Israel is perpetrating a genocide in Gaza, and most Western governments have so far remained complicit or complacent. This article addresses one particular aspect of the structure of complicity and justification of Israeli war crimes – the debasement of political discourse, particularly with regard to claims of self-defence and certain cases of allegations of antisemitism. In the first case, the article argues that selective application of the labels “self-defence” and “terrorism” has perpetuated an epistemic duality in which violence is either condemned or legitimised depending on the identity of the perpetrators and their alignment with geopolitical interests. Concerning accusations of antisemitism, the article turns to the notion of metadiscourse, namely, discourse that “breaks the frame” by responding to direct speech not with equally direct speech but with speech that takes the original argument as an object of discussion from the position of an outside interpreter. The proliferation of allegations of antisemitism as metadiscursive responses to criticism of Israeli policy and action has made meaningful conversation impossible outside of an infinite cycle of metadiscursive moves. This, we argue, has rendered critique effectively meaningless. The article concludes with a reflection on the value of critical analysis at a time of genocide when a sense of helplessness is widespread and meaningful action is hard to envisage.
Zaher et al. (2026) studied this question.