The world held hostage: The price of dissent in the face of genocide

The world, since October 2023, has found itself held hostage to Israel’s narrative surrounding its actions in Gaza and the West Bank. This has created a chilling effect on global discourse, where speaking out, or even showing basic human empathy, has become a career-ending offense. An unwritten but powerful code of silence has been enforced, particularly in Western political and cultural circles, where the slightest deviation from the pro-Israel line is met with swift and severe retribution. This extends from high-profile politicians and thinkers to artists, business leaders, and even ordinary citizens. Everyone is, constantly, threatened with the libel anti-Semitism the moment they utter a word about what their own eyes and hearts feel. The ultimate goal is not only to silence people but to deprive them of their human instinct of feelings and expressing them—as a therapy sometimes. 

This climate of fear is being enforced through a campaign of career assassination and public shaming that has seen numerous individuals, from models to top business leaders, lose their jobs, income, and reputations. Supermodel Bella Hadid has publicly stated she has lost job offers and faced a significant backlash. For instance, she was dropped from an Adidas campaign that drew criticism from Israel. Separately, actress Melissa Barrera was fired from the Scream film franchise by Spyglass Media after social media posts where she used terms like “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” in reference to Gaza. The company stated it had “zero tolerance for antisemitism or the incitement of hate.” These examples demonstrate how a single expression of human feeling can lead to immediate and severe professional repercussions, effectively silencing dissent and maintaining a uniform, unchallenged narrative.

For politicians, the stakes are even higher. In countries like the US and UK, a single word of empathy for Palestinians can be weaponized to end a career. Anyone running for office, from a local town council to a national position, can have their history meticulously scrutinized for any statement, no matter how old, that could be interpreted as anti-Israel. Serving politicians are in an even more precarious position, constantly navigating a landscape where critical debate is stifled and unquestioning support for Israeli actions is the only viable path for survival. A powerful example of this is the case of former UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn. His political career was fundamentally undermined and he was ultimately suspended from the party following a report on antisemitism within Labour, a controversy that was exacerbated by him being true toi his principles of supporting Palestinian freedom. In the US, a similar phenomenon has been noted, with organizations like AIPAC spending millions to defeat candidates who criticize Israel’s military actions in Gaza. To survive in politics one should never criticise Israel but free to condemn own country!

CEOs and top business leaders, Hollywood producers, authors, and journalists are all operating under a constant, unspoken threat. The moment they express a human feeling—for example, that “what is coming out of Gaza is turning my stomach upside down”—they risk being accused of antisemitism and facing dire professional consequences. This can manifest as losing jobs, being passed over for opportunities, facing public personality assassination, and a loss of revenue. A pervasive environment is being created where  the most basic expressions of empathy are risky propositions ensuring that the vast majority of influential voices remain silent, despite the images of death, starvation, and destruction being reported by a handful of local journalists who themselves face the daily threat of being killed. 

There is no exaggeration here; it is a lived reality for many professionals. In the art world, David Velasco was fired from his role as editor-in-chief of Artforum magazine after the publication of an open letter in support of Palestinian rights. Following his dismissal, celebrated artists, including Nan Goldin, announced they would no longer work with the magazine, with Goldin stating, “I have never lived through a more chilling period”. The same month, The Guardian also terminated its contract with Steve Bell, its cartoonist for over 40 years, after he submitted a cartoon of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the newspaper’s management deemed to be an antisemitic caricature.

READ: Over 14,800 patients in Gaza still in urgent need of medical treatment: WHO

In academia and technology it is the same. Google fired over 50 employees who participated in a sit-in protest against the company’s “Project Nimbus” contract, which provides cloud computing services to the Israeli military. These are not isolated incidents but rather part of a broader, well-documented campaign to silence any critical voice.

The world, effectively, is being held hostage not just to a narrative, but to a system of professional and political retaliation. Even being neutral on the genocide in Gaza is not tolerated by Israel. This manufactured silence allows the tragedy to continue largely unopposed. It is similar to the silence that prevailed across Europe while the Nazis where murdering the Jews except this time it is Israel that enforcing the silence.  

While the strategy of intimidation has been effective in many circles, it has not worked universally. Indeed, in countries where the pressure to conform is most intense, a new generation of politicians is emerging, refusing to be silenced. This has been powerfully demonstrated in the UK by George Galloway’s victory in the Rochdale by-election, where he campaigned almost exclusively on a pro-Palestinian platform, declaring his win to be “for Gaza.” In New York, the campaign of Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, which openly included strong support for Palestinian rights, secured him the Democratic nomination highlightهing a significant shift in political priorities among young and diverse voters. In Belgium, figures like Dyab Abou Jahjah, co-founder of the Hind Rajab Foundation, have also used legal and political platforms to challenge Israeli impunity. These examples demonstrate that even when candidates do not win, the very existence of a viable pro-Gaza political platform is a huge victory in itself—a development that was unimaginable just a few years ago. It proves that public dissent is beginning to translate into political action, chipping away at the narrative that has long dominated Western political discourse.

The relentless use of accusations of “antisemitism,” “Jew haters,” and similar terms has been a core component of this campaign to stifle dissent. However, this over-application of the labels has had an unintended effect: it has begun to hollow them out of their meaning and effectiveness. When an expression of basic human empathy for Palestinians is treated with the same outrage as genuine, malicious hatred of Jews, the moral weight of the accusation is diminished. This has led to a growing number of people, particularly the younger generation, to see these charges not as sincere warnings against hate but as a political weapon wielded to silence any criticism of Israeli policy. By overusing this powerful and important term, the narrative’s proponents have inadvertently created the very backlash they sought to prevent, and in doing so, they have exposed the machinery of intimidation for what it is.

OPINION: To recognise or not to recognise is not the question

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.