Selective Sympathy: Gaza, Ukraine, and the Media’s Blind Spot

Why Is Putin Demonized While Netanyahu Gets a Pass?

By J. André Faust (July 09, 2025)

In an age of instant information and moral posturing, one reality is hard to ignore: Vladimir Putin is relentlessly demonized in Western media for the war in Ukraine, while Benjamin Netanyahu largely escapes similar treatment for Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Yet if we compare civilian casualties, blockade-driven starvation, and infrastructure destruction, Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza have arguably caused more civilian suffering in a shorter period.

By the Numbers

• Ukraine (Feb 2022–Mid 2025): ~13,300 civilian deaths, 70,000–80,000+ military deaths, millions displaced.
• Gaza (Oct 2023–Mid 2025): ~57,000+ Palestinian deaths (majority civilians), tens of thousands wounded, famine and medical collapse due to blockade.

Framing: “Self-defense” vs. “Aggression”

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is framed as an illegal, aggressive war, justifying Western sanctions and unified condemnation.

Netanyahu’s war in Gaza is framed as “self-defense” against Hamas, with civilian casualties rationalized as Hamas’ fault, even as aid is blocked and starvation spreads.

Why the Double Standard?

1️⃣ Geopolitical Interests: Supporting Ukraine helps counter Russia, while supporting Israel aligns with Middle East influence and security alliances.
2️⃣ Media and Cultural Bias: Western media often mirrors government priorities, with deep cultural ties creating sympathy for Israel.
3️⃣ Legal Framing: Russia’s invasion clearly violates sovereignty; Israel claims self-defense under international law.
4️⃣ Economic and Strategic Factors: Israel’s tech, intelligence, and regional role align with Western interests.

Violence as a Means of Resource Control

As noted by Mises, Mills, and Strauss, violence has historically been the main way to acquire resources, control territory, and expand power. In both Ukraine and Gaza, violence is used to achieve political or territorial aims, yet the Western response differs.

What This Means for Us

It’s not about ignoring Hamas’ attacks or Russia’s invasion but about recognizing selective moral outrage. If tens of thousands die under Gaza’s bombardment with muted Western response while Ukraine’s suffering draws global condemnation, we must ask:

Are we truly committed to human rights and the value of civilian life, or only when it aligns with our interests?

Closing Thoughts

Selective moral blindness excuses violence when it suits us while condemning it when it does not. The people of Ukraine and Gaza both deserve consistent standards of justice, accountability, and empathy—without geopolitical double standards.

---

The Complexities of the Russia–Ukraine Conflict: Analyzing Propaganda, Identity, and Strategic Performance

Propaganda, Perception, and the Dangers of Assumption

 By J. André Faust (June 07, 2025)

I don't know what Zelenskyy was thinking when he authorized the use of stealth drones to attack Russian airfields. Strategically, yes, it was an audacious and calculated move, clearly planned well in advance. But it also had to be obvious that such a strike—targeting the pride of Russia’s long-range bomber fleet—would escalate the conflict dramatically. In war, strikes like these don’t just damage infrastructure; they strike at the heart of a nation’s dignity. Historically, when national pride is wounded, the response is rarely measured.

What makes this moment even more difficult to analyze is that it came just as Russia and Ukraine were reportedly engaged in prisoner exchanges, including the repatriation of the deceased, and were actively discussing a limited ceasefire framework. That context adds a strange duality: a step toward de-escalation on one front, and a direct provocation on another. It makes me wonder if we’re seeing one layer of reality, or just the version we’re meant to see.

Both Russia and Ukraine are clearly invested in propaganda. That much is undeniable. Each side has something to gain by shaping public perception, both domestically and internationally. And for those of us watching from the outside, trying to assess truth through that fog is no easy task.

Lately, I’ve even begun to question how authentic some diplomatic encounters are. Take the recent meeting between Zelenskyy and Donald Trump. Trump and Vance appeared condescending and dismissive, but Zelenskyy—former actor that he is—didn’t push back much at all. Was that real? Or was it a scripted performance designed to serve different narratives for different audiences? I know that sounds far-fetched, but when war and politics intersect with public theatre, performance becomes part of statecraft.

One area I find especially difficult to pin down is the actual proportion of pro-Russian separatists within Ukraine. The Western narrative emphasizes unity, and much of the polling does support that, but Russia claims to be protecting persecuted Russian speakers. The truth likely lies somewhere in between, but it's important to understand just how much that proportion has shifted.

Before 2014, there were sizable pro-Russia sympathies in parts of eastern Ukraine, especially in Donetsk and Luhansk. Some surveys from that time suggested that up to 25–30% of people in those regions supported separation or stronger ties with Russia. But that support declined sharply after the annexation of Crimea and the onset of war. In more recent years—particularly since the 2022 full-scale invasion—nationwide support for Ukrainian unity has soared. Today, over 80–90% of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions, including many in formerly skeptical eastern regions. Even Russian-speaking Ukrainians have, in many cases, grown more pro-Ukraine due to the ongoing violence.

It’s tempting to draw a parallel with the Quebec independence movement, especially the "Oui/Non" referenda under René Lévesque. But that comparison only goes so far. Quebec’s debate was largely peaceful and democratic. Ukraine’s situation is defined by invasion, occupation, and military violence. What might have been a cultural or regional disagreement years ago has now become, for many Ukrainians, a matter of existential survival.

As I continue to follow this conflict, I remind myself constantly to watch for signs of confirmation bias. It's easy to see what you want to see, or what one side wants you to believe. But if we want to understand the deeper realities of this war, we have to question the narratives—on both sides—and pay attention not just to what’s being said, but what’s being left out.

---