Military intervention is now the only solution to halt Israel's genocidal crimes in Gaza

Critics may argue that military intervention risks escalation or violates sovereignty. However, sovereignty cannot justify crimes against humanity and genocide.

  

By Fareed Khan 

  

Israel’s ongoing campaign in Gaza constitutes a deliberate and systematic genocide, and after almost 22 months of unceasing, brutal violence by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza, it necessitates urgent military intervention by a coalition of nations, under the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine, to stop the atrocities, protect Palestinians, and enforce international law.

 

                              

For almost eight decades Israel has operated as a rogue state, with its leaders behaving as if international law does not apply to their nation.  Over the course of its existence Israel has violated more than 40 United Nations Security Council resolutions, repeatedly flouted the Geneva Conventions, and disregarded the Hague Conventions and international law with impunity. Its creation in 1948, rooted in the ethnic cleansing of over 750,000 Palestinians during the Nakba, established a precedent for systemic human rights abuses that persist to this day. Israeli leaders like David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, and Moshe Sharett orchestrated the creation of the state through policies that facilitated a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing and violence against non-Jewish Palestinians, setting the stage for a nation built on crimes against humanity and violations of international law.

 

A disturbing poll published in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz in June 2025 revealed that 82% of Jewish Israelis support the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from Gaza, with 47% endorsing the mass murder of every man, woman and child in the enclave, reflecting a society and leadership steeped in genocidal ideologies. A Harvard Dataverse study by Israeli academic Yaakov Garb, also published in June, estimates that between 377,000 and 400,000 Palestinians—approximately 17% of Gaza’s pre-2023 population—have “disappeared” since October 2023, presumed to be dead or buried under the Gaza rubble, underscoring the enormous scale of Israeli atrocities.

Prospect of war looms if world's largest economies fail to act aggressively to address climate change

The International Court of Justice’s ruling on climate change recognized that it poses an immediate and far-reaching threat to people around the world and has implications for the full enjoyment of human rights. 

  

By Fareed Khan 

  

Twenty-two years ago, the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, a highly regarded internal think tank, sounded an alarm that reverberated through US defence circles. Its 2003 report, An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security, warned that climate change could surpass terrorism as a national security threat by 2008, driven by abrupt climate shifts that would trigger resource scarcity, mass migration, and widespread conflict.

 

The report drew on studies of prehistoric weather patterns and the ocean’s thermohaline circulation, which regulates global climate by distributing warm and cold currents. It cautioned that rapid polar ice melt would release vast amounts of freshwater, disrupting ocean salinity and slowing the ocean currents which regulate weather patterns, leading to catastrophic changes like violent storms, and rising sea levels. The impact of such changes would affect low lying coastal regions most dramatically, and could result in Siberia-like winters in Europe and North America, alongside droughts and shortened growing seasons in key agricultural regions, resulting in political and economic instability around the world. Though the report’s most extreme timeline predictions have not fully materialized, its scientific foundation remains robust, and its warnings about climate-driven insecurity are now unfolding with alarming clarity.

 

 

On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) amplified these concerns with a landmark advisory opinion, declaring that a state’s failure to take decisive action against climate change could constitute an “internationally wrongful act”, and potentially a crime against humanity. The court underscored the gravity of the situation as “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.” The unanimous ruling by the court’s 15 judges affirmed that a “clean, healthy, and sustainable environment” is a human right, establishing a legal framework that could hold nations accountable for environmental harm caused by their actions or inaction.

 

The court further recognized that climate change poses an “immediate and far-reaching threat to people and communities around the world and has implications for the full enjoyment of human rights.” This 130-page opinion is a clarion call for states to align their policies with international obligations to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reinforcing the Pentagon’s foresight that climate change is a global security issue with far-reaching consequences for all nations.

 

Today, the predictions of the 2003 report are no longer speculative—they are unfolding before our eyes. The World Meteorological Organization confirmed 2024 as the hottest year on record, with global temperatures approximately 1.55°C above pre-industrial levels. Extreme weather events—scorching heatwaves, devastating floods, massive wildfires, and intensified hurricanes and typhoons—are becoming more frequent and severe, causing more deaths and more physical damage year after year. 

 

For instance, in 2024 Hurricane Helene devastated coastal and inland communities in the United States, with studies attributing its catastrophic impact to climate change. In Asia, typhoons and floods displaced nearly eight million people in 2024, while in South Sudan, four consecutive years of flooding submerged two-thirds of the country, exacerbating a hunger crises. Wildfires have also surged, with the western United States experiencing a 500% increase in burned areas between 1972 and 2018, and similar trends observed in Canada, Europe, and Australia. These events have released millions of tons of CO² into the atmosphere, creating a feedback loop that intensifies global warming and heightens security risks worldwide.

 

Poorer nations, which contribute the least to global GHG emissions, face the most severe consequences, their national security threats amplified, with little recourse to address them. In Sudan, decades of droughts, rainfall variability, and desertification have driven 15 million people into severe hunger, with climate shocks compounding regional conflict. In Bangladesh, a 2024 flood affected over 18 million, with more than 1.2 million people trapped by flash flooding in eastern and south-eastern parts of the country, underscoring the vulnerability of low-lying regions to rising sea levels and extreme weather events. These nations already grapple with food and water insecurity, mass displacement, and heightened conflict over dwindling resources. The added crises of climate related catastrophes is something beyond their ability to address on their own.

 

There is also the fact that climate change acts as a “threat multiplier,” intensifying existing conflicts and creating complex humanitarian crises. By 2040, extreme climate hazards are projected to include a third of the planet’s nations, with most hosting displaced populations, posing security challenges for themselves and their neighbours.

 

As climate-driven instability grows, richer regions and nations—North America, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—are likely to adopt a fortress mentality to protect their resources and borders, a scenario envisioned by the Pentagon report.  It warned that wealthier nations would eventually face an influx of millions of climate refugees from Africa, Asia, and South America, and that by 2050, climate change could push 158 million more women and girls into poverty, and 236 million into hunger, fuelling migration from vulnerable regions. In response, richer nations may fortify their borders, as seen in debates over migration in the US and various European countries, where climate-driven displacement is already a factor amplifying security concerns.

 

The potential for military conflict escalates as resource scarcity intensifies, a risk the Pentagon identified. The US intelligence community’s 2021 National Intelligence Estimate pinpointed 11 countries, including Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan, as particularly vulnerable to climate-induced instability. Competition over fresh water, food, and energy could spark conflicts or even societal collapse, particularly in regions like the Middle East and North Africa, where water scarcity and extreme heat already strains societies. In Jordan, population growth and refugee influxes from neighbouring countries already exacerbates water shortages, while Saudi Arabia faces the prospect of diminishing aquifers affecting fresh water availability, and rising sea levels threatening coastal cities.

 

The Pentagon’s report also warned of nuclear proliferation as “have-not” nations with technical know how develop nuclear weapons to secure resources or coerce aid or resources from their neighbours or wealthier countries. Such scenarios are plausible, with Egypt’s president hinting at military action over Nile River water disputes with Ethiopia, a situation exacerbated by climate change, highlighting the global security stakes.

 

The ICJ’s ruling offers a legal framework to hold nations accountable, but its effectiveness is uncertain when major powers flout international law elsewhere. The ongoing genocide in Gaza, labelled by the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as a genocide, underscores this hypocrisy, as states fail to uphold their obligations, under the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Genocide Convention, to prevent and punish criminal acts. If nations like Israel, the US or China evade accountability for atrocities such as crimes against humanity and genocide, who is to say that they will prioritize climate action when their own economic interests are at stake?

 

The ruling also arrives at a time when global cooperation on climate action is faltering. Nations like Canada, the US, Australia and Russia—major GHG producers on a per capita basis—have consistently failed to meet their emissions reduction targets, undermining the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Furthermore, Canadian prime minister Mark Carney and American president Donald Trump have proposed policies to expand fossil fuel extraction in their respective countries, while China continues building coal-fired power plants to power its economy. This is despite warnings from the world’s top climate scientists about the impact that additional oil and gas extraction, and burning fossil fuels will have on the planet, and the predictions of economic experts that global oil production may peak before 2030, all of which could disrupt global energy markets, substantially increase GHG emissions, and heighten security risks.

 

The failure to meet GHG reduction targets compounds the climate crisis, which in turn undermines global security. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emphasizes that emissions must be halved by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5°C, yet current trajectories suggest a 3°C increase, with catastrophic consequences. In Asia, rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns threaten agricultural productivity which would impact billions, while urban areas face increased risks from flooding and heatwaves. These disruptions could drive migration and conflict, as seen in the war in Syria in the 2010s, and the displacement of tens of millions in Bangladesh, China, India, and the Philippines due to typhoons and floods over the past decade. Richer nations’ reliance on fossil fuels contradicts the ICJ’s call for accountability, exacerbating the security threats identified by the Pentagon, and putting nations on the path to possible military conflict.

 

For Canada, the climate crisis poses unique national security challenges, particularly in the Arctic. The rapid melting of Arctic ice, driven by increasing water temperatures, is opening new shipping routes and providing new opportunities to exploit valuable resources, intensifying competition among nations like Russia, China, and the United States. Historically, Canada’s territorial sovereignty in the Arctic was protected by its ice-covered waters, but as the ice retreats, the region becomes a potential flashpoint for military conflict. Canada has invested minimally in Arctic defence since climate change became a major policy issue in the 1990s, relying on its harsh northern climate as a natural barrier. However, with the Arctic warming at up to four times the global rate, Canada must now contend with foreign powers eyeing its resources in the north and possibly challenging its territorial claims, echoing the Pentagon’s warnings about climate-driven conflict.

 

The path forward requires urgent, transformative action. The ICJ’s ruling provides a legal framework for nations to prioritize climate justice and pushes the needle on prioritizing threats to the planet over economic growth. Wealthier nations must lead by reducing emissions, investing in resilient infrastructure, implementing policies to mitigate GHG emissions, and supporting vulnerable countries through climate finance and technology transfers. Programs like the US’s Feed the Future initiative, which promotes climate-resilient crops, shows potential, but their scale must expand dramatically and such programs must be adopted by other food producing giants if future conflict is to be prevented. Individuals can also pressure their governments to implement policies aligned with the Paris Agreement and the ICJ’s framework, advocating for equitable solutions that prioritize the most vulnerable.

 

The climate crisis is a present reality that is already having profound implications for global and national security, it will impact our children and grand children for decades to come. The Pentagon’s 2003 warning, followed by the ICJ’s 2025 ruling, underscores the urgent need for action to prevent a future of conflict resulting from climate change, the mass displacement of hundreds of millions across the globe, and the adoption of a fortress mentality among those nations that have the resources to adapt to a changing climate.

 

For Canada, the melting Arctic ice signals a new era of vulnerability, where military conflict over sovereignty is a very real possibility. Without swift, coordinated global efforts, the world risks descending into a struggle for survival, where the consequences of inaction or actions that worsen the problem, will be measured in lives lost, nations divided, and ecosystems despoiled due to climate change related conflicts. The researchers who authored the Pentagon report painted a bleak picture of the future if nations didn’t act to implement policies that changed the way economies were managed. It remains to be seen if political leaders in the seats of economic power around the world heard what they were saying, if they are listening to the ICJ’s recent advisory opinion, and whether they will take action to protect the interests of all of humanity or only those who vote them into power.

  

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Canada’s moral failure around the Gaza genocide has fuelled anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia in this country

History will judge Canadian leaders harshly for refusing to take action to stop the Gaza genocide. They will be seen as no different than 1930s leaders who refused entry to Jews fleeing the Nazis.

   

By Fareed Khan 

   

Canada’s leaders have long positioned themselves as champions of human rights and the international legal order, yet their response (or lack thereof) to the ongoing genocide in Gaza reveals a stark absence of moral courage. Despite overwhelming evidence of Israel’s atrocities—68,000 Palestinian deaths by July 2025, and more than 370,000 by some estimates—Canadian political leaders have failed to unequivocally condemn Israel’s actions or take tangible steps to halt the violence. This inaction, coupled with on-going trade and diplomatic support for Israel, not only enables anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia at home but also further harms Canada’s already tarnished global standing. The contrast with Canada’s robust response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine underscores a troubling double standard, revealing a political class more concerned with appeasing a foreign government than upholding justice. 

Since the 2017 Quebec City mosque massacre and the 2021 London, Ontario attack that claimed a Muslim family, Canadian leaders have paid lip service to combating Islamophobia. Prime Ministers Justin Trudeau and now Mark Carney, alongside Liberal and Conservative MPs, have attended community forums, issued statements condemning hate, and pledged to protect Muslim Canadians. Yet, these gestures ring hollow when viewed against their refusal to substantively address the genocide in Gaza, a crisis that disproportionately affects a racialized, predominantly Muslim population. This hypocrisy has fueled anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia, alienating communities and emboldening bigots, while Canada’s inaction on the global stage undermines its credibility as a defender of international law.

 

The scale of the crisis in Gaza is staggering. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor reports that, as of July 2025, Israel’s assault has killed at least 68,000 Palestinians, with over one-third being children, and displaced nearly two million people.  A 2025 study by Israeli academic Yaakov Garb, published by Harvard, estimates the death toll could be as high as 377,000, based on Israeli data, highlighting the catastrophic human cost. Social media posts by Israeli soldiers, openly celebrating the murder of civilians, including babies, provide chilling evidence of genocidal intent. A 2025 poll published in Ha’aretz further reveals that 82% of Jewish Israelis support ethnically cleansing Gaza, with 47% endorsing genocide against all Palestinians. Despite these horrors, Canada’s leaders have refused to impose sanctions on Israel, halt arms trade, or support international efforts to hold Israel accountable, such as South Africa’s genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

 

Canada’s failure is not merely a diplomatic misstep, it is an abdication of moral and legal responsibility under the Genocide Convention and the UN doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect”. Canada’s leaders have defended Israel’s actions as “self-defence”, even as UN officials and global leaders have condemned the targeting of civilians, hospitals, and schools. Canada’s antipathy for Palestinians is evident in the more than 150 times it has voted against UN resolutions supporting Palestinians over the past decade.

 

Moreover, the Canadian government has opposed ceasefire resolutions at the UN in past Israeli attacks on Gaza, run interference for Israel, and vilified pro-Palestinian protesters as “terrorist sympathizers” or “Hamas lovers,” since October 2023. Such rhetoric, echoed by politicians like Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, his caucus, and some Liberal MPs, conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, a tactic that stifles dissent and fuels both anti-Palestinian racism and hatred against Jews.

 

As well, The Maple and The Breach, independent Canadian media outlets, have documented pervasive anti-Palestinian bias in mainstream news coverage, noting how Palestinian voices are sidelined, and their suffering downplayed. This bias reinforces a narrative that dehumanizes Palestinians, portraying them as threats rather than victims of a brutal Israeli occupation of historic Palestine that has lasted for well over seven decades.

The contrast with Canada’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could not be more stark. When Russia invaded, Canada (and its allies) swiftly imposed sanctions, halted trade, and provided military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, positioning itself as a staunch defender of international law. Yet, in Gaza, where the ICJ has ruled Israel’s actions constitute a “plausible genocide,” and where far more people have been killed by Israel than in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Canada continues to engage in two-way trade with Israel, including arms deals, and refuses to sanction all the Israeli officials implicated in war crimes and genocide.

 

This double standard exposes a selective application of justice, where white, Christian, Ukrainian victims of Russia’s war are prioritized, but brown and largely Muslim, Palestinian lives are dismissed as unworthy of a similar robust response. The Canadian government’s failure to act—despite calls from over 400 organizations, including the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), for sanctions and an arms embargo—signals criminal complicity in Israel’s atrocities.

 

The NCCM also cancelled meetings with former prime minister Justin Trudeau, and said that MPs would be unwelcome at mosques across the country until they called for a ceasefire and met other conditions that were published in a letter released in early 2024. Essentially, this and other statements by Canadian Muslim leaders, make it clear that Canadian Muslims no longer have a partner in the federal government when it comes to meaningfully addressing the Gaza genocide, combatting anti-Muslim hate, and address the explosion in anti-Palestinian racism in the public and private sectors. This sentiment is echoed by Canadian Muslims, Palestinians and Arabs who feel betrayed by political leaders who claim to champion diversity while ignoring their demands for justice. In the last quarter of 2023, the NCCM released numbers showing that hate targeting Muslims or Palestinians increased by 1,300%, while the Muslim Legal Support Centre had seen a 400% rise in intake on issues ranging from employment discrimination to improper treatment in schools related to support for Palestinian rights. Annually, the January 29 anniversary of the Quebec City Mosque attack serves as a painful reminder of this growing hostility, yet politicians offer little beyond platitudes and band-aid measures, failing to address the systemic racism embedded in their policies.

 

Moreover, anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia are not confined to the streets. They also permeate Canada’s political, media, and corporate spheres. The Maple has highlighted how Canadian media outlets like CBC skew coverage against Palestinians, often framing Israel’s actions as justified while ignoring the occupation’s context. The Breach has documented cases of journalists and academics being fired or blacklisted for criticizing Israel, reflecting a chilling Neo-McCarthyism. Pro-Palestinian protesters face harassment, doxxing, fines, and arrests, despite exercising their Charter rights to free expression. In contrast, Canada has not prosecuted Canadian citizens who have travelled to Israel to join that nation’s military, even as it commits documented war crimes and genocide, further entrenching the perception that Palestinian lives are expendable.

 

This moral failure has domestic and international repercussions. At home, it risks shredding Canada’s social fabric, alienating Muslim, Palestinian and Arab communities who feel their government prioritizes Israel’s interests over their rights. The Senate Human Rights Committee’s 2023 report underscores that Islamophobia remains a persistent problem, exacerbated by political inaction. Internationally, Canada’s refusal to uphold its obligations under the Genocide Convention—unlike its decisive response to Russia—undermines its reputation as a principled actor. The EU and UK are reevaluating trade with Israel, while Canada lags behind, clinging to a free trade agreement that indirectly funds Israel’s military machine.

 

Ordinary Canadians, however, are not silent. Since October 2023, hundreds of thousands have protested weekly across Canada, demanding a ceasefire, an arms embargo, and sanctions on top Israeli political and military officials for their genocidal crimes. These voices, representing diverse communities, reject the elite narrative peddled by pro-Israel groups like the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, which equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Yet, the government’s inaction suggests it values geopolitical alliances over the will of its people and defending human rights, a stance that echoes the indifference of pre-World War II leaders to Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany.

 

To restore Canada’s moral and global standing, leaders must act decisively by imposing a comprehensive arms embargo, suspend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, and sanction Israeli officials complicit in genocide.  Similar demands were made in a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney signed by over 400 academics, lawyers, former ambassadors, ministers, human rights experts, and civil society, labour and faith leaders to which the government’s response has been to sanction only two Israeli politicians.  Far more needs to be done if Canada wants to repair its tattered international reputation, including recognizing anti-Palestinian racism in the national Anti-Racism Strategy, as urged by the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association. Failure to do so will deepen divisions at home and further erode Canada’s credibility abroad, cementing its complicity in one of the worst human rights crises of our time.

 

The genocide in Gaza is not a “two-sided” conflict, as some Canadian politicians claim. It is asymmetric warfare by one of the most powerful military forces in the world against a helpless people without an army, navy or air force, and systematic assault on Palestinians who have been subjected to the longest and most brutal occupation in modern history. Canadian leaders must choose: either uphold the international legal order which they claim to defend, or continue enabling racism and genocide through their actions and inaction. 

 

The world is watching, and history will not only judge Canada and its leaders harshly for their silence, it will put them in the same box with those pre-World War Two politicians who, when asked how many Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis Canada would accept, responded with the words “none is too many.”
  

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

The Palestinian Exception: Western media’s anti-Palestinian racism and complicity in genocide

Just as Nazi propaganda desensitized the German public to Jewish suffering, Western media’s refusal to speak the truth about Israel’s violence against Palestinians normalizes their mass murder. 

  

By Fareed Khan 

  

On July 17, 2025, an Israeli airstrike severely damaged Gaza’s last remaining Catholic church, a sanctuary sheltering the elderly and children amidst a relentless 21 month military assault. The attack, which killed dozens and severely damaged a rare Christian landmark in the besieged enclave, garnered fleeting attention in Western media outlets like The New York Times and BBC. However, this coverage stands in stark contrast to the near silence surrounding the systematic destruction of more than a thousand mosques and the desecration of Muslim cemeteries in Gaza by Israeli forces since October 2023. This selective outrage is not an anomaly but a manifestation of a deeply embedded anti-Palestinian racism in Western news media, often termed the "Palestinian exception."

This phenomenon—characterized by biased, negative coverage of Palestinian suffering under Israeli occupation while amplifying positive narratives about Israel—echoes the dehumanizing propaganda of Nazi Germany’s news media towards Jews in the 1930s. The Western media’s role in dehumanizing Palestinians, as explored in scholarly analyses of how narratives about marginalized groups are shaped, enables Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. This systemic bias, which portrays Palestinians as less deserving of empathy and humanity, demands that news corporations and their executives one day face legal accountability for their criminal decisions, and provide restitution to Palestinians for their complicity in the Gaza genocide, the way Jews were given restitution for the Holocaust.

The Palestinian Exception: A Legacy of Bias

 

The bombing of the Gaza Catholic church briefly pierced Western media’s consciousness, likely because it resonated with Christian audiences in the West, and because Pope Leo felt compelled to respond. However, the deliberate destruction of over 1,200 mosques and desecration of Muslim cemeteries in Gaza by Israeli forces since October 2023 has received scant attention. This disparity exemplifies the Palestinian exception, where Palestinian suffering is systematically marginalized or ignored while Israeli narratives are elevated. Studies, such as one by The Intercept analyzing over 1,000 articles from major US outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times from October to November 2023, reveal a clear pattern: Israeli casualties were covered with emotive language like “massacre” or “slaughter,” while Palestinian deaths were reported in clinical, passive terms, often as mere statistics. Furthermore, during this period, mentions of antisemitism in these outlets outnumbered those of Islamophobia by a ratio of 7:1, despite a significant surge in anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab hate crimes in the US, surpassing that of the period after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

This bias is not new but has been documented for decades, with analysis showing that a majority of news stories on Israeli violence against Palestinians failed to mention that incidents occurred in occupied Palestinian territory, erasing the context of Israel’s illegal occupation. Similarly, a Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) study of NPR’s coverage during the Second Intifada (2000–2005) showed that while Israeli and Palestinian deaths occurred in similar numbers, NPR reported eight out of ten Israeli deaths but only three out of ten Palestinian deaths, creating a skewed perception of the conflict’s death toll. Palestinian voices continue to be given a fraction of the airtime or column space afforded to pro-Israel perspectives today. A 2023 report by the Muslim Council of Britain’s Centre for Media Monitoring noted that British media frequently framed stories from an Israeli viewpoint, often without verifying Israeli claims, and without giving Palestinian voices equal coverage.

The Language of Dehumanization

Western media’s language in reporting on Palestinians often perpetuates anti-Palestinian tropes. The phrase “Israel’s right to defend itself” is commonly used, framing Israeli military actions—frequently disproportionate and targeting Palestinian civilians—as justified. Conversely, Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation is routinely labelled “terrorism,” with groups like Hamas demonized without historical context. For instance, following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, outlets like CNN, BBC, and Canadian news media widely broadcast Israel’s lie about babies being beheaded and burned in ovens—claims later debunked by Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz. These reports fuelled outrage and justified Israel’s response, which, by July 2025, has killed nearly 69,000 Palestinians, 30% of them children. Moreover, Western reporters often subject Palestinian interviewees to aggressive questioning, such as “Do you condemn Hamas?” while Israeli interviewees face no similar scrutiny about their government’s criminal actions, and their statements are frequently accepted without verification, the way the “beheaded babies” lie was.

This double standard reflects what Palestinian-American academic Edward Said described in his 1997 book Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World as the media’s role in constructing a dehumanized image of Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians. Said argued that Western news media portrays people from these communities as inherently violent and irrational, reinforcing stereotypes that justify their marginalization. He talked about how the media shapes public perceptions and selectively filters information to control what people know or don’t know about Islam and Muslims.

This framing is evident in the coverage of the Gaza genocide, where Palestinian deaths are reported as numbers, often prefaced with qualifiers like “as reported by the Hamas-run health ministry,” casting doubt on their credibility, while Israeli casualty figures are presented as authoritative. Such journalistic choices desensitize audiences to Palestinian suffering, dehumanizing them to most Western audiences.

Historical Context and Media Silence

Western media’s omission of critical historical context further entrenches this anti-Palestinian bias. Few outlets acknowledge that Hamas, portrayed as the epitome of Palestinian terrorism, came to be a viable political force in Gaza through Israeli support and funding beginning in the 1980s into the 2000s. The goal being to undermine the secular Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and derail the Oslo Peace Accords. This strategic backing was intended to prevent the creation of an independent Palestinian state, yet it is rarely mentioned, allowing media to frame Hamas as an existential threat without acknowledging Israeli complicity. This erasure distorts the narrative and obscures the root causes of Palestinian resistance.

The destruction of Gaza’s cultural and religious sites further illustrates this bias. The systematic targeting of mosques, Muslim cemeteries, schools and universities by Israeli forces echoes the Nazi destruction of synagogues and Jewish cemeteries in 1930s Germany and during the Holocaust. Yet, while the bombing of Gaza’s Catholic church garnered some coverage in Western media, the obliteration of Islamic sites has been largely ignored. This selective focus reflects a racist and bigoted cultural hierarchy at the executive level where Muslim and Palestinian suffering is deemed less newsworthy. 

 

This selective focus reflects a racist and bigoted cultural hierarchy at the executive level in news rooms, where Muslim and Palestinian suffering is deemed less newsworthy. As Said noted, Western media operates within a framework that views Arab civilian deaths as an acceptable price for Israeli security.

Parallels with Nazi Propaganda

The parallels between Western media’s anti-Palestinian bias and Nazi Germany’s propaganda against Jews are chilling. In the 1930s, Nazi media portrayed Jews as threats to German society, using the most egregious stereotypes and selective reporting to justify discrimination, dehumanization and violence. Similarly, Western media’s framing of Palestinians as inherently violent, as "terrorists", or complicit in their own suffering—through antagonistic questions or by downplaying Israeli crimes—rationalizes their subjugation. Just as Nazi propaganda desensitized the German public to Jewish suffering, Western media’s refusal to label Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide, despite affirmations from top genocide and Holocaust scholars, normalizes the mass killing of Palestinians.

Amnesty International’s 2024 report concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide, citing deliberate conditions aimed at the physical destruction of Palestinians, including mass displacement and infrastructure devastation. Yet, major outlets like The New York Times and BBC avoid using the term “genocide” in their reporting, with Times internal memos instructing journalists to refrain from using terms like “ethnic cleansing” or “occupied territory”. This linguistic sanitization mirrors Nazi media’s use of language to obscure Nazi crimes, ensuring public detachment from the human toll.

The Global Recognition Gap

The media’s refusal to recognize Palestine as a state further exemplifies this bias. While 149 countries, including most of the Global South, recognize Palestinian statehood, Western media often avoids the term “Palestine,” aligning with the US-led Western alliance. This linguistic erasure delegitimizes Palestinian identity and aspirations, reinforcing their dehumanization. Furthermore, Western media’s biased framing of Palestinian stories reduces them to mere victims or terrorists, never as people with agency a right to self-determination, or struggling against the longest and most brutal military occupation in modern history.

Accountability and Justice

Western media’s complicity in anti-Palestinian racism and the Gaza genocide demands accountability. News corporations and their executives have not only failed to uphold journalistic ethics and integrity, but have actively contributed to the dehumanization of Palestinians, thereby supporting Israel's racist anti-Palestinian narratives, and enabled its violations of international law. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued provisional measures in 2024 ordering Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza, yet these rulings are often misrepresented in Western coverage. For example, a Wall Street Journal headline falsely claimed the ICJ rejected a ceasefire demand, when the real story was that it had found a “plausible” basis for genocide allegations.

Just as Nazi propagandists faced justice at Nuremberg for inciting hatred against Jews, Western news executives who played a role in perpetuating anti-Palestinian narratives leading to genocide must one day stand in a courtroom and face justice. Their role in amplifying Israeli propaganda, suppressing Palestinian voices, and sanitizing genocide parallels the media’s complicity in historical atrocities. News corporations like The New York Times, BBC, CNN, and CTV Globe Media, Global News, the CBC, and the Post Media group in Canada, should be held liable for compensation and restitution to Palestinians for their part in enabling the Palestinian genocide. Legal precedents, such as reparations paid by German companies and Swiss banks complicit in the Holocaust, suggest a framework for holding Western media accountable for their role in dehumanization and violence.

The bombing of Gaza’s last Catholic church is a stark reminder of the Palestinian exception, where Western media selectively highlights certain tragedies while ignoring others based on cultural, racial and religious prejudice. This anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia, rooted in decades of skewed coverage, dehumanizes Palestinians and has enabled Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. 

 

Edward Said’s Covering Islam remains a prescient warning of how media shapes narratives to marginalize entire populations. By prioritizing Israeli narratives, amplifying unverified claims, and erasing Palestinian context, Western media mirrors the propaganda tactics of media in Nazi Germany, desensitizing audiences to Palestinian suffering.

The time for accountability is approaching when Western news corporations and their executives must face justice for their complicity, and ultimately provide restitution to Palestinians for their role supporting and enabling Israel’s brutal oppression of the Palestinian people. Only through such reckoning can the cycle of dehumanization of Palestinians be broken, a more truthful narrative about the oppression and subjugation of the Palestinian people emerge, and decades of pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian propaganda be rewritten. 
  
© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.