The genocide of reason

The body of baby Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, martyred by the Israeli-induced famine in 2025, follows the tragedy of Huda Ghalia, the Palestinian girl who in 2006 mourned her family killed by an Israeli bomb blast while picnicking on the beach, or the agony of Muhammad al-Durrah, the boy who died in the arms of his father in 2000 after being shot by Israeli soldiers... In all these cases, we have children in the midst of intolerable suffering caused, we are told, by Israeli brutality. These three covers of one of the most influential newspapers in the world illustrate these moments of the genocide of reason, in which it became impossible to continue defending Israel.

All of these cases were followed by waves of international outrage that led, euphemistically speaking, to greater support for the Palestinian cause, Palestinian refugees, and the Palestinian territories (support that invariably translated into strong benefits for movements like Hamas and Jihad).

In all these cases, what was seen was true—Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq's body in his mother's arms shows obvious signs of suffering; Huda Ghalia did indeed lose her family in a Gaza beach explosion, and Muhammad al-Durrah and his father are surrounded by bullets. But in all these cases, the news gave way to propaganda: the bullets fired at Muhammad al-Durrah and his father were most likely not fired by Israeli troops but by Palestinians. Documentaries and investigations have analyzed what happened in that shooting, but by the time questions began to be asked, the second intifada had already begun, stamps bearing the image of the dying child were already being printed, and murals were even painted in which Israeli soldiers aim directly at the heads of the father and son.

The same applies to the origin of the bomb that killed Huda Ghalia's family: initially, Israel's guilt was obvious and unquestionable. When reports began to emerge questioning this version, it was too late to counter the media narrative of the orphan-martyr (Huda Ghalia is now back in the news, with her death at the hands of Israeli soldiers announced only to be later denied). And in the most recent case, that of baby Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, it is undeniable that he suffers from a genetic disease that worsened with the situation in Gaza, but the marks on his body are not the result of hunger, as many wanted to believe, and especially forced to believe. (One only had to look at the hands of the mother holding Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq or at the child next to her in other photos, whom Israel claims is his brother, to understand the manipulation of the genocide by famine that is taking place.)

Each of these images, invariably repeated ad nauseam, generates an equally invariable effect: the suffering of each of these child martyrs begins and ends in Israel and for Israel. There is no longer Hamas, no Jihad, not even that fantastic entity that is the Gaza government's Ministry of Health. All that remains is that starving, disoriented human mass in an apocalyptic scenario. No other conflict has witnessed this erasure and disaccountability of those in power. It is worth remembering that Hamas not only holds 50 Israeli hostages in its power in Gaza, but also warned those promoting the recognition of the state of Palestine that it refuses to disarm. This erasure and disaccountability of Hamas leadership is matched by a hyper-visibility and accountability of Israeli leaders. In 2025, the blame lies centrally with Benjamin Netanyahu, and it is now generally agreed that if this right-wing radical were not prime minister, everything would be different. Obviously, much would be different, but not necessarily what one might assume: in 2006, when Huda Ghalia crawled across the sand calling for her father, not only was the centrist Ehud Olmert, who governed with the Labor Party, the Israelis had also withdrawn from Gaza the previous year. And in 2000, when Muhammad al-Durrah clung to his father to escape the bullets, the prime minister was the socialist Ehud Barak.

Harassed on the ground, Islamic terrorism in the West has won the war not so much over what is thought but above all over what can be said. The Western world doesn't fight, but it is moved. Give it a martyr, and it becomes indignant. From universities to newsrooms, from concerts to lectures, activism for Palestine resembles a trance of virtue.

The genocide by starvation in Gaza is the latest, but not the last, in a long series of media manipulations, which are renewed with increasing vigor, as if dismantling each manipulation only served to fuel the excitement surrounding the next. And the next, or one of the following, directly challenges us: what will the expressed intention of several countries, including Portugal, to recognize a Palestinian state translate into? Note: a group of countries that never even managed to ensure that the aid they provided to the Palestinians actually reached them and was not diverted by terrorist movements now intends to recognize a Palestinian state. What responsibilities will these sponsors of the new state assume? What protocols and commitments will be signed? And with whom? We have a right to know. And a need to know, too. Because one day we may be in Israel's shoes, that of the genocide of reason.