This is what the West looks like when it is afraid

In his 1988 book, The Collapse of Civilization: Thinking After the Holocaust, German-Jewish historian Dan Diener coined the term "Civilizational Collapse" (Zivilisationsbruch) as a historical concept referring to events that radically undermine civilizational norms and shake the belief in humanity, law, and morality. He took the Holocaust as an example of civilizational collapse, concluding that it was a unique and unrepeatable event in history.

Dan Diner does not see the Palestinian tragedy, including the genocide in Gaza, as a collapse of civilizational values, let alone comparable to the Holocaust. For him, the conflict in the Middle East must be understood within a national and geopolitical context.

Any attempt to draw a parallel between what is happening to the Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli state apparatus and what happened to the Jews in the twentieth century is, in Diner's view, "immoral." In fact, the word "massacre" is used when referring to Gaza to refer to what happened on October 7, 2023.

The concept developed by Dan Diner has taken root in cultural and even literary studies, and there is an implicit agreement in Western academia that civilized human values have collapsed only once: in relation to the Jewish Question during World War II.

That war, with its comprehensive destruction, did not rise to the level of being considered a collapse of civilization. It was a devastating battle within a civilizational context that taught Westerners an important lesson: Don't do it again.

It is a word, or lesson, usually said in connection with the Israeli state project. Another massacre, or even devastating wars, could occur, provided they do not harm Judaism. An analysis of German political discourse, for example, cannot take the issue of the "historical lesson" far from this conclusion.

Comparing what is currently happening in Gaza to the Jewish tragedy is a risky proposition. In his book, "Hope Never Disappoints: Pilgrims on Their Journey to a Better World," published earlier this year, the Pope, the spiritual leader of nearly one and a half billion Catholic Christians, dared to say that what is happening in Gaza requires a comprehensive legal investigation, as it may have reached the level of genocide.

Pope Francis did not assert that Gaza was subject to genocide, but his inclusion of genocide in the context of an Israeli action crossed a red line.

It was noticeable that his recent illness, which confined him to the hospital for some time, did not receive the attention that papal affairs deserved. In fact, we can say that he was ignored while he was approaching ninety.

It is neither an exaggeration nor hasty to link this Western "media" disregard for what his book contains regarding the Palestinian issue. It's as if Western Christians—take Germany for example—are prepared to demolish their homes just to confirm to themselves and the rest of the world that they have learned the historical lesson.

Condemning Israeli military action in the manner of the Pope, that is, linking it to genocide, could pose a threat to the existence of the State of Israel, as Austrian theologian Gregor Maria Hoff argues.

Western democratic institutions place Israel in a red theological bubble, the most important thing in the world stretching from Canada to Moscow, and it should not be touched. Even at the height of the communist-capitalist conflict in the West, Moscow and Washington remained loyal sponsors of the Israeli project. Indeed, the Soviet Union preceded its American rival in recognizing the State of Israel.

In "Secret Negotiations between the Arabs and Israel," Heikal recounts his unique experience with the founding fathers of the Fatah movement. Heikal suggested to Abdel Nasser that he accompany Arafat on his visit to Moscow in August 1968, to present the organization as a national liberation movement for the Palestinian people, deserving of support from the Soviet leadership.

The Soviets had a special apparatus under the supervision of "Comrade Mazarov" responsible for supporting national liberation movements worldwide. Through a surprising, unofficial ruse, Abdel Nasser managed to introduce Arafat to President Brezhnev, who referred him to Comrade Mazarov without even addressing him directly and ignoring his face.

For more than two hours, as Heikal recounts, Mazarov interrogated the Palestinian leader about his group's position on Israel's future and the international resolutions that give it the right to the greater part of Palestine.

Weeks later, Palestinian leaders received a small shipment of weapons that bore more political significance than military significance. This would not have happened had some Palestinian nationalist groups not converted to Marxism, Heikal argues.

Israel's presence remains out of the equation. It is interesting to note that a large portion of Russian Jews moved to Palestine, including nearly a million individuals after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that a large portion of Western European Jews moved to America.

Matters eventually escalated to the point where American Jews became an influential political and financial force, aiming to push the United States to provide unlimited support to the State of Israel, whose white population was predominantly "Soviet Jews." Judaism bridged the vast gap between the two conflicting worlds.

After more than a century, Columbia University, along with a host of other prestigious universities, has chosen financial donations over freedom of expression. Within the liberal marketplace, universities are free to offer their academic and intellectual offerings as long as they do not cross the boundaries set by "benevolent" donors.

Columbia University found itself facing the reality that, if it did not rein in students and faculty, it would immediately lose nearly half a billion dollars that it desperately needed.

In December of last year, 2024, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Free Expression (FIRE) released the results of its extensive survey, "Silence in the Classroom." The survey included 55 American academic institutions and nearly 7,000 American academics.

This is the largest and most important survey of its kind on freedom of expression in academia.

One of the most striking findings revealed by the study is that 35% of academics moderated their writing due to fear. This percentage is nearly four times the percentage reported by sociologists when asked the same question in 1954, during the McCarthy era, known for suppressing all forms of free expression.

Regarding the Palestinian issue, 70% said they practice self-censorship. At Harvard University, a renowned university, 84% said it was extremely difficult to engage in a discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A Columbia University faculty member told FIRE, "You're not afraid of being punished as much as you are of being banned or blacklisted. It all happens through gossip and collusion."

Rarely does a Western media outlet dare to explain the reason for the ceasefire's collapse, or even touch on the fact that Israel killed 150 Palestinian civilians during the truce, in exchange for a comprehensive Palestinian commitment to the terms of the truce.

Western democratic institutions have turned the narrative on its head, and in doing so, they have achieved their primary goal: deafening silence in the face of a crime of historic proportions, as Owen Jones noted in his Guardian article. I will end this article with Jones's question: "What if everyone who knows that horrific evil is being committed spoke out? Ministers would resign from governments."

Israel's crimes will make headlines and news bulletins, and will be rightly described as heinous crimes that require urgent action to stop them.

Demands for an arms embargo and sanctions on Israel will become unavoidable. Instead of those who oppose genocide being persecuted and shamed, it will be those who are complicit in it who are excluded from public life.

*Quoted from Al Jazeera Net