The Genocide of Truth

Introduction (below)

Chapter 1: Truth

Chapter 2: Ideology

Chapter 3: Religion

Chapter 4: Science

Chapter 5: Attention

More chapters to come for paid subscribers! This introduction is free, but please sign up today.

This book isn’t about Gaza. Neither is it about Israel. It makes no comment on the October 7th attacks nor the subsequent war. Its focus is far more limited: the claim that Israel is committing “genocide.” And not the claim itself, whose falsehood the book takes as a foundational premise, but the deep philosophical and cultural roots of this modern language inversion.

We don’t say that “genocide” is the only case of language inversion; rather that it is the tipping point, the usage that makes an emergency out of chronic, pre-existing symptoms. In my previous book Pax Arabica, to which this is a sequel, I highlighted several such inversions, promoted by the West, that have shielded Arab governmental and societal actions from criticism. Yet “genocide” is the example par excellence, a falsehood that has torn Western society apart. Lancing this boil, I argue, is the precursor to liberal democratic renewal.

Neither is this book yet another example of geopolitical analysis. We will not revisit the events of the last 3 years nor give our detailed take on misinformation and military outcomes. Instead we will focus on the philosophical, with an emphasis on Western intellectual collapse. To ape Bernard Lewis on Middle Eastern decline: What went wrong?

This book is written for readers who already know that no genocide is occurring in Gaza — just as no serious person needs to be persuaded that the Earth is round.

They’ve watched Schindler’s List and found the Gaza connection a gross insult to common sense.

They’ve observed Gazans increase in number, while the Jews of Europe were decimated.

They’ve seen Iranian protesters slaughtered in their tens of thousands, and over just a few weeks, while the same civilian death toll over three years in Gaza has been described as genocide.

They’ve heard of Dresden and Tokyo, firebombed in the War, yet have never once described heard them described as genocide.

They’ve seen one of the world’s most sophisticated militaries, in an advanced technological age, spectacularly fail to exterminate a population in a densely populated urban area.

And then they’ve look in utter incredulity as the great and good have spoken of intent!

If the Israelis had intended to destroy the population of Gaza, it would have been over in a day. Yet somehow, here we are, years later, and we still haven’t reached the civilian death level from the Iranian 2026 protests.

It really isn’t that complicated. If the Israelis are said to intend x, and have the means to do x, but aren’t doing x—not even incrementally over a very long time—then they clearly didn’t intend to.

An awful lot of attention is given to the outrageous statements of a few far-right Israeli ministers. One spoke of dropping a nuclear bomb as “one of the options”, yet, unsurprisingly and thankfully , it hasn’t happened. So we can conclude 1 of 2 things (or, almost certainly, both): either nuclear war was never intended or it was intended, but the speaker had no authority to implement his statement. Either way, it’s clear from what’s actually happened on the ground that said minister didn’t represent Israeli government policy. Instead, the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths shows the reverse: an intent to meticulously protect civilian lives in the pursuit of the war aim of destroying Hamas.

(Indeed, and as an aside, it’s fascinating how widely certain fridge, extreme Israelis are believed in their every statement, while official pronouncements on military operations, death statistics and other important matters are dismissed by the media as “claims”. It’s almost as if they want to believe the worst).

Although the introduction may seem to suggest the inverse, this book is philosophical, not polemical, in nature, but the animating genocide claim is so utterly pathetic that even in a serious and thoughtful work such as this, it needs to be called out as a sham in plain and provocative words. There are times to speak academically and times to speak in dumbfounded satire. This is a case of the latter.

Now we may sympathise with victims on all sides, and we may disagree sharply on the justice or conduct of this war, or on the wider history of the region. But sympathy is not evidence, and the “genocide” charge is not a matter of sympathy. It is a claim of fact and law, and on that claim, the case has not been made. Not even close. The same applies to “apartheid” and the other terms that now travel alongside it. This book takes no position on the conflict itself. It takes a position only on the misuse of these words.

We are aware of the consensus among certain elites — UN agencies, special rapporteurs, the “human rights community,” and, increasingly, the courts themselves — and we are aware that their authority has lent the “genocide” charge a credence it has not earned on the evidence. Yet their failure to establish a common sense case diminishes their once venerable institutions; for that there is no Holocaust in Gaza is clear as cloudless sky; obvious to all with eyes to see and brains to think. Merely engaging in the debate on their own terms allows absurdity to gain a hearing it does not deserve.

Indeed it is only because they are international elites that we are even engaging seriously with this debate. Had it be proposed by a forty year old singleton from a basement in Idaho, we would have dismissed it instantly as unserious. Yet the words Human Rights Watch somehow project authority. Unfortunately, in the eyes of those guided by evidence, sense and moral bearing, it highlights a civilisation in distress —a world where authority trumps truth in an act of spectacular fallacy.

I’ve thought long and hard about how to structure this book — whether I should lay out the anti-genocide argument once more in academic terms. I’ve written articles on this many times. I’ve cited numbers, ratios, and statistics. I’ve made historical comparisons and referred to evidence. I’ve spoken of law and precedent. Yet all to little avail. Not because the case is (close to) wrong, but because the word United Nations carries moral weight, and the appearance of impartiality gives the credulous hope. After all, who wouldn’t believe the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council? Who wouldn’t accept a ruling from The Hague?

And so we come to a pretty pass, where you cite Amnesty International and I cite a democracy. You cite Guterres and I raise Steven Pinker. You claim the backing of the “human rights establishment” — including the courts that were meant to stand above it — and I cite someone who hasn’t worked for Hamas. In this context, footnotes become pointless. It is a question of authority over evidence, and on that question, we have no means of conversation.

This is the reason I have written this book. Not to debate with those who are lost, nor to persuade the incorrigible — after all, they claimed “genocide” on October 8th, even before Israel began its ground invasion. Rather, this book asks why. Why has the Western world fallen so far from truth? Why are we forced to debate a dogma that has no basis in reality? How can we survive as a civilization where words are mere emotional signals divorced from definition? For without conversation there is no true debate, and without true debate there is no liberal democracy. Worse there is no cohesive nation except in the blandest sense of bureaucratic citizenship.

I have identified twenty roots of language inversion — twenty possible causes of this abuse of language. Note that I speak of roots, not branches. I am less interested in the obvious explanations: bias in the media, sectarian campaigning, the activist academy. Instead we will dive deeper — the disrespect for truth, the need for religion, the fall of science, the forced evolution of language. Education, art, empathy and Western psychology: all these and more will be investigated until we arrive at a more complete understanding.

If our focus is narrow, our aims are ambitious: to reinvigorate a Western political tradition built on enquiry, evidence, and the search for truth. The “genocide” claim is the tip of the iceberg — the latest and most serious manifestation of language inversion. Beneath it lies an entire structure of discourse that prizes affect over evidence, activism over reason. We submit that reversing this process is essential to the health of our liberal democratic polities.

Those wedded to “genocide,” and to other ‘epistemological certainties’, will likely turn from these pages before the case has been made. That is their right. But it is also a symptom — a sign of a society without cohesion, for without a common language we have no means of communication. Only power speaks.

We hope, still, to revive a common project: a return to a shared purpose built on truth, reason, respectful discussion, and curious inquiry. We will not agree on the specifics of the Middle East, nor on any other contentious issue — nor does this book (or the Israeli democratic system) ask us to. What we might unite around is the fact of debate itself: the belief that only through discourse, grounded in a common understanding of terms and predicated on truth as the imperative, can we begin to understand one another.

Perhaps, as a writer, I would have been wiser to avoid the Gaza framing — to reach instead for sexual rights, or another hot-button controversy, and mildly lower the temperature. My honest belief is the reverse: that only by confronting the most obvious and widespread example of linguistic decline can we hope to topple the whole pyramid of Babelesque confusion.

Today we seek to unite our nations and our liberal democratic polities — not in agreement, nor in conformity to consensus, but in mutual understanding. We may fail. Much of academia has already bowed to the “genocide” dogma. But the future will bring a new generation, one that can state truth with a loud and confident voice. Today we begin that historical echo: that through understanding the other — literally, through language — we might hope, at last, to be understood.