Secretary Antony Blinken’s Exit Tour: A Masterclass in Gaslighting and Genocidal Complicity

Antony Blinken’s exit interviews with The New York Times and Financial Times weren’t just PR fluff—it is a masterclass in evasion, hypocrisy, and defending genocide with a straight face. Blinken didn’t just justify complicity in Israel’s genocidal rampage in Gaza; he gaslit the world while doing it.

Let’s unpack this theatre of absurdity.

1. Genocide in Gaza: A Matter of “Opinion”

In his NYT interview, Blinken dismissed allegations of genocide in Gaza as subjective.

Interviewer: “Do you worry you’ve been presiding over what the world will see as a genocide?”
Blinken: “No. It’s not, first of all. Second, as to how the world sees it, I can’t fully answer that.”
“Everyone has to look at the facts and draw their own conclusions.”

This isn’t just deflection—it’s an erasure of atrocities that have already been documented. Human rights experts, including the ICC and UN, have classified Israel’s actions as war crimes or genocide. Yet Blinken reduces these legal assessments to mere “opinions,” allowing the U.S. to evade accountability while continuing to arm and shield Israel diplomatically.

In the interview, Antony Blinken revealed a grim reality: Israel’s initial post-October 7 intent was to starve Gaza’s 2.2 million residents, a war crime disguised as a blockade. Blinken’s semantic gymnastics—separating “intent” from “outcome”—downplayed the genocidal design of withholding food, water, and medicine.

Even more damning is his admission that it took nine hours of negotiations to secure minimal aid for Gaza against widespread Israeli opposition. His statement that “an entire society” resisted aid reflects a deeply entrenched dehumanization of Palestinians, enabled by U.S. complicity.

This paints a stark picture: a U.S.-backed ally implementing starvation policies while American diplomacy fails to provide even minimal humanitarian relief. It’s a devastating indictment of both Israeli society, its apartheid and U.S. moral failures.

2. Gaslighting Media Narratives: “Where Is the World?”

Antony Blinken’s claim in The New York Times—“You hear virtually nothing from anyone since October 7 about Hamas… where is the world?”—is a glaring distortion of reality. Western media has disproportionately fixated on Hamas, using it as a scapegoat to justify Israeli actions under the guise of “self-defense.” This relentless focus reframes massacres as reluctant necessities, obscuring the structural realities of occupation and apartheid.

Let’s set the record straight:

1. Disproportionate Focus: Hamas is invoked to rationalize collective punishment and shift blame from Israel’s systemic violence.

2. “Self-Defense” Narrative: Israeli atrocities, no matter the civilian toll, are framed as necessary, erasing the realities of occupation.

3. Silencing Palestinian Advocacy: Palestinian voices are delegitimized, forced to denounce Hamas to be heard—an impossible standard that stifles dissent.

Blinken’s lament is not just misleading—it gaslights the global audience, falsely claiming Hamas escapes scrutiny while Israeli atrocities face unfounded critique. This distortion perpetuates impunity for systemic violence and erases Palestinian suffering.

3. Selective Human Rights: Uyghurs vs. Palestinians

When it comes to human rights, Blinken is a case study in hypocrisy:

• Uyghurs in China: He unequivocally calls China’s persecution of Uyghurs a “genocide,” citing mass detentions, forced sterilizations, and cultural erasure.

• Palestinians in Gaza: Despite overwhelming evidence of civilian massacres, starvation, and obliterated infrastructure, he denies genocide and pivots to defending Israel’s actions as “complex.”

4. Israel Can Do No Wrong

“We remain fundamentally committed to Israel’s defense, and unfortunately, it faces adversaries and enemies from all directions.”

In both interviews, Blinken outlined three U.S. goals for Gaza: supporting Israel, preventing wider war, and protecting civilians. But let’s be honest—“protecting civilians” is a distant third. His rhetoric consistently prioritizes Israel’s defense, while any discussion of civilian casualties is framed as Israel’s “responsibility” rather than something the U.S. enforces through tangible consequences like halting military aid.

Accountability? Not on Blinken’s watch.

Genocide Denied, Rebranded, and Defended

Antony Blinken’s tenure as Secretary of State will be remembered for its cowardice and complicity. He didn’t just fail to condemn genocide—he minimized it, enabled it, justified it, and wrapped it in a bow of pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

This isn’t diplomacy. It’s complicity.