The Hypocrisy of Free Speech: How the Media Protects 'Israeli' Propaganda While Silencing Palestinians

Western media prides itself on being a champion of free speech, a pillar of democracy, and a defender of journalistic integrity. Yet, time and time again, we see the same pattern unfold: voices defending 'Israeli' state violence are amplified, while Palestinian perspectives are censored, vilified, or outright erased. The recent article by Telegraph columnist Stephen Pollard—where he condemns Hamas for a “depraved” hostage body exchange—exemplifies this double standard.

Pollard, a former editor of The Jewish Chronicle, has long been a vocal defender of 'Israeli' policy, even as 'Israel' carries out war crimes in full view of the world. His outrage over the return of a Palestinian body in place of an 'Israeli' hostage rings hollow when considering his silence—or worse, justification—of 'Israeli' massacres, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid policies. The media grants him a platform to denounce Palestinians as inhumane, yet a Palestinian journalist expressing similar outrage about 'Israeli' war crimes would be met with censorship, professional ruin, or worse.

Selective Free Speech in Action

The hypocrisy is blatant: if a Hamas spokesperson wrote a similarly incendiary article about 'Israel' or Jews, it would be instantly condemned as antisemitic incitement. Yet Pollard, by virtue of his position and identity, enjoys the privilege of freely dehumanising Palestinians. This is not an isolated case but part of a long-standing Western media strategy that frames 'Israeli' actions as "self-defence" while portraying Palestinian resistance as "terrorism."

Consider how Palestinian journalists and commentators are treated in the media landscape. Many have been fired, blacklisted, or even targeted for assassination. The 'Israeli' military has killed hundreds of Palestinian journalists in recent years, including Al Jazeera’s Shireen Abu Akleh, yet the media refuses to treat these deaths as the targeted suppression of free speech that they clearly are. Instead, we hear the same vague, passive language: "caught in crossfire," "tragic incident," "'Israel' says it will investigate"—with no accountability ever delivered.

Meanwhile, pro-'Israel' voices enjoy an open mic. 'Israeli' officials, think tank pundits, and sympathetic Western journalists are given platforms to frame 'Israeli' war crimes as unfortunate necessities. These figures can spew outright propaganda, justifying collective punishment, mass bombing campaigns, and the starvation of Gaza, without fear of being de-platformed.

When was the last time a mainstream Western outlet fired a journalist for defending 'Israel'?

Would We Ask Goebbels for an Assessment of the War on “Undesirables”?

Imagine if Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany’s chief propagandist, had been given an unchallenged platform in the mainstream press to shape public perception of Hitler’s war on so-called "undesirables." How would he have framed the forced deportations, the ghettos, the destruction of entire communities? Would he not have called them necessary security measures? Would he not have painted those resisting their own extermination as fanatics, criminals, or terrorists? Would he not have lamented the so-called savagery of the oppressed while justifying their extermination?

Pollard and his ilk enjoy this very privilege today. He, and others like him in Western media, are granted the space to frame 'Israeli' state violence as “security,” Palestinian resistance as “barbarism,” and any criticism of 'Israel' as “antisemitism.”

Just as Goebbels manipulated language to justify and normalise crimes against humanity, today’s media whitewashes 'Israeli' atrocities while demonising those who resist them.

A System Designed to Silence the Oppressed

This media bias extends beyond individual journalists. Pro-Palestinian voices—whether activists, scholars, or ordinary people—face aggressive censorship on social media, job termination, or even government surveillance. Palestinian students have had job offers rescinded simply for posting pro-Palestinian content online. Entire movements, such as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, have been smeared as extremist, with laws passed to criminalize them.

Contrast this with the impunity given to Zionist commentators. Figures like Pollard can push blatant dehumanization under the guise of "analysis" or "opinion," without any professional consequences. They can ignore international law, deny war crimes, and justify apartheid while maintaining their status as respected journalists. Meanwhile, anyone who dares to challenge them is labeled antisemitic, even if their critique is directed solely at Israel as a state.

Who Really Controls the Conversation?

If Western media truly valued free speech, it would not fear Palestinian voices. It would allow equal scrutiny of Israeli actions. It would hold Israeli officials accountable for their statements and actions the same way it does Palestinians. Instead, the media functions as an extension of state power—protecting the powerful, silencing the oppressed, and enforcing a narrative that justifies colonial violence.

Stephen Pollard’s ability to freely spread his views while Palestinian journalists are jailed or killed should be a wake-up call. Free speech, as championed by the Western media, is not about truth—it’s about power. And until that power is challenged, the media will remain complicit in enabling the very atrocities it claims to oppose.

The question is: how long will we let them get away with it?