Silence aids Israeli aggression

Israeli soldier fires tear gas rifle

Staying silent ensures Israel’s impunity.

Issam Rimawi APA images

When I was pulled aside for questioning at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv a few weeks ago, I was relatively unconcerned. It had happened on a previous trip, and this time I was more prepared.

Before I traveled, I had heard many stories of people being denied entry because of their online activities, so I had “unfollowed” influential activists on Twitter. I searched through my photos on Facebook, even deleting my cover photo of me with two Arab friends, knowing that it would just lead to questions.

I always censored what I wrote and shared online in an effort to ensure I could enter Israel to visit friends. I have tweeted about US drone killings of civilians in Yemen, police shooting protesters on the streets of Cairo and death sentences in China.

Yet, when it came to Israel and its constant violations of dignity and rights, I was silent. Nearly unique in its ability to foster self-censorship, both domestically and abroad, Israel made me feel like I had to keep my criticism private in an attempt to ensure I could enter the country.

Invisible force

This invisible force is felt by everyone who might question the status quo. Inside Israel, teachers have been threatened with dismissal for their “left-wing” views and journalists detained for doing their jobs, while foreign passport holders are regularly denied entry and banned because of their work or activism.

These stories and the warnings they brought with them filtered down and eventually resulted in stopping me from posting 140 characters on a website just so that I could still enter the country.

This subconscious self-censorship extends beyond those who are familiar with the Palestinian struggle. Invariably, every time I share a critical story or post on my private Facebook account, I receive a phone call from my parents a day or two later expressing their concern that I might be harming my future job prospects if these posts became public.

The fear of criticizing Israel or the larger Zionist movement has led to caution from my parents, not just to ensure access at the Israeli-controlled borders, but to ensure full access to opportunities in normal, everyday life here in the UK.

They have never shared the same concerns when a post is critical of Britain or the US.

This silence was always difficult for me and led to many debates about whether my choice was really the right one. In thirty years’ time, would I feel comfortable telling my kids that I didn’t speak up about these injustices, just so I could enjoy a holiday in Israel?

Silence in response to aggression only helps the aggressor. It allows the aggression to continue unchallenged by individuals, by the media and by governments. When the BBC decided not to air an emergency charity appeal for Gaza while it was under Israeli attack in early 2009, most British people remained silent.

When the majority remains silent, those who speak up can be cast as extremists, so unreasonable that they should just be ignored. Every week as the movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) grows, those in favor of boycotting Israel are invariably characterized as radical outsiders and, often worse, anti-Semitic or violent.

Thought Police

Israel has been extremely successful in making people all over the world feel they cannot express their discomfort, let alone their outrage, at the actions being perpetrated in Palestine. Reminiscent of the Thought Police in George Orwell’s 1984, the reach of Israel’s censorship by proxy has spread globally and affects everyone, ensuring people are silent and so allowing Israel to continue oppressing with impunity.

After twenty hours of detention and questioning on 9 April, I was denied entry to Israel and deported. The Israeli authorities told me they took this action for “security reasons” but would not elaborate.

My silence was a selfish silence but one that was indirectly encouraged and enforced by Israel to further achieve its aims.

The need to self-censor that I felt was necessary did not help me nor allow me to enter the country and will not help the Palestinians in their struggle.

Tristan Thomas is a final year undergraduate studying politics and economics at Cardiff University in Wales who has studied Arabic and travelled throughout the Middle East. He also helps run Cardiff Student Action for Refugees, a group working and campaigning with asylum-seekers and refugees in the city. Follow him on Twitter: @bytristanthomas




First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

Pastor Niemöller (Dachau)
(version of the poem selected by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum)


The "need to self censor .... will not help the Palestinians..."
Tell that to Asali and Ibish, they firmly believe someday silence will be golden.


I am afraid I do not understand the position of the author with respect to this article.

Is he arguing that Israel does not have the legal, moral or ethical right to bar him from entry based on his views of their country?


He was saying that even keeping his views out of the public realm, Israeli intelligence figured out that he was someone that supported Palestinian rights. So now he is free to go public. We all know that Israel restricts entry of people for political reasons.


Many pro-Israel apologists make claims aligning 'Israel' with Western countries such as the US, UK, or EU countries. They claim that 'Israel is a democracy', 'everyone has equal rights in Israel', and so forth. This is an attempt to whitewash the myriad crimes of the 'Jewish' regime which has been in power since 1948, essentially a foreign terrorist regime which hijacked the entire country.

The truth is that Israel is NOT a democracy: non-Jews do not have equal rights to Jews there, and regarding other characteristics of a 'Western' state, Israel fails on practically every count: no freedom of speech, no freedom of inquiry, no freedom of assembly, no freedom to protest, no property rights, no nationality rights, no freedom of movement, etc, etc. This is the point which the author was making, referring to but one aspect of this (no freedom of dissent), and I believe he made his point clearly.

Israel has a lengthy history of murdering unarmed protestors and intellectual dissenters, sometimes merely for their speech. In Tristan's case, as a foreign national, they merely deport him. This is important information.