jpost.com
West's Silence on Pahalgam Massacre Exposes Terrorism Double Standard
On April 22, 2025, Pakistani terrorists murdered 26 Indian civilians in Pahalgam, Kashmir, prompting targeted Indian military strikes and exposing a global double standard in condemning terrorism.
- How did India respond to the Pahalgam attack, and what was Pakistan's response?
- The disparity in global response to the Pahalgam massacre and the October 7 attacks reveals a double standard in how terrorism is addressed. The lack of widespread condemnation and protests for the Indian victims underscores a bias in international attention.
- What were the immediate global reactions to the April 22, 2025, terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, and how do these reactions compare to those following the October 7 attacks?
- On April 22, 2025, Pakistani terrorists killed 26 Indian civilians in Pahalgam, Kashmir, prompting targeted Indian military strikes against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. This event highlights the West's inconsistent response to terrorism, with significantly less outrage compared to similar attacks against other nations.
- What are the long-term implications of the differing international responses to the Pahalgam and October 7 attacks, and what role might the Israel-India relationship play in addressing this issue?
- The differing reactions to the attacks highlight the complex geopolitical factors influencing global responses to terrorism. The silence surrounding the Pahalgam attack could embolden Pakistan and other terrorist groups, and further erode international norms against terrorism.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the narrative strongly favors the Indian perspective, portraying India as a victim of unprovoked aggression and highlighting the lack of global support. The use of evocative language, such as "brutal massacre," "gunned down in cold blood," and "pure and simple terrorism," emphasizes the brutality of the attack and elicits emotional responses. Conversely, Pakistan's actions are portrayed negatively and dismissively, using terms like "predictably denied everything." The article's focus on the lack of global reaction to the attack on Indian civilians reinforces the perception of bias and injustice.
Language Bias
The article uses emotionally charged language to portray the Indian victims and Pakistan's actions in a negative light. Words like "brutal massacre," "gunned down in cold blood," "terrorists," and "butchers" are used repeatedly, shaping the reader's emotional response. In contrast, Pakistan's denials are described dismissively. More neutral alternatives could include using terms like "attack" or "violent incident" instead of "massacre" or "slaughter," and describing actions without loaded adjectives. Replacing "butchers" with "perpetrators" or "those responsible" would offer more neutral alternatives.
Bias by Omission
The article highlights a significant bias by omission. The lack of widespread international condemnation and protest regarding the attack on Indian civilians in Kashmir, compared to the significant response to attacks on Israelis, is a major omission. This omission shapes the narrative to suggest a double standard in global responses to terrorism, depending on the victims' nationality. The article also omits details about the long-term consequences of the conflict, potential peace initiatives or diplomatic efforts, and a broader range of perspectives from international organizations or governments beyond the direct participants.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the situation as a simple 'us vs. them,' India (and Israel) versus Pakistan. This simplification ignores the complex political, historical, and religious factors contributing to the conflict. The narrative reduces the multifaceted conflict to a straightforward battle between good and evil, neglecting the nuances of the geopolitical landscape and potentially causing misinterpretations of the complex dynamics.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a double standard in the international response to terrorist attacks, depending on the victims' nationality. The silence surrounding the massacre of Indian civilians by Pakistani terrorists contrasts sharply with the strong reactions to other attacks, illustrating a failure of the international community to uphold justice and accountability for all victims of terrorism. This inaction undermines the SDG target of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, providing justice for all and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.