British scholar Leonard Schapiro, writing on Stalinism, observed that “the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade. But to produce a uniform pattern of public utterances in which the first trace of unorthodox thought reveals itself as a jarring dissonance." And it seems that in the current sanctioned discourse, the jarring dissonance is speaking up against a genocide streamed live on our phones.

My friend says, “I think most of the killing and the destruction is deliberate. The human shields business is just an excuse. But, of course, one cannot say this in public”. “Why not?” I ask. “Well.. no-one says that in public.” ‘‘These are children being starved and shot in the head by snipers", I remind her. We are sitting in a cafe in a leafy suburb, surrounded by people with their well-groomed, pampered dogs. “Imagine the outrage if a thousand dogs in Sydney were deliberately starved or shot,” I say. “I know. What’s happening to these children is tragic.” And it occurs to me that while tragic is how the compliant media would frame it, criminal is what it really is.

My other friend notices the man at the next table staring at the Palestinian flag bracelet on my wrist. She says sotto voce, “Sawsan. Careful!”. She fears a scene. But when the man gets up to leave he gives me a big smile and says, “I like your bracelet”. And I think of three Jewish friends who go everywhere in their Palestinian keffiyehs, together with their star of David pendants – to make a point, to raise awareness, to start a conversation that might persuade someone to take a stand against the siege and the carnage. For those three principled and compassionate friends, “Never Again” means “Never Again for Anyone”. And whenever I see them, my heart overflows with love just as it does when I see my other principled and compassionate friends. This has never been about religion or ethnicity as they would have you think.

Louise Adler writes  These are the things I’ve learnt you can’t ask about Israel. “I have discovered that it is impossible to ask, however hesitantly, whether anyone feels that the images from Gaza on our TV screens are reminiscent of the brutal and now iconic images from last century, of the photos of the Jews rounded up in the Warsaw ghetto. That is to break a taboo. To compare the conduct of the IDF in prosecuting the occupation to the Nazi regime’s segregation, dispossession and persecution of the Jews in World War II is forbidden.”

In a bizarre exchange during a Senate committee, Penny Wong and Michaelia Cash clash over Netanyahu question, Liberal senator Michaelia Cash asks Foreign Minister Penny Wong if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is welcome on Australian soil. Wong refuses to answer on the grounds that the question is hypothetical. And her stock answer brings to mind that other stock answer :“We believe in a two- state solution.” We all know why Cash is asking the question and why Wong is unable to give a straightforward reply. Perhaps they know that we know. But as long as we remain silent, the dangerous notes of discord are kept at bay and the charade of acceptable public utterances continues.

How often have I heard, “We believe in a two-state solution” and thought of the distance between this Waiting for Godot, political mantra and the urgent needs of those under the raining bombs. In a school playground, if a child is being beaten to a pulp, no one would accept that the teachers stand by, proclaiming, “We believe in fair play in the playground”. People would scream, “But the bully obviously doesn’t. Do something. Pull him away.” Sadly, in the lofty corridors of power, things are different. Every red line of humanity and International Law is crossed and the leaders of Arab autocracies and Western democracies do nothing. The former busy themselves issuing vacuous statements and posing for group photos at pointless meetings, and the latter avoid the subject.

When compelled to comment, they repeat the agreed uniform narrative. With a straight face. There are strategic reasons for withholding water from people, strategic reasons for burning people alive in tattered tents, and strategic reasons for shooting those who turn up to help the wounded. And, of course, there are security reasons for stealing other people’s land. We know that these are lies. Shamelessly repeated lies. But they are the uniform public utterances of our days. In this environment, speaking up against mass slaughter is seen as a jarring dissonance.

Amos Goldberg writes in Israeli Historian: This Is Exactly What Genocide Looks Like: “I admit that, at first, I was reluctant to call it genocide, and sought any indication to convince myself that it is not. No one wants to see themselves as part of a genocidal society. But there was explicit intent, a systematic pattern, and a genocidal outcome – so, I came to the conclusion that this is exactly what genocide looks like. And once you come to this conclusion, you cannot remain silent.” And he says, “The two-state solution is also just a smokescreen used by the international community, as there is no realistic path to achieving a viable two-state solution that grants Palestinians their rights. The expansion of settlements has left no room for it, and the idea of two equal states is not even considered.

Even the most progressive proposals from the Israeli left and the international community fall short of the minimum level of dignity, sovereignty, and independence that Palestinians can accept. Within Israeli society, racism, violence, militarism, and a narcissistic focus on Israeli suffering alone are so prevalent that there is almost no public support for any solution other than more force and killing.” Goldberg is not alone in coming to the conclusion that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, yet mainstream media continues to frame the daily horrors as Israel defending itself. To those who are still asking “How is this defensive war a genocide?”, I say: “Let me count the ways.”

Saree Makdisi writes in Trump’s War on the Palestine Movement Is Something Entirely New: “What we are witnessing is thus not the return of McCarthyism, but rather something entirely new. Plenty of governments have repressed free speech or academic freedom to protect themselves from criticism and dissent. But never before has a government repressed its citizens’ free speech and academic freedom in order to protect an entirely different country..” And he quotes Momodou Taal, who wrote recently, after fleeing the US and abandoning his doctoral program at Cornell, “It is surreal that we live in a world where you get into trouble for saying killing babies is wrong [and] where those advocating for, and celebrating, endless massacres against Palestinians are able to, time and again, present themselves as victims while presenting those fighting against genocide as the oppressors.”

Avigail Abarbanel writes in Ethnic Cleansing/Genocide Has Always Been The Goal— It Is The Glue That Holds Israeli Society Together: “First I wanted to say that it’s never been ‘war-turned-genocide in Gaza’. It’s always been ethnic cleansing – meaning that genocide was always the goal”. And she says, “..Israeli society, by and large, is also united behind the goal of completing the settler-colonial project, which is to eliminate all Palestinian presence in historic Palestine.” She concludes that, “The danger to the Palestinian people should not be underestimated. We are facing a single-minded genocidal plan that can only be stopped from the outside.” Such utterances are excluded from our newspapers and television screens, and from our leaders’ speeches and press conferences. They do not conform to the propaganda-produced narrative.

Omer Bartov says in Omer Bartov on Gaza: “It’s a Misnomer to Call It a War, “..if you accept that part of identifying genocide involves empathising with the victims, what do you do when the state carrying it out is one that sees and presents itself as the answer to the Holocaust – a state that has positioned itself as the guardian of Holocaust memory, as having drawn the right lessons from it, and yet has engaged in a genocidal undertaking?” and “..This isn’t about the so-called Israeli-Palestinian ‘conflict’ – that term is misleading. This is about the Israeli occupation of Palestinians, and it must be resolved in a just way, ensuring dignity for all people involved.” In spite of the fact that Bartov is an eminent scholar of genocide and the Holocaust, you will not come across his views in our compliant media. He does not adhere to the uniform narrative being peddled these days.

How do we make supporting the genocide the jarring dissonance it ought to be? We keep on countering the lies that make up today’s uniform public utterances. Over and over, until they become the jarring dissonance and speaking up against a genocide becomes the decent thing to do that we all once thought it was. If our voices were inconsequential, there would not be the frenzied rush to silence us.