Palestinians are frequently excluded from spaces where Palestine is spoken about, featured or where decisions are taken concerning Palestine.

At the policy level, it is common for politicians and international organisations to draw up plans and strategies for the lives and future of the Palestinian people without including the agents of the struggle in any part of the process. 

In a reality shaped by the absence of a truly representative political leadership—primarily due to Israel’s ongoing colonisation, fragmentation, denial of the right of return, mass imprisonment and the suppression of any potential vibrant and effective political movement—international actors often engage with narrowly selected representatives who align with their own agendas and the status quo, while sidelining the broader spectrum of Palestinian political bodies and civil society.

In the development sphere, exclusion is often evident in the imposition of top-down projects on Palestinian communities that fail to consult or respond to people’s real needs, while sidelining community-led and grassroots forms of sumoud (steadfastness).

By excluding Palestinians from key decision-making processes and plans about their own future, international actors are denying Palestinians agency over their own destiny thereby hindering their right to self-determination. This exclusion often results in policies and courses of action that do not reflect the true needs and realities of Palestine, but rather prioritise the maintenance of the current colonial agendas and injustices. 

Palestinians are not often centred in shaping their own narratives. Others continue to speak about and for Palestinians rather than with them. Interviews, panels and events about Palestine often feature “international experts,” diplomats, or even Israeli officials; while Palestinian survivors, scholars, activists and organisers are overlooked. 

Research and analysis on Palestine is regularly conducted without Palestinian involvement, or by marginalising Palestinian expertise.

*Explore more on the invalidation of Palestinian expertise in this section

Mainstream international media also exclude Palestinians from print, broadcast and other platforms. A study of major U.S. newspapers from 1970 to 2019 found that less than 2% of opinion pieces on Palestine were written by Palestinians. 

When Palestinian narratives are excluded, spaces are left open to those who either deliberately promote dehumanising and biased narratives, or who despite good intentions, are not best equipped to narrate the Palestinian experience, having not lived it. This perpetuates a skewed narrative that distorts the public’s understanding of the Palestinian struggle in favour of the oppressor, and undermines any policies, discussions or portrayals related to Palestine.

Even when Palestinians are included in mainstream platforms or decision-making processes, their participation is often reduced to tokenistic roles or forms of representation that lack genuine influence.

A Palestinian may be engaged or invited simply so organisers can say they had “Palestinian representation.” This kind of inclusion is superficial: Palestinians are present but denied genuine space, authority or influence in shaping conversations, narratives or decisions. It is inclusion without agency.

This problem is not limited to hostile arenas, it also happens within solidarity spaces. Too often, non-Palestinians dominate the mic or the framing, while Palestinian survivors, intellectuals, advocates and organisers are sidelined or treated as secondary contributors. 

This performative inclusion can at times cross ethical boundaries. The urge to feature a Palestinian “at any cost”—whether for a media appearance, diplomatic briefing, or advocacy event—can result in breaches of consent, trauma-insensitive demands or the sidelining of certain individuals in favour of those perceived as more “relatable” or “acceptable” to broader audiences.

Palestinian testimonies, documentation, research, arts, and knowledge production are systematically invalidated, discredited and undermined across media, advocacy, academic, cultural and political spaces. They are approached with suspicion, dismissed as unreliable unless echoed by Israeli or Western sources, or confined to emotional narratives of suffering.

This discrediting is rooted in a racist and colonial mindset, where knowledge produced by colonised or oppressed people is treated as inferior, unreliable or suspect; while the oppressor’s perspective is seen as superior, objective and “civilised.”

Such practices not only silence Palestinians but also dehumanise them and strip away their agency, portraying Palestinians as either incapable of truthfully narrating their own lived reality, or as unreliable narrators. 

The derogatory term "Pallywood", suggesting that Palestinians stage suffering to manipulate global opinion, is a prime example widely found across Israeli society and media landscapes. This racist concept falsely accuses Palestinians of fabricating scenes of their oppression, going as far as questioning people in Gaza livestreaming the very genocidal crimes being committed against them. Such practice reflects Israel's broader strategy to hijack the narrative of victimhood.

A recent, stark example is how the number of Palestinian martyrs during the genocide is doubted, constantly adding “Hamas-run” before “Ministry of Health in Gaza”, implying that its data is inherently unreliable.

Another way of undermining Palestinian credibility is through language choices, including euphemistic terms, syntax, grammar, and punctuation. This can involve: 

• Placing terms in scare quotes, like referring to the “Nakba” or “genocide” as if they are contested.
• Adding dismissive qualifiers like “so-called”. 
• Using words like “claims” or “alleged” when it comes to Palestinian analysis instead of more precise terms like “documents” or “reveals.”

*Explore more on euphemisms in this section

Palestinian cultural, academic, and advocacy work is often elevated to mainstream recognition if they have engaged in dialogue or joint initiatives with Israelis. In doing so, they are often seen as more appealing to a Western audience that perceives them as “committed to peace”. This is closely tied to the "ideal victim" narrative, where Palestinians are expected to fit into a framework that emphasises their peacefulness and non-confrontational nature in order to be deemed more deserving of coverage, solidarity and justice.

*Explore more on the "ideal victim" narrative in this section, and on false parity in this section 

Palestinians, when they are featured and not immediately dismissed, are often treated as insufficient on their own. They gain recognition when they are echoed by Israeli or Western sources. 

This is particularly prevalent around Palestinian knowledge production and expertise. For example, Palestinian human rights groups have long analysed Israeli apartheid, and Palestinian historians have chronicled Zionist crimes during the Nakba; however, these findings only become widely recognised when validated by international and Israeli organisations. 

The marginalisation of Palestinian expertise also manifests in relegating Palestinian voices to solely emotional narratives. It is common to see Israeli or Jewish voices, and international experts, offering analysis on the situation in Palestine; while Palestinians are expected to share personal stories or provide testimony while their critical assessments of their own reality are silenced. This reinforces the idea that Palestinians are only witnesses to their oppression, rather than intellectuals and experts on their own struggle.

Palestinians are often invited to speak in media, policy roundtables, political briefings and public forums under exploitative, dehumanising and unethical conditions. These extend across various stages of engagement: who gets to speak, what can be said, how conversations are framed, and the conditions under which Palestinians are expected to speak.

The process of selecting Palestinian speakers is often shaped by a set of harmful, conditional criteria. Palestinians are invited as “ideal victims” when they are seen as agreeable and relatable enough to Western audiences.

They are frequently forced to speak only as victims and storytellers of pain; while discouraged from offering political analysis and critique, naming the perpetrator, or speaking as agents of resistance, experts and intellectuals.

This exclusionary approach strips Palestinians of political agency and fuels stereotypes of who Palestinians really are.

*Explore more on the "ideal victim" narrative in this section

Palestinians are often invited to participate without being given full information about the purpose, format, or conditions of the engagement. Key details—such as the scope of the topic, the duration, whether the conversation is live or recorded, who else will be present, and how their contributions will be used—are frequently withheld. This lack of transparency can create manipulative dynamics, retraumatise participants, and expose them to risks they did not agree to.

Once Palestinian speakers have the platform to narrate their realities, they face interrogation rather than dialogue. They are interrupted, rushed, and forced to answer decontextualised questions and disprove logical fallacies that frame them as inherently suspect. Instead of being asked for context, strategy or analysis, they are pressured to condemn resistance and prove their humanity—while surviving colonisation and genocide in real time.

*Explore more on fallacies in our tool, here

Palestinians are frequently asked to speak while actively grieving. For example, families of martyrs are invited to speak within hours or days of their loved ones’ killings—with no regard for their emotional state. Instead of being given space to narrate on their own terms, they are often interrogated about their loved ones’ political affiliations and the nature of their killings; or asked to condemn retaliation, and vow that they have no hatred in their hearts. This retraumatises and dehumanises the bereaved.

Palestinians are routinely placed in discussion alongside Israeli officials or Zionist spokespeople, as if they represent two sides of a symmetrical “conflict”. This not only falsely equates coloniser and colonised, but also puts Palestinians at risk—subjecting them to defamation, and real-life threats from Zionist lobbies and state actors.

*Explore more on false parity in this section

Palestinians are often invited to speak outside their expertise, paired with seasoned experts and given minimal space to speak. Harmful set-ups also include the distorted framing of the entire conversation. In media interviews, for example, this can involve the footage shown behind or alongside a speaker, the sequencing of Zionist speakers before or after them, or the anchor’s decontextualised framing of the issue. These practices shape perception in ways that discredit and undermine Palestinian narratives.

A recurring practice across various sectors promotes Palestinians and Israelis (or Zionists) sharing platforms, spaces and initiatives; highlighting the “necessity” of  engaging “both sides" whether via formal negotiations, dialogues, joint projects or individual interactions. The insistence on including Israeli voices alongside Palestinian ones stems from and reinforces the "two-sided conflict" narrative where Palestinian anti-colonial struggle becomes protracted “conflict”, creating the illusion of equal responsibility and power between the coloniser and the colonised.

*Explore more on bothsides-ism in this section

False parity often proclaims principles of balance and neutrality, with the underlying aim to portray "both sides" equally and highlight the wrongdoing, suffering and point of view of "both parties". This ignores the deep power imbalance and dynamics between coloniser and colonised. It also approaches the situation as one that could be solved by empathy and dialogue. While dialogue is often seen as inherently positive, not all dialogue is neutral or constructive. When the format does not challenge the structures of oppression—or worse, includes those who represent and uphold them—it becomes part of the problem.

All these examples and practices normalise Israeli oppression as an indefinite reality, framing it as a “conflict” to be managed rather than a system of colonisation and apartheid that must be dismantled. Instead of prioritising accountability, sanctions, and concrete measures for liberation and justice, they divert efforts toward “peacebuilding” and state-building—sidestepping the root causes of Palestinian dispossession.

Palestinians who refuse to engage or oppose and boycott such formats are then blamed for “rejecting peace”. This is a form of gaslighting: being told that if we don’t engage in such dialogues, we are against “peace”—when in fact, we are advocating, fighting and resisting for justice, safety and our fundamental rights. Anti-normalisation has its roots in the Palestinian struggle, dating back to the Great Revolt of 1936-1939, and has been clearly defined by Palestinian civil society in the BDS movement’s anti-normalisation guidelines. 

*Explore more on the “rejectionist narrative” in this section

False parity also places the emotional labour on Palestinians, where they are expected to be the “ideal victim”—to remain calm, gentle and endlessly patient even while being subjected to profound injustice. Palestinians are expected to educate others, including Israelis, and prove their humanity—all while under attack. Oppressed people should not have to earn their right to be heard by appealing to the comfort of others. True solidarity does not demand emotional labour from those suffering, but rather asks: How can we listen, learn, and act with integrity?

Additionally, forcing the oppressed to share space with their oppressors, or farming them as “equals”, undermines Palestinian agency, denying them the opportunity to be the primary narrators of their own struggle. This contributes to the continued marginalisation of Palestinian narratives and expertise.

*Explore more on the invalidation of Palestinian expertise in this section

While Palestinian voices and sources are excluded, doubted, marginalised and censored; Israeli sources, particularly Israeli officials, are often regarded as credible, with their narratives accepted as reliable. This occurs despite their positionality as colonisers and oppressors, and the well-documented record of Israel whitewashing its crimes and utilising disinformation tactics.

What begins as propaganda from the Israeli government and its apparatus is quickly taken at face value, quoted and re-shared as fact by media outlets and politicians, amplifying and legitimising its disinformation.  

• A 2019 study, analysing 100,000 headlines in major U.S. newspapers found that Israeli sources are nearly 250% more likely to be quoted than Palestinians.
• An analysis of U.S. cable news coverage of the first month of Israel’s genocide on Gaza found that the Israeli army spokesman was interviewed 44 times on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News in the span of 30 days and given free rein to mislead and distort with little to no pushback. 
• A study analyzing 35,000 pieces between October 2023 and October 2024 found that BBC has interviewed twice as many Israelis than Palestinians, and presenters shared the Israeli perspective 11 times more than the Palestinian perspective.

The uncritical acceptance of Israeli sources becomes even more alarming when reiterated by institutions tasked with upholding international law, adhering to evidence-based methodologies, and maintaining independence—such as UN agencies and officials, and international human rights organisations. This was evident in recent reports and statements from these institutions which uncritically adopted Israeli official sources and propaganda, effectively whitewashing the ongoing genocide.

The practice of accepting Israeli official sources at face value and spreading their disinformation across mainstream media, political establishments and international organisations undermines the credibility of these bodies and the very values they claim to uphold, such as independent reporting, and the protection of peace, security and human rights. In doing so, it erodes universal principles. At the same time, the spreading of Israeli narratives—which are centred around dehumanising, demonising and criminalising Palestinians—distorts global opinion, fuelling racism and hatred against Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims.

Palestinians and allies have historically resisted and mobilised their power against Zionism and its roots in global imperialism through activism, boycotts, advocacy, accountability efforts, media lobbying and transnational movement-building. The more they amplify the Palestinian liberation narrative in the mainstream and undermine systems of oppression—including Zionist colonisation, state, corporate and institutions complicity—the more these forces suppress them. This is evident in the alarming acceleration of repression against the Palestinian movement since the genocide began in October 2023.

The Israeli government and Zionist lobby groups use two key strategies to repress resistance and dissent. First, they conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism. Second, they smear and criminalise Palestinians and the solidarity movement as “terrorists.”

Based on these strategies, two broad tactical fronts are used:

1. Institutional Repression: Since Israel’s founding, military orders and laws have criminalised political organising and resistance in Palestine by labelling them as “terrorism” or illegal activity. This has included most Palestinian political parties, student groups, human rights organisations, media outlets and even UN agencies. Globally, the Israeli government and Zionist lobby groups pressure governments, policymakers, corporations, media outlets, employers, academic institutions and international organisations to adopt repressive and fascist policies and legislation. These include anti-BDS legislation, “counter-terrorism” laws, and the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which equates any criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

Check database by FMEP of US legislation exploiting antisemitism and targeting BDS.

2. Smearing and Defamation: Repression also takes the form of attacks aimed at intimidation and silencing. Activists and organisations are smeared with false accusations of antisemitism, extremism or “terrorism”; while targeted doxxing and harassment campaigns encourage threats, abuse and even physical violence.

Repression is designed to erase the spaces and resources for Palestinian organising, advocacy and international solidarity work. For example, when the Israeli government designated six leading Palestinian civil society organisations as “terrorist” entities, many Western governments, institutions and donors adopted these baseless accusations and stopped or suspended funding to these organisations.

At the same time, bans on solidarity protests, cancelled events and the shutting down of advocacy platforms further shrink the space to challenge and resist Israel’s colonial oppression. Together, these measures severely undermine the effectiveness of Palestinian advocacy and organising.

‍Attacking and delegitimising dissenting voices cause various levels of harm to those who experience or witness it. This includes physical violence such as police brutality at protests, arbitrary arrests, detention, travel bans, deportations and visa revocations; as well as economic harm such as workplace suspensions, firings, or costly lawsuits. Beyond the material, there are profound social and psychological impacts: reputational damage and the mental toll of constant delegitimisation leave lasting consequences on those who speak out for Palestinian rights.

Repression harm extends beyond immediate targets, fostering a culture of fear and discouraging anyone engaging or considering speaking up for Palestinian rights. Many journalists, activists, politicians and workers are compelled to self-censor, fearing repercussions that could harm their careers and livelihoods.

Defaming Palestinians and their allies with false accusations such as being racist, “terrorist”, or extremist, is rooted in anti-Palestinian racism which aims to silence, exclude and dehumanise them and their narratives. It reinforces an "us vs. them" narrative, fueling hate speech and hate crimes against Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and people of colour. This furthers the isolation of Palestinians and their allies from the global community, while upholding global systems of oppression. 

Across international media, academia, politics and digital spaces, Palestinian voices, narratives and knowledge production are heavily censored—often through institutionalised policies and practices that restrict how Palestinians can narrate and analyse their realities and their struggle for freedom.

The censorship of Palestinian voices and narratives in the media occurs throughout the entire cycle—from the selection and sourcing of Palestinian voices, to style guides and policies that prohibit accurate language and framing, and the editing of interviews and articles.

A study analysing journalistic style guides on Palestine found that anti-Palestinian racism has been “standardised as journalistic practice” under the guise of editorial guidelines that prioritise "neutrality and objectivity." For example, the BBC and International Press Institute’s style guides deny or sanitise key Palestinian framings and terms such as Nakba, refugees and even Palestine. Such censorship has intensified during the ongoing genocide in Gaza. A leaked memo from The New York Times instructed journalists to avoid using "inflammatory language," including terms like "genocide," "ethnic cleansing," "massacre," "occupied territory" and "refugee camps"—even in quotations.

Other forms of censorship include harmful editing practices. Several Palestinian participants in our research shared that they now only accept live interviews so as to protect their framing from editorial distortion. Even in live interviews, some outlets later refuse to post interviews online. For example, Palestinian human rights attorney Noura Erekat’s live interview with CBS News was not published online. The explanation was that she was "too advocative" and made the anchor "look bad."

Social media platforms have been complicit in the censorship and silencing of Palestinian voices and solidarity content. 7amleh, The Arab centre for the Advancement of Social Media, periodically monitors the increased censorship of Palestinian content by global tech corporations. Content and accounts are removed, shadowbanned and restricted; while hashtags are hidden and archived content is deleted. 

There is also widespread anti-Palestinian discrimination across social media platforms, especially on those owned by Meta, which itself acknowledged this bias in 2022. 

You can report on Palestinian digital rights at 7amleh platform here

Palestinian knowledge production has long faced systemic suppression in mainstream academic institutions. This is entangled with the political and corporate capture of Western academic institutions. As Joseph Massad notes, critical scholarship on Palestine threatens entrenched interests of Western imperialism and corporate power, making academic freedom itself a casualty of elite political agendas.

This censorship manifests in various forms: 

• Institutional censorship and backlash against students and academics who centre Palestinian perspectives.
• Marginalisation of critical research that challenges dominant narratives.
• Cancellation or interference in conferences or events presenting critical perspectives on Israel.
• Denial of funding for Palestinian-focused research, projects, or student groups.
• Exclusion from curricula, with Palestinian, Middle Eastern Studies and related fields often taught by non-Palestinian faculty who overlook Palestinian and decolonial scholarship.
• Pressure on Palestinian students and scholars to avoid writing about their own struggle under the guise of “objectivity,” while others working on Palestine are pushed to adopt a “both-sides” framework.

These practices violate academic freedom, foster self-censorship, and narrow the intellectual space for addressing Palestine in meaningful, decolonial terms.

Many donor governments and institutions impose both formal political conditions—such as requiring Palestinian groups to sign “anti-terrorism” clauses in contracts denouncing Palestinian resistance as “terrorism” based on Western designations—and broader policies that censor Palestinian framings, and limit the thematic and geographic scope of their work.

Many Palestinian organisations are compelled to adopt language that fits donor-sanctioned narratives rooted in humanitarianism, development, “peacebuilding” and conflict resolution. For instance, donors often prohibit local organisations from using framings like Nakba, settler-colonialism and apartheid. Instead, organisations are pressured to use jargon like “vulnerability,” “resilience,” “conflict mitigation” and “peace nexus”. 

This censorship also extends to who and what they can work on: many are restricted to specific themes such as gender, youth empowerment or human rights—stripped of their political context, and confined to a limited geographic scope, usually the Palestinian lands occupied since 1967.

Such practices have contributed to the fragmentation and depoliticisation of civil society. Furthermore, this censorship prevents Palestinian groups from articulating a unified, political vision of liberation; reducing their work to manageable, donor-approved projects disconnected from the broader Palestinian struggle.

Censorship of Palestinian voices undermines Palestinian agency. By blocking or distorting the voices of Palestinian survivors, scholars, activists and analysts Palestinian narratives and knowledge production are erased, and spaces to represent their experiences are denied. When Palestinians are censored—whether in physical or digital spaces—audiences are left with disinformation and propaganda. This not only normalises Israeli colonisation but also shields it from necessary scrutiny and accountability.

Euphemisms—sanitised, vague or passive terms—are routinely employed when communicating the Palestinian struggle. Political speeches, news reporting, humanitarian reports and international agencies communications often employ euphemisms through several forms:

‍This erases the perpetrator, making colonial violence seem like an accident rather than a systemic act of aggression: 

• "Dozens were killed" instead of "Israel massacred/killed 40 Palestinians."
• "Buildings collapsed/exploded" instead of "Israeli bombing destroyed family homes."
  

This minimises and erases the political context of Israeli colonialism:

• "Neighbourhoods" instead of "settlements."
• "Eviction" instead of "forced expulsion."
• "Riots" or "clashes" instead of "protests against Israeli occupation."
• "Dispersing crowds" instead of "suppressing protesters with lethal force."
• "Barrier" or "security wall" instead of "apartheid wall" or "annexation wall."
  

This supports Israeli actions and policies, casting them as “defensive” rather than aggressive and colonial:

• “Israeli Defence Forces (IDF)” instead of “Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF).”
• "Defensive operations" or "counterterrorism operations" instead of "military offensives/aggressions/raids."
  

‍This presents systemic Israeli violence as isolated incidents:

• "Extremist attacks" instead of “state-backed settler violence.”
• Overemphasis on Israel's "right-wing government/officails" suggesting that their policies are exceptional, rather than consistent with Israel's long-standing colonial policies across governments. 

*Explore more in our terminology tool

Euphemism is not merely a linguistic choice, it is a deliberate tool of censorship and erasure. The language used to frame injustice profoundly shapes global public perception and political response. Sanitised and reductionist terms erase the possibility of grasping the full context of Palestinian experiences, reinforcing narratives that obscure the severity of Israeli crimes and hinder meaningful efforts toward systemic change.

A troubling and entrenched phenomenon in communication about Palestine is the normalisation of Israeli colonial violence and the numbness to Palestinian suffering. This desensitisation is not incidental; it is shaped by global systems of imperialism and racism, harmful media and political framing, and psychological factors that lead to perceiving Palestinian oppression as ordinary and inevitable. This apathy is not only found in hostile environments. It can also affect Palestinians themselves and their allies, who may internalise the normalisation of violence as a coping mechanism.

International audiences’ desensitisation to the oppression of the Palestinian people stems largely from the normalisation of the Zionist settler-colonial regime. That a 21st-century settler-colonial system, alongside the “longest belligerent occupation in the modern world", continues uninterrupted is the status quo. 

This normalisation is not unique to the Palestinian context: it is part of a global system of imperialism and racism that conditions people to accept prolonged violence against racialised peoples as inevitable. From the violent policing and mass incarceration of Black peoples, to the dehumanisation of refugees, and the dispossession and exploitation of indigenous peoples, the suffering of people of colour is consistently treated as “business as usual.” 

Racism and imperial ideologies not only desensitise people, but also attempt to condition the oppressed themselves to become accustomed to enduring wars, genocide and forced displacement.

Palestine is usually in the media spotlight and political discourse when the Palestinian resistance threatens Israel, often triggering a wave of condemnation that erases context and labels Palestinians as “terrorists”. 

The other moment when Palestine attracts attention is during so-called “escalations of violence.” However, intensity is relative, and even 400 Palestinians being killed in Gaza every week doesn’t make headlines after a while. Meanwhile, periods between visible Palestinian bloodshed and large-scale military assaults are perceived as times of “peace”.

Israeli colonial violence, however, extends beyond visible destruction. It includes slower, less visible forms of violence like the denial of the right of return, the denial of burials for loved ones, the fracturing of families and erosion of communal bonds. All are a slow erosion of dignity. To frame these realities as “quiet” is to accept them as normal.

This selective attention—spotlighting Palestinian "violence," while treating Israeli oppression only as sporadic “escalations” and normalising its daily violence—feeds into apathy. In the public consciousness, the constant violence imposed on Palestinians is erased, casting them as irrationally violent and making their suffering easier to dismiss.

The numbness phenomenon is also reinforced psychologically. Studies have shown how repeated exposure to others’ suffering leads to emotional disengagement in what is known as compassion fatigue. News fatigue also plays a role, in which individuals are overwhelmed by the constant flow of distressing information, causing them to intentionally avoid news, even when it relates to ongoing catastrophic atrocities. Further, there is psychic numbing resulting from people’s inability to grasp losses of life as they grow.