In public discourse, the common thread connecting the wars in Ukraine and Israel is the attempt to erase the context: everything started yesterday, with the good guys and the bad guys, and everything that happened before is part of a distant historical time that is not worth considering and does not affect the present. The war in Ukraine began on February 20, 2022, while the one in Palestine started on October 7, 2023. Anyone who tries to contextualize historical events immediately becomes labeled as pro-Putin, pro-Hamas, antisemitic, etc., in other words, a “fifth column” or a traitor to their country. It is a primitive way of conducting a discussion, but in the absence of arguments and historical knowledge, there are no alternatives to maintaining an untenable thesis.

In the case of Ukraine, the Russian aggression is always referred to as “unprovoked,” and anyone who tries to explain cause and effect is condemned as someone who “justifies” and “legitimizes” it. In the case of the war in Palestine, the media dynamics are similar, and as soon as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned the acts of terror committed by Hamas in Israel, while also mentioning the context by stating that “Hamas attacks did not happen in a vacuum, the Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation,” he was accused of being pro-Hamas. The same treatment was given to Pope Francis when, while condemning Russia’s aggression, he added that “NATO’s barking at Russia’s door” had induced the Kremlin’s leader to unleash the conflict, saying, “I cannot say if the anger was provoked, but perhaps it was facilitated.” The Pope immediately became labeled as pro-Putin, and his presence in the media was visibly marginalized.

The removal of historical context is necessary to establish a simple and comforting narrative where there are good guys and bad guys, and the bad guys are like Hitler, justifying any means necessary: the bombing of Gaza becomes necessary, just like the bombing of Dresden during the Second World War, painful but indispensable to eradicate the bad guys. Linguist Noam Chomsky, referring to the case of Russia, explained the reasons behind this narrative in an interview.

“The term ‘unprovoked aggression’ is quite interesting. It has never been used in the past, but every reference to the Russian invasion must be called an ‘unprovoked Russian invasion.’ Do a Google search for ‘unprovoked invasion,’ and you will get a couple of million results for the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Search instead for ‘unprovoked invasion of Iraq,’ and you might find ten people who wrote a letter to The Washington Post. In fact, any psychologist can explain exactly what is happening. The reason for insisting on calling it an ‘unprovoked invasion’ is that it is well known that it was provoked. In fact, there have been extensive provocations dating back to the 1990s. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of almost all top-level US diplomats and anyone with their eyes open, be they hawks or doves, anyone who knows anything about it. Of course, the fact that it was provoked does not imply that it is justified; these are two separate things. On the other hand, the US invasion of Iraq, which was much worse than the Russian invasion of Ukraine, can be said to be completely unprovoked. In both cases, it is criminal aggression, regardless of provocation, but it is very interesting to see how the phrase ‘unprovoked invasion’ has become essential in the last year or two. You have to call it that, even though everyone knows it is complete nonsense; it is a way to try to emphasize and make people not pay attention to what is obvious. In fact, the propaganda on this subject is quite sophisticated.”

Challenging this narrative is difficult not because of a lack of arguments, which are accessible to anyone willing to dedicate some time to studying and reading some good history books, but because of the virulence with which an army of shouters repeats the same argument in every broadcast, editorial, and social media post. This deafening noise is instrumental in intimidating those who could contribute reasoned arguments to the public debate and in appealing to the gut feelings of people with fewer tools, who, faced with a complex path of in-depth analysis or a dichotomy between good and evil, choose the simpler option. The problem is not only Italian; for example, economist Jeffrey Sachs recently pointed out the devolution of The New York Times, once a reference for the “liberal” stance and famous for publishing the “Pentagon Papers,” into a case symbolizing freedom of the press, but now reporting the memos of “anonymous State Department officials.” In Italy, in a province increasingly aligned with the worst right-wing currents and less autonomous in its political choices, things are getting worse, with a few commendable exceptions.