Manufacturing consent: How youth are used to push normalization at diplomatic events

Diplomatic events present themselves as platforms for open dialogue, where youth voices are elevated to shape the future of conflict resolution. Youth involvement has gained traction in international and diplomatic channels, particularly following the publication of the UN Secretary General’s “Our Common Agenda” policy brief. This agenda has called for the expansion of youth roles at all governmental levels and is pushing youth participation as mandatory in UN decision-making processes. Despite how shiny and hopeful these policy adjustments may seem on the surface, underneath, these spaces are not arenas for free thought. They are meticulously engineered to manufacture a specific consensus. The youth selected to participate are not chosen for their diversity of thought, but for their willingness to align with a carefully curated normalisation agenda. Those who resist are either excluded or silenced altogether.

Publicly, these forums highlight young Palestinians who express flexibility on statehood, framing their aspirations in terms of equal rights rather than national sovereignty. The message is deliberate: the younger generation is pragmatic, unconcerned with rigid political structures, and ready to move past the struggles of their elders. In contrast, the older generation, who negotiated Oslo and who still demand an independent Palestinian state, are portrayed as outdated, clinging to a model the world has outgrown. The goal is clear: mobilise the youth to signal that normalisation is not only inevitable, but already underway; select youth that articulate a vision of a world where sovereignty is secondary, and where labels like “one-state” or “two-state” are irrelevant as long as equal rights are secured.

OPINION: Israel’s use of domicide to further its colonial endeavours

Yet behind closed doors in diplomatic spaces, university forums and informal discussions, even diplomats acknowledge that this narrative must be wrapped differently to make it more digestible. They admit that the standard rhetoric of the two-state solution has lost its effectiveness, and that a shift is needed. They are steadfast in framing the shift of normalisation as the organic will of Palestinian youth. This is not an open conversation but a tightly controlled production, where only those who play their assigned roles are given a voice. A piece in the Stanford Daily recognises the risks posed by the loss of diversity in diplomatic spaces, calling it a “quiet exclusion, a barrier that whispers”. What is left in these spaces is a plastic version of truth that is presented to the public.

For those who reject this framework, the consequences are severe. Subhi Taha, a vocal Palestinian-American advocate, recently had his Instagram account deleted by Meta, effectively erasing his voice with over one million followers from one of the most influential public spheres. This is not an isolated incident but part of a broader trend where social media platforms work in parallel to diplomatic narratives, ensuring that the “wrong” kind of Palestinian voices disappear while the “right” kind are amplified.

Subhi Taha

This suppression extends beyond individuals. Even cultural expression is repackaged to serve the normalisation agenda. The recent Oscars speech from the cast of No Other Land, a Palestinian film initially marketed as an authentic Palestinian story, spoke of peaceful coexistence between occupier and occupying powers. The film itself was reframed at the Oscars as a “Palestinian-Israeli collaboration” in a calculated effort to strip Palestinian identity of its political struggle, turning it into a soft narrative of shared humanity that conveniently aligns with recent normalisation efforts taking place during the ongoing ceasefire negotiations. When Palestinian culture asserts itself independently, it is marginalised; when it is reshaped to fit a coexistence framework, it is celebrated as part of humanity.

The same formula is applied on university campuses, where youth-led anti-normalisation efforts are met with suppression. At institutions like Harvard and Columbia, students advocating for Palestinian sovereignty face doxxing, blacklisting and disciplinary action. The dichotomy of “good youth, bad youth” continues to present itself when youth are either uplifted and empowered by diplomatic actors, or subdued and cut down by them. Meanwhile, programs that promote “dialogue” and “coexistence” receive institutional backing, funding and visibility, with the intention of manufacturing and curating acceptable forms of discourse. This exhibits another space where youth participation is encouraged in a university setting, but only if it aligns with the pre-approved agenda. It presents a false “open dialogue”, where discourse is allowed within selected given boundaries, but anything outside of these boundaries is censored, effectively undermining the true essence of open communication. For academics invested in learning more about how educational institutions are designed to propagate the elite’s culturally approved stances while sidelining those who do not fit the mold, a research paper published by Tricia Broadfoot in 1977 details this more in-depth.

Legislation also plays a role in enforcing this dynamic. Youth-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movements are one of the most direct challenges to normalisation, but are increasingly criminalised in Western countries. In the UK, an anti-BDS bill was introduced to block local councils and universities from boycotting Israeli goods, directly targeting the activism of politically engaged students. This is yet another example of systematically legislating credible and legitimate resistance out of existence.

In the end, what is left is a diplomatic ecosystem where youth are presented as being engaged as independent thinkers, but in actuality being used as tools to legitimise predetermined political outcomes. The message is carefully engineered: normalisation is not imposed, it is embraced; Palestinian youth are not resisting, they are leading the shift. Yet, when one looks beyond the orchestrated forums, the reality is evident. Those who refuse to play their assigned role are silenced, erased and removed from the conversation altogether.

Normalisation is not happening naturally. It is being manufactured. And the youth who refuse to conform are proving just how necessary their voices truly are.

READ: The Royal Television Society faces backlash for dropping Gaza journalists’ award

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.