There is a famous quote with many attributions but no firm source – “Sincerity is the most important thing in politics: once you can fake that, you’ve got it made!”

Examples of performative hypocrisy in public life are legion and growing. A few recent examples: In the US, a furore has erupted over the Nazi tattoo of a Senate candidate, while funnelling billions to the real thing seem to be just fine by both sides of the House. In Australia, of course, we have politicians arguing for transparency while running the most secretive government in decades.

While the Catholic Church is definitely moving to address issues of its own in this area — especially in the areas of abuse and its cover-up — it cannot afford to be complacent in this regard. A year after the final document of the Synod on Synodality was issued, recommending sweeping changes to areas as diverse as disability ministry, relationship between Eastern and Latin rites, youth ministry and women’s ministry, few if any of its proposals have been implemented — or even begun — even though the language of synodality is still used in public.

There is, however, one area above all where the hypocrisy of public discourse has been laid bare with devastating consequences for politics at large. Well over 18 months ago, in January 2024, the International Court of Justice pointed out the measures that would need to be taken by Israel to avoid turning the spiralling tragedy there into a genocide. In July 2024, this was buttressed by its opinion on the legal effects of Israel’s occupation, in turn reinforced by its opinion on the consequences for the treatment of UN and other relief agency personnel.

Now, even Israeli groups are agreed that genocide (once thought to be the most serious atrocity crime in international law) is in progress. Indeed, at least when addressing domestic audiences, Israeli leaders themselves are inclined to agree, with one commentator arguing in an article in The Times of Israel (since deleted, but archived here) that Israel needed the West Bank as Lebensraum (yes, his word) for its exploding population.

So, what has been the world’s response to this atrocity which has unfolded on the phones, tablets and computers of the world in real time? Well… not much. While church and state leaders have expressed “concern”, the tangible response in terms of measurable outcomes has been minimal. After all, Israel pays well for arms and military components essential to creating its Lebensraum (including from Australia). Accordingly, neither doctor, nor print journalist, nor broadcaster, nor university student nor hospital have been immune from the ruthless attempt to silence any attempt to raise the issue of morality of support for Israel’s campaign in the public sphere.

In so doing, of course, the whole Western architecture of human rights as guarantors of liberty is collapsing as never before. It was always clear, not least during the Cold War, that human rights abuses would be forgiven if it was “ our son of a bitch” who was the perpetrator. Despite backing a rogue’s gallery, however, the West could nevertheless argue — with some justification — that, compared to a Mao or a Hitler or a Pol Pot or a Stalin (all of whom, it should be noted, the West were happy to support at one time or another!), the Western side was the lesser of a plethora of evils.

When, however, the question of genocide is up for grabs as it is now, genocide by people who are proudly admitting it, it is increasingly hard to say that there is a worse alternative. China – which, while it has a patchy domestic human rights record, hasn’t been to war since 1979? Russia – who (even ignoring the murky circumstances of the Ukraine War’s origins) has killed four times fewer civilians in Ukraine (in twice the time) than Israel has in Gaza? If states, yes, and Churches, cannot stop the supply of weapons to the perpetrator (let alone condemn this) then what exactly would they find unacceptable?

The trouble is that not only are states which are not part of the West watching, so too are Western populations. When the killing goes on regardless of who is in power – Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Labor, Liberal – what exactly is it that democracy means? Especially in a country like Australia where, as refugees and First Nations people know only too well, there is neither an enforceable bill of rights nor any appetite among the political class for one. Tony Benn is reputed to have said (although the quote is probably Neil Ascherson’s) that it is important to note what a government does to refugees because it shows what they will do to citizens, given the chance.

Around the world, more and more people are realising that the same is true of Palestinians.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.