Western media coverage of Palestine lacks the sympathy and accuracy afforded to human loss in the Western World, starkly contrasting the Russia-Ukraine war. This selective sympathy exposes a disturbing pattern of racial and political bias within the Western media, where narratives surrounding non-Western conflicts are downplayed or framed to support long-standing power dynamics. By examining the historical roots of the Palestinian struggle and comparing Western media coverage of Palestine and Ukraine, this piece reveals how selective sympathy shapes public perception and obscures Palestinian suffering.
Western Powers’ involvement in the Middle East dates back to WWI when Great Britain pledged to free Arab people from the Ottoman Empire in exchange for their participation in the war and revolt against the Ottomans. Great Britain sought the fall of the Ottoman Empire since it had sided with Germany and Austria-Hungary (the Central Powers) against the British and the Allied Powers. However, the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) – a secret agreement between France and Britain– ensured the division of the Middle East between these powers. According to this agreement, Britain would control Palestine. This division of territories, made with no regard for the region’s complex dynamics or the desires of local populations, would sow seeds of conflict that still haunt the Middle East today. To complicate matters further, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour guaranteed a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine through the Balfour Declaration of 1917. This highlights a severe contradiction in British policy: they initially promised freedom to the Arabs from Ottoman rule but then caged them to their imperial agenda. Jewish immigration to Palestine was facilitated by the British government’s support of Zionism – a settler-colonial political movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish nation-state in Palestine – by rallying support from Jewish citizens in the United States, Russia, and many European countries and offering them opportunities to settle in Palestine. It comes as no surprise that the British supported a settler-colonial ideology, given their history of colonialism.
In 1948, the United Nations proposed a partition plan to create separate Jewish and Arab states, which was accepted by the Jewish Agency, representing the World Zionist Organization and the Mapai Party leadership in Palestine, but rejected by The Arab Higher Committee for Palestine due to the dispossession of Arab inhabitants, the betrayal by colonial powers, and disregard for Arab aspirations. This eventually led to the declaration of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948, which Palestinians commemorate as Nakba day, marking the beginning of mass forced displacement and violence against Palestinians. Ethnic cleansing had already begun a few weeks prior to British withdrawal, with approximately 750,000 Palestinians forcibly expelled or fleeing their homes. This dark period, known as the Nakba, saw the destruction of over 500 Palestinian villages, towns, and cities, creating a Palestinian refugee population that continues to exist today.
Palestinians faced displacement and violence as a direct result of the establishment of Israel, whose existence was increasingly justified as a necessary haven for persecuted Jews fleeing Europe. Yet, the violence inflicted on Palestinians was tragically misplaced. Rather than attacking the oppressor (Germany), the bottled-up anger and frustration of displaced people erupted onto those who were not responsible. The British mandatory power manipulated and controlled both oppressed groups, exacerbating divisions to maintain dominance. They recognized the Zionist movement’s pressing need for a homeland and capitalized on this aspiration, recognizing that acquiring Palestinian land was central to their political goals. Britain knew how to leverage this need to its advantage: by promoting Jewish immigration and the creation of Israel, the British Empire secured a foothold in the Middle East while fueling long-standing tensions and instability.
Now, Britain stands as both the perpetrator and the horrified observer of ‘terrorist’ Palestine. Indeed, by establishing conditions for the displacement of Palestinians and leaving a legacy of unresolved tensions in the region, Britain’s imperial strategy created a cycle of violence and resistance. However, Britain and other Western powers often overlook the consequences of these actions and brand Palestinian resistance as ‘terrorism’ without analyzing the complex colonial roots of this struggle. This creates a vortex of hypocrisy, where colonial powers distance themselves from the unrest they caused and condemn the actions of oppressed people living in an environment of instability that they helped create. Since October 7th, Western news outlets have glossed over the atrocities committed in Palestine, labelling it the “Israel-Hamas War” or an ongoing conflict rather than acknowledging it as ethnic cleansing and genocide. The sharp contrast in media coverage between the Russia-Ukraine War and the genocide in Gaza reveals firmly rooted bias in Western news outlets. While Ukraine receives unwavering support and empathy due to its geographic emplacement and European identity, the Palestinian struggle is marginalized or framed in a way that reinforces its position as the ‘other.’ One country is seen as more relatable to Western audiences, while the other is persistently portrayed in oversimplified narratives that distort Palestine’s history.
We are living in an “attention economy” rather than an “information economy,” where what captures the Western audiences’ sympathy and support is determined by an intricately crafted, biased lens. In an information economy, the goal is to educate and inform citizens with facts and diverse perspectives, whereas an attention economy prioritizes what is sensational or easily consumable. Indeed, the latter favours narratives that align with Western states’ political positions on the genocide. The remarkable shift from information to attention influences how citizens in Western states perceive conflicts, as stories about atrocities in other parts of the world, such as Palestine, are either downplayed or distorted. The attention economy shapes public perception through selective sympathy by humanizing certain atrocities and dehumanizing others. This bias influences public opinion by aligning it with the status quo rather than fostering genuinely complex, causal understandings of global injustices.
For example, despite its reputation of a democratic country and a bastion of multiculturalism, Canada is not immune to the latter economy. The country’s disappointingly neutral diplomatic stance not only reflects selective empathy but also exposes the contradictions in nations that pride themselves on inclusivity. Prime Minister Trudeau has been supporting both ‘sides’ and expressed Canada’s long-standing support for a two-state solution to secure a comprehensive and lasting peace in the region. There are no sides. Framing the genocide in terms of ‘sides’ is a product of the media’s attempt to trivialize the issue and turn it into entertainment. Not only does this binary portrayal oversimplify the situation, but it also serves to incite division and sensationalize the genocide. Indeed, by viewing the genocide as a clash between two opposing ‘teams’ rather than exposing it as a humanitarian crisis, Western countries and their media create a narrative that feeds into divisive rhetoric. This portrayal allows the media to frame the genocide as a high-stakes competition, thereby distracting the public from the atrocities faced by civilians on the ground. Furthermore, this suggests a false equivalence between the oppressor and the oppressed. One country is stripped of its culture and existence while the other receives funds, arms, and social support. If the Canadian Prime Minister cannot provide aid, the least he can do is recognize the genocide in Palestine. Indeed, as expected, Trudeau has conveniently narrated the atrocities being committed in Palestine in a neutral way. He says, “Our wholehearted support of the” International Court of Justice “and its processes does not mean we support the premise of the case brought forward by South Africa.”
By the large, Palestinians wholly lack meaningful support from most hegemonic powers and international human rights organizations. Indeed, though many international human rights organizations (i.e., UN Human Rights Council) have condemned Israel’s actions and called for accountability, the lack of meaningful enforcement mechanisms makes these condemnations largely symbolic. Without support or intervention from international hegemononics, Palestinians continue to face systemic injustices, exposing an important gap between rhetoric and tangible action in addressing their plight. This selective empathy, fueled by biased media portrayals and an attempt to keep white supremacy and Western hegemony intact, reveals the deep-seated hypocrisy and double standards within countries such as Canada.
This bias becomes even more evident when we compare how Western powers and their media respond to propaganda and censorship in different contexts. For example, Russia’s severe censorship laws, aimed at silencing anti-war voices, and the state propaganda produced about the Russia-Ukraine war are outrageously condemned, while the ongoing genocide in Palestine is framed through Zionist-aligned narratives and is accepted by much of the Western world. This framing decontextualizes the genocide and leads to the dehumanization of Palestinians. For instance, Palestinian civilian casualties are labeled as ‘collateral damage’, whereas Israeli casualties are referred to as civilian casualties. When Israelis are the victims, the Western media uses words like ‘attacks’, whereas Israel’s mass bombing in Gaza is depicted with words such as ‘explosion’. Israel is described with active verbs to evoke sentiment, whereas Palestine’s plight is painted in a passive voice. Language and narrative building are important tools for gaining support and downplaying and distorting the realities of certain groups. In other words, language is not neutral; it reflects and simultaneously reinforces white supremacy, which is actively being used as a currency to maintain Western social, economic, and political power.
Until these double standards are addressed, the suffering of Palestinians – and others marginalized by selective sympathy– will continue to be ignored and silenced.
Edited by Clio Baliey
This is an Op-Ed article written by a Staff Writer. Catalyst is a student-led platform that fosters engagement with global issues from a learning perspective. The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
Kirit Ghumman is in her second year at McGill University, currently pursuing a B.A. in Political Science with a minor in International Development Studies. As this year’s Staff Writer for Catalyst, Kirit is determined in analyzing the complex intersections of international politics and development issues. With a keen focus on immigration, refugee law, and statelessness, Kirit’s writing delves into how international politics shape vulnerable communities, shedding light on the challenges and injustices they face. At Catalyst, Kirit aims to provide nuanced, well-researched insights into how shifting power dynamics impact the marginalized, especially through a lens of justice and human rights.