Western liberal elite is always under threat from academic knowledge production on Israel/Palestine because such knowledge production not only deviates from the dominant discursive framings but also reveals glaring Western colonial/postcolonial hypocrisy and raises critical questions on the moral legitimacy of western political/diplomatic practices. 

These elites include political elites, media elites and economic elites whose main concerns stem from their political, media and economic power respectively and they always have natural stakes in politics as well as their geopolitical plans in a given society.

Drawing upon examinations of Western elites’ discourse of the clash, it could be argued that the traditional narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict represents Israel as a ‘democratic partner,’ and Palestine as a ‘haven for terrorism.’ These simplifications are used for a number of political and strategic reasons; they help to maintain a compliance of public opinion with the political agenda and foreign policies of the West in the Middle East. Scholarship in academia, however, does not reproduce this Manichean view but presents texts and analyses that counter these simplistic categorizations. 

The presentation of the analyzed history, the influence of colonialism, and the position of international law at the conflict also provides a smoother but a more complex and more often troubling outlook among scholars. It can be seen how these academic findings can shatter the image which is maintained so carefully and consistently in the public domain. For example, Edward Said and Rashidi’s work depict the suffering of the Palestinians and a view contrary to Zionists that frame Israel as the constant victim. 

Such scholarship may sway the general public and policy participants towards demanding a different reading of the narrative, for example, questioning continued support for Israel and a new way of approaching the conflict. Many Western leaders currently have their agendas in the Middle East based on librettos such as democracy, human rights, and stability. However, in most cases, academic research reveals some form of paradox in these rationales for discrimination. 

For instance, researchers have detailed how the US and other Western countries have provided political and material support to Israeli military practices that are considered illegal by the international community and inconsistent with the principles of other fundamental human rights. And this relates to the continued construction of the settlements in the occupied west bank, the size of Gaza Strip and the extreme use of force.

These revelations can force the Western elites and the liberal internationalism into questioning their principles and values they champion. In this way, academic scholarship brings out these hypocrisies and puts pressure on elites either to deal with the emerging cracks in their hegemonic policies or expect increased criticism at home and in the international arena. This is even more dangerous in democratic systems where the results of the polls, either in the determination of policy agendas or decision-making processes, and electoral processes are shaped by such polls.