WHY WEST ISN’T COLOUR-BLIND ABOUT WAR VICTIMS

Conflicts like Sudan’s civil war get less Western media coverage than ones like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. There is the obvious fact of proximity (for Europeans, at least) - but also the suspicion that many in the West are more moved by the plight of White people than that of non-Whites. It’s hard not to wonder how much racism plays a role in editorial decisions on coverage.

A similar point applies to Israel’s war in Gaza. Here, the Western media coverage is extensive. But there’s still a difference when compared with reporting on Russia’s war on Ukraine: whereas Moscow is roundly condemned for its belligerence and sympathy is extended to Ukrainians, Tel Aviv is often given the benefit of the doubt (although even Western criticism is now mounting), while the suffering of Palestinians is relegated to an unfortunate consequence of a ‘just’ war on terrorism.

In this clip, a British pro-Palestinian activist (who has lived for a decade in Palestinian territories) gives her take on why that is. She claims that the West’s ample track record of colonising non-Whites makes many there inherently sympathetic to Israel’s war in Gaza.

What are your thoughts on this? Might that also be why the Sudanese and Congolese conflicts receive less vocal Western empathy?