the medium The Nation publishes an interesting analysis of the communicative strategies employed by the American government to continue to allow (or directly sponsor) Israel’s genocide in Gaza without having to pay the moral and image cost of the tens of thousands of deaths. The basic principle is that of showing composure and arming a whole rhetoric of whining, deploring the conflict, while the war machine turns well-oiled thanks in part to American oil. And to shield themselves in the fact that their hands are tied, as if the United States had not distinguished itself, precisely, by great interventionism wherever it suited them, be it Central America, be it the Near East. Some example headlines: “The White House, frustrated by the Israeli invasion, but sees few options”, “Six months of war in Gaza. Biden hits the limits of the United States’ ability to pressure”, “While Israel escalates the conflict in Lebanon, the influence of the United States is limited”. All three are from Washington Postbut there should be equivalents to New York Times. And the headlines are twinned by the same flaw: they uncritically assume the official narrative, which is very grim. They buy the message of “Oh, we’d like to, but we can’t do anything about it”. Maybe they are already fine, the narrative. maybe
The grace of the article of the The Nation is that it is not an opinion: they have taken the time to count the sources mentioned in all the analyzed articles and 93% are based on what Israeli officials, members of the Biden administration or allies of the current president say in the world of think tanks. Narrated, wrapped in sensitive cellophane. If La Trinca were still active, they would add the line to their famous song: “Oh, poor Biden! And the poor people what, eh, eh, eh, eh?”
