While My Gaze Was Elsewhere

We live in Orwellian times. The deceitful and antisemitic reporting on the Israeli military campaign in Gaza is a glaring example of the gaslighting endemic in parts of the media, academia, and political discourse across the Western world. This article builds on themes from my earlier piece, Gaslighting and Projection of Orwellian Proportion, to challenge whether this gaslighting stops at Israel and the Israeli Defense Forces—or if it is simply the most visible and egregious example of a broader manipulation.

The Difference Between Persuasion and Manipulation

The distinction between persuasion and manipulation, in my judgment, lies in intent. Persuasion seeks to inform and inspire with philanthropic motives, aiming to foster understanding and thoughtful action. Manipulation, by contrast, operates with malign intent, seeking to deceive and control.

The reporting on Israel exemplifies manipulation, where distortion and bias have sown mistrust and misunderstanding. This raises broader concerns about the narratives promoted by certain media outlets, academics, and political actors—a pattern suggesting deeper systemic agendas. To better understand this phenomenon, it’s worth looking back, as it becomes increasingly clear that this manipulation has been at play for some time.

A Historical Lens: Begin and Reagan

Consider Menachem Begin and Ronald Reagan, two leaders whose legacies are now widely celebrated but who faced relentless vilification during their time in office.

Before his election as Israel’s Prime Minister, Begin was labelled a threat to democracy. David Ben Gurion refused even to mention him by name, referring to him dismissively as “the man in the basement.” Yet Begin achieved what many thought impossible: a peace treaty with Egypt, Israel’s greatest adversary at the time.

Similarly, Reagan was dismissed as a “Hollywood actor turned politician,” caricatured by critics as reckless and simplistic. Despite this, he ended the Cold War without firing a shot, revitalised the American economy, and restored confidence in democratic values.

The parallels with contemporary figures like Peter Dutton are striking. Leaders such as Australia’s Opposition Leader are frequently castigated as “far right” by media, academia, and political opponents. But this raises an essential question: is Dutton truly far right, or simply far right of those who now find themselves firmly entrenched on the far left?

The Authors, Their Message, and Their Supporters

The same voices vilifying Israel and the IDF—sections of the ABC, certain academics, union agitators, and partisan journalists—are often those driving divisive narratives in other domains. Their coordination raises doubts about their trustworthiness and intent. If their approach to Israel is rooted in deception, can their messaging in other areas be trusted?

Take nuclear energy policy, for example—a subject outside my area of professional expertise, but one that deserves scrutiny. Across the globe, nuclear energy is increasingly seen as a critical component of a sustainable energy future. France generates over 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, making it a leader in low-carbon energy. Canada, too, has embraced nuclear energy as part of its strategy to reduce emissions, with prominent progressive figures like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau advocating for its inclusion in achieving net-zero goals.

Even in Australia, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke—a revered Labor leader and iconic figure of progressivism—advocated for nuclear power as a forward-thinking solution to the nation’s energy challenges. He argued that Australia’s vast uranium reserves offered an unparalleled opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure energy security while boosting economic growth.

Contrast this with the Albanese Government. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Energy Minister Chris Bowen have consistently dismissed nuclear energy as a viable option, citing high costs and long lead times. Bowen recently called nuclear power “the most expensive form of energy,” a claim that critics argue overlooks advancements in technology and the broader economic benefits of a diversified energy portfolio.

This shift also extends to foreign policy. For decades, there was bipartisan support for Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, with successive Australian governments maintaining a steady alliance with Israel. Recent actions by the Albanese Government, including changes in Australia’s voting patterns at the United Nations, have been perceived by some as a departure from this bipartisan tradition. Critics argue that these moves align Australia with divisive UN resolutions that undermine Israel’s legitimacy, reflecting a broader pivot from the consensus-driven foreign policy of earlier decades.

Occam’s Razor and Social Marxism

Occam’s Razor, the principle that the simplest explanation is often the correct one, offers insight here. The simplest explanation for the consistent distortion in reporting, policymaking, and public discourse is that much of the left in politics, media, and academia has been overtaken by social Marxists.

Social Marxism applies Marxist principles to cultural and social structures rather than economic systems. It divides the world into oppressors and the oppressed, prioritising identity politics and victimhood narratives over truth and shared values. This framework not only explains the distorted reporting on Israel but sheds light on the broader decay in public discourse across the Western world.

The connection between manipulation in media and social Marxism becomes clear when one examines how narratives are framed. The same individuals and institutions that distort facts about Israel often exhibit a broader agenda: discrediting traditional values, stifling evidence-based debate, and championing divisive ideologies.

Lessons from Leadership

Ronald Reagan once warned, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” This cautionary statement resonates deeply in today’s context, where ideological rigidity and social Marxism threaten to erode democratic resilience. Leadership in such times requires clarity, integrity, and the courage to stand against prevailing tides of manipulation and deceit.

Throughout my military career, I learned the importance of valuing actions over rhetoric. Words can be empty vessels, but actions reveal true intent. This principle guided me as I observed sycophants who sought to curry favour through flattery while pursuing self-serving motives. The lesson was clear: substance always outweighs superficiality.

This perspective informed my reaction to the recent U.S. Presidential election, when I observed a highly educated Australian Jew catastrophise over the election of the 47th President of the United States of America and its implications for reproductive rights. My own stance on this issue is “pro-choice,” yet I found the hyperventilation unwarranted, especially given the administration’s stated policy of keeping abortions “safe, legal, and rare.”

This episode revealed a deeper trend: a political platform so weak that the only strategy left was to vilify the alternative. Convincing the public that the alternative is worse is a hallmark of far-left politics, which relies on division and fear rather than constructive solutions.

A Reflection

As I approach the conclusion of this article, I find it necessary to share my assessment: I, like many Australians, have at times been influenced by narratives shaped by social Marxists masquerading as educated and learned progressives. However, I have since begun to see through this manipulation. I encourage readers to take a moment of introspection—to reflect on some of the beliefs you may hold as incontrovertible truths. Who are the voices shaping these narratives, and what are their intentions? Because the same people who lecture us incessantly about genocide and apartheid are often the ones championing other causes, perceptions, and ideologies that I can no longer accept at face value.

Abraham Lincoln wisely noted, “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” To this, I would add the enduring adage: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Together, these sentiments remind us that discernment is not just a virtue but a necessity, especially in these Orwellian times.

The reporting on Israel has taught me a vital lesson: to scrutinise, question, and seek truth—even when it challenges long-held beliefs. In these consequential times, clarity and integrity are not luxuries; they are imperatives. We have agency, and we must put a stop to this madness in 2025.

Colonel Michael Scott, CSC, has served for over thirty years as a professional soldier with the Australian Defence Force. He is the Founder and CEO of The 2023 Foundation, a nascent global charity dedicated to combating antisemitism and fostering peaceful coexistence.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the positions of the Australian Defence Force or the Commonwealth Government of Australia.

Get The AJN Newsletter by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up