EDITOR — WESTERN nations have thrown their support behind Israel’s actions in Palestine while simultaneously condemning South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), dubiously asserting that the case lacks merit. Prominent nations, including the US, the UK and Germany, have unequivocally endorsed Israel’s actions in the region.
Notably, several resolute nations, such as China, Russia, Zimbabwe, Oman, Bangladesh and Yemen, have voiced their unwavering support for the Palestinian cause, with Bangladesh expressing its intention to join South Africa’s prosecution of Israel at the ICJ.
This stark divergence in global opinion highlights a growing rift in international politics. While Western media outlets, such as Sky News, BBC, CNN and AFP have remained steadfast in aligning with their respective countries’ foreign policies, unashamedly supporting Israel, they have conspicuously neglected to provide coverage of South Africa’s oral presentation at the ICJ.
In stark contrast, Israel’s defence was broadcasted live and extensively covered by these very same media outlets, raising questions about impartiality and media ethics.
The hypocritical backing of Israel’s actions in Palestine by Western nations lays bare the moral bankruptcy of Western politics.
The indiscriminate suffering inflicted upon Palestinian civilians, including children and women, by Israel, is met with an alarming display of support from the West, which concurrently arms Israel.
This incongruity exposes the disingenuous claim that Western nations champion human rights.
Complicating matters further, the ICJ, the institution tasked with adjudicating such matters, is heavily reliant on funding from Western countries.
Consequently, the overt support for Israel by major financial contributors to the ICJ, such as Japan, Germany, France and the UK, raises concerns about the fairness of South Africa’s litigation.
It underscores the need for a fair and unbiased approach in addressing complex international disputes. The global epicentre continues to exert its influence and manipulate international narratives, particularly in the periphery or the so-called ‘third world’, as witnessed by the conspicuous blackout of South Africa’s presentation and the extensive broadcast and publication of Israel’s defence.
Western global media outlets rallied behind their respective national flags, prioritising their countries’ foreign interests over objective reporting.
In this era of global geopolitics, media outlets in the third world, including Zimbabwean media, should take cues from their international counterparts.
They must prioritise their national interests in the realm of international affairs, even in the face of internal disagreements.
This underscores the prevailing reality of modern global politics, where the local Fourth Estate (traditional media) and Fifth Estate (social media) have a moral obligation to put their nation’s interests first while navigating the intricate dynamics of the global arena. Dereck Goto,
Harare.