as threatened by the political Islam represented by Hamas in Gaza, much like the Islamic State (ISIS) organization in Syria and Iraq, which likewise threatens Western democracies, particularly France.
3.2. Frédéric Encel: The “Right-Wing Zionist” Supporting Israel’s Wars
Frédéric Encel is a familiar face in the media landscape, often consulted by the press on regional conflicts in the Middle East, particularly the Palestinian issue. Encel is presented in the media as an academic specialist in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, behind this academic knowledge—which many academics question—lies another side of Encel nurtured by his involvement in the French branch of the “Betar” youth movement, a Zionist organization founded by Vladimir Jabotinsky in 1923 in Riga, Latvia. Encel has become one of Betar’s leaders in France and does not hide his profound admiration for Jabotinsky’s ideas; he stated at a conference: “Jabotinsky, one of the major visionaries of political Zionism whom I would like to highlight, understood at least one thing, which is that it would never be possible to turn the Arabs of Palestine to Zionism. Among hundreds of Palestinians and Arabs I met while researching for my doctorate, not one admitted, not even half of one, to Zionism. So, let’s make it clear, it’s a legitimate problem. Therefore, you must be systematically the stronger party and employ what Jabotinsky advised, that is to be a wall of steel.”
This is indeed what Encel confirmed during his media appearances amid the Israeli war on Gaza. Regardless of the journalist’s questions regarding the fighting on Gaza grounds, Encel always returns to the “Flood of Al-Aqsa” events on October 7, 2023, to highlight Hamas’s capability and threat to Israeli strength in the region. Encel attempts to read this war solely from an Israeli strategic and geopolitical perspective. Like Mohamed Sifaoui, when he criticizes Israel, he does so as a democracy that requires such critique to enhance its performance amid all these anti-democratic adversaries (the Palestinians, Iran, Syria, and all factions allied with them). In his discussions, which merely represent a sample, Encel focuses only on Israel’s military strength, even when questions address Palestinian fatalities, he redirects attention to Israeli casualties to discuss Hamas’s infiltration into Israeli military intelligence, which he perceives as a government negligence that urges Israel to annihilate Hamas in Gaza, regardless of how many Palestinian civilians’ lives are lost. Thus, beneath the guise of “academia” and “deep academic analysis,” Encel presents the war on Gaza under the banner of scientific objectivity. However, as Boniface states, “objectivity for the Jew, according to Encel, means unconditional support for Israel.”
3.3. Philippe Val: Creating Inquisitions for Dissenting Opinions
Pascal Boniface describes French journalist Philippe Val in these words: “A forger attempting to conceal what he has become, preserving the image of what he once was. Today, Philippe Val seeks honor, connections with the powerful and celebrities, eager for formal recognition.” Philippe Val gained notoriety as a journalist and writer, with his remarks and comedic writings attracting attention when he chaired the newspaper “Charlie Hebdo” for seventeen years (1992-2009) and subsequently led the radio station “France Inter” from 2009 to 2014. He is thus a media man, albeit he dropped out of school at age 17. Val is known for his fierce hostility toward dissenting opinions. He dismissed numerous journalists whose views did not suit him, yet he continues to hold high positions and remain prominent due to his connections with those in power.
In recent years, the eloquent speaker, Philippe Val, has become an outspoken opponent of political Islam, which he perceives as a real danger to the democratic world, evolving into one of the major media intellectuals defending Israel and its wars, holding responsible anyone opposing it for the turmoil in the Middle East and the world. Boniface comments on Val’s relationship with Israel, noting that he has become an intellectual who “does not spare anyone daring to question the merits of Israeli politics.”
For this reason, Val will find in the Israeli war on Gaza an opportunity to defend Israel; he considers Hamas’s attack as a war against the European spirit that had once rallied to Israel, embodying the determination of Islamic extremists to erase the collective memory of the West. In his various media remarks, Val expresses a national sentiment for Israel, seeing Hamas’s attacks as dissociated from the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, fitting instead into a clash of civilizations framework, paralleling the assaults on cities such as “New York,” “Madrid,” and “Paris” in previous years. This prevailing opinion forms the cornerstone of defense for Israel and justification for its actions in wars against Palestinian civilians; it holds that Israel belongs to the Western civilizational space. This idea was prepared in Western thought since the Enlightenment and was solidified when the Catholic Church, under Pope Paul VI, abolished the concept of Jewish religious culpability in the death of Christ, a Christian belief previously prevalent that the Jewish people were responsible for “Christ’s crucifixion.” Therefore, Val defends the idea of Israel belonging to the Western sphere, and through this argument, “its killing of civilians becomes justified,” as it purports to defend the principles of Western democracy; Val shows no reaction to the killing of thousands of Palestinian children, focusing instead on presenting Israel—using cynical rhetoric—as “a victim of its enemies who are, by definition, freedom and democracy haters.” Hence, according to Philippe Val, it is a targeted one.
Conclusion
The study demonstrated that, through Sloterdijk’s thesis on modern cynicism prevalent in contemporary culture, Western media discourse, as represented by the sample in this research, betrays Enlightenment principles, opting for a double standard when advocating for some—due to their belonging to the Western civilizational sphere—and characterizing the morally different “Other” as an enemy. In this war, it caters to the powerful, doing so as a means of proximity and a desire for the privileges garnered from that closeness, thus positioning itself within the “insiders” category while endeavoring to distance itself as much as possible from the “outsiders,” as classified by Hannah Arendt.
Additionally, the study affirmed the collusion between politicians and journalists on one side and the relationship between major media owners and the journalists working within them on the other. The analysis showed that this media type lacks the capacity to deviate from the editorial line drawn by the owning companies; they maintain deep-rooted ties with Israel in economic and military domains. Thus, this media is aligned with its owners’ demand for vigorous defense of Israel and blatant disregard for Palestinian tragedies. This reality underscores the collusion of journalists and intellectuals with the powerful and influential in the political and economic realm, as well as the subpar nature of Western media discourse that employs modern public discourse concepts to defend Israel as part of the West. Conversely, it attacks anyone opposing it, ignoring the crimes committed by Israel against Palestinian civilians and, at times, justifying these crimes in the name of international law or under the banner of defending the Western democracy upheld by Israel in the region.
In this context, we recall what Palestinian thinker Edward Said (1935-2003) said about the relation of intellectuals to their audience and authority: “Every intellectual has an audience and supporters. The question is: should one please that audience, treating them as clients to be satisfied, or should one challenge them and thus stimulate them to immediate opposition or to mobilize them for greater democratic participation in society? Regardless of the answer to this question, one must confront authority; there’s no escape from discussing the intellectual’s relationship with it. How does the intellectual address authority: does he address it as a supplicant professional or as its conscience, unremunerated for what he does?”
It appears that journalists and intellectuals filling the official Western media landscape address those who wield control over political and economic authority as “supplicant professionals” to these figures, employees of theirs, or seekers of their favors. They are, therefore, in Said’s terms, not the conscience of this authority and reap many rewards for what they say and do. They are also neither willing nor able to criticize the holders of this power embedded in politics and economics, as advocated by Greek philosopher Diogenes, aiming for critique for the purpose of truth-telling without favoring the powerful. This requires, as Boniface said, significant effort and a degree of commitment vulnerable to collapsing under the temptations of that authority. This does not mean there are no individuals undertaking this role against authority and its affiliates. However, the latter has indeed tightened its grip, as Joly’s Machiavelli predicts, leaving no space for those resisting its propositions in its official channels, so they can function on the periphery or in the digital realm despite its non-adherence to the ethical standards for distributing information and ideas. Meanwhile, serious books and research critically addressing authority and the distortion of truth do exist, but few engage with them; thus, modern Diogenes remains marginalized as well.
References
Pauline Bock, “Israël-Gaza : Plaidoirie sudafricaine et silence médiatique,” Arrêts sur image, January 13, 2024, “accessed January 15, 2024”. http://bit.ly/48v36SJ.
Michel Collon et L., Israël, parlons-en!, (Bruxelles: Investig’Action, 2011), 209.
Terry Pinkard, Hegel: A Biography, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 242.
Megan Brenan, “Americans’ Trust in Media Remains Near Record Low,” Gallup, Politics, October 18, 2022, “accessed January 15, 2024”. https://bit.ly/3wwEzzo.
“Plus de la moitié des Français ne font pas confiance aux médias sur les sujets d’actualité, selon le nouveau baromètre La Croix,” Radio France, November 22, 2023, “accessed January 15, 2024”. https://bit.ly/42MamUo
Tasneem Tayeb, “Gaza siege: Western media bias and crumbling public trust,” The Daily Star, October 21, 2023, “accessed January 17, 2024”. https://bit.ly/3uJFAUq.
Astha Rajvanshi, “In Europe, Free Speech Is Under Threat for Pro-Palestine Protesters,” Time, October 20, 2023, “accessed January 17, 2024”. https://bit.ly/3UPatBi.
Peter Sloterdijk, Critique of Cynical Reason, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), 600.
Hannah Arendt, The Jew as Pariah: Jewish Identity and Politics in the Modern Age, (New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1978), 288.
Serge Halimi, Les nouveaux chiens de garde, (Paris: Raisons d’agir, 2005), 170.
Pascal Boniface, Les Intellectuels Faussaires: Le triomphe médiatique des experts en mensonge, (Paris: Jean-Claude Gawsewitch Éditeur, 2011), 240.
“Frappes sur Gaza: Vous n’aurez pas le silence des juifs de France,” Libération, October 31, 2023, “accessed January 17, 2024”. https ://bit.ly/3UkaW82.
“Israël-Hamas: Je ne suis pas d’accord avec la trêve humanitaire,” explique Eric Zemmour, Eupope 1, October 29, 2023, “accessed January 17, 2024”. http ://surl.li/qwowg.
“Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory illegal: UN rights commission,” United Nations, October 20, 2022, “accessed January 20, 2024”. https ://shorturl.at/kps14.
Ben Shapiro, “about Israel vs Hamas and why he would never support Biden over Trump,” The Oxford Union, November 1, 2023, “accessed January 20, 2024”. http ://surl.li/qxlij.
Alain Finkielkraut, “Sur la guerre Israël-Hamas,” LCI, October 11, 2023, “accessed January 20, 2024”. https ://shorturl.at/pIMOW.
Daniel Schneidermann, “Les deux blagues d’Elie Chouraqui,” Arrets sur image, November 3, 2023, “accessed January 20, 2024”. https://shorturl.at/dtAHJ.
Jamal Kanj, “Western media: an accessory in Israeli war crimes,” Middle East Monitor, October 18, 2023, “accessed January 20, 2024”. https ://bit.ly/3UTPj5k.
Cédric Mathiot et al., “Israël, 7 octobre: un massacre et des mystifications,” Libération, December 11, 2023, “accessed January 23, 2024”. https://shorturl.at/npGX3.
“Liberté d’expression en Occident: des journalistes pro-palestiniens licenciés,” TRT Français, October 17, 2023, “accessed January 23, 2024”. https://shorturl.at/akGJ8.
Jean Feyder, “European military cooperation with Israel,” European Coordination Of Committees And Associations For Palestine, July 30, 2015, “accessed January 23, 2024”. https://shorturl.at/jvAK8.
Philippe Val, “Le crime des boucliers humains,” Europe 1, December 11, 2023, “accessed January 23, 2024”. https://shorturl.at/ouvFO.
Alexandre Malafaye, “Israël: pourquoi leur guerre est aussi la nôtre,” L’Opinion, November 7, 2023, “accessed January 25, 2024”. https://shorturl.at/dhtG7.
Bernard Henri Lévy, “Le Hamas n’est pas grand chose sans l’Iran et la Russie,” Europe 1, November 18, 2023, “accessed January 25, 2024”. http://surl.li/rbwgm.
Bernad-Henri Levy, L’Empire et les cinq rois, (Paris: Grasset, 2018), 288.
Jade Lindgaard and Xavier de la Porte, The Impostor: BHL in Wonderland, (London: Verso, 2012), 45-54
Jade Lindgaard, Xavier de la Porte, Le B.A. BA du BHL: Enquête sur le plus grand intellectuel français, (Paris: La Découverte, 2004), 267.
Marco Van Hees, “Qui possède les médias en Belgique,” Solidaire, February 12, 2009, “accessed January 25, 2024”. https://shorturl.at/fRTUX.
La Libre, “Guerre Israël-Hamas: ces banques européennes financent des entreprises actives dans les colonies,” La Libre, December 12, 2023, “accessed January 27, 2024”. https://shorturl.at/gqFIL.
Alexandre Robinet-Borgomano, “Le soutien indéfectible de l’Allemagne à Israël”, Institut Montaigne,” November 20, 2023, “accessed January 27, 2024”. https://shorturl.at/qHLU9.
Sharon Wrobel, “106 grandes entreprises allemandes condamnent le Hamas et soutiennent Israël,” The Times of Israël, October 23, 2023, “accessed January 28, 2024”. https://shorturl.at/vBL34.
Alberta Nur, “Israël criminal, France complice. Carrefour: comment l’entreprise française soutient Israël?,” Révolution permanente, November 3, 2023, “accessed January 30, 2024”. https://shorturl.at/aevP0.
David Pujadas, “Question de à propos des civils de Gaza,” 24H Pujadas, LCI, October 11, 2023, “accessed January 30, 2024”. https://shorturl.at/jyS03
Kursad Kaan Arikan, “Nouvelle proposition de loi: 5 ans de prison et 100.000 euros d’amende si vous êtes antisioniste,” TRT Français, November 1, 2023, “accessed February 2, 2024”. https://shorturl.at/fJQRU.
Mohamed Sifaoui, “journaliste, écrivain et réalisateur, au micro de Frédéric Haziza,” Radio J, 7 Janvier 2024, “accessed February 2, 2024”. http://surl.li/rkwno.
Hillel Halkin, Jabotinsky. A Life, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 36-63.
(64) Jean-Claude Lefort, “Pour Frédéric Encel nous méritons l’asile psychiatrique!,” Association France Palestine Solidarité, September 27, 2013, “accessed February 2, 2024”. https://shorturl.at/egkVW.
– Pierre Lurçat, “Réponse à Frédéric Encel, qui accuse Israël d’être une “voyoucratie”, et au CRIF qui cautionne ses propos,” Tribune Juive, January13, 2023, “accessed February 2, 2024”. https://shorturl.at/fwH56.
Boniface, Les Intellectuels Faussaires, 157-158.
– Frédéric Encel, “Les Israéliens pensent que personne ne les comprend,” LCI, November 17, 2023, “accessed February 16, 2024”. http://surl.li/rlygg.
– Frédéric Encel, “C’est pire que le 11-Septembre pour Israël,” Europe 1, October 9, 2023, “accessed February 16, 2024”. http://surl.li/rlykw.
– Frédéric Encel, “Guerre Israël-Hamas : “Une des pires catastrophes des renseignements dans l’Histoire”,” Radio J, October 9, 2023, “accessed February 2, 2024”. http://surl.li/rlymr.
Boniface, Les Intellectuels Faussaires, 157.
Jean-Luc Hees, “Arrivée controversée de Philippe Val à France Inter,” La Tribune, July 1, 2009, “accessed February 19, 2024”. http://surl.li/rmtpo
Boniface, Les Intellectuels Faussaires, 186-190.
