Public statement by UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini June 4, 2025
Decolonial Propaganda & Genocide Analysis Report
Decolonial Propaganda & Genocide Analysis Report
Text Analyzed: Public statement by UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini
Date Posted: June 4, 2025
Platform: X (formerly Twitter)
Analysis by: Genospectra Institute
1. Language Use and Omission
A. Terminology Accuracy:
No structural terms such as genocide, settler colonialism, apartheid, Zionism, or Nakba are used. The statement refers to a “humanitarian” situation with emphasis on “aid” and “suffering,” which occludes the genocidal framework and replaces it with liberal humanitarian euphemisms.
B. Genocide Dilution and Displacement:
Yes. Genocide is entirely omitted. Suffering is framed in vague moral language—“unconscionable”—without identifying the ideological and structural architecture of Zionist settler-colonial genocide. The suffering of Palestinians is presented as an outcome of obstructed aid rather than a deliberate program of extermination.
C. Naming vs. Erasure of Palestinians:
Palestinians are referred to as “people in Gaza,” which erases specificity and identity. The term “Palestinian” is not used, nor is there any acknowledgment of cultural or political agency.
D. Occupation Language and Perpetrator Naming:
The statement fails to name the perpetrator entirely. There is no mention of Israel, Zionism, Occupation Forces, or any responsible party. The violence is framed passively: aid is “delayed,” “obstacles” are vaguely referenced, and “deepening dehumanization” is decontextualized from its source.
E. State Accountability and Passive Voice:
Yes. The statement uses complete passive construction—“People’s suffering is unconscionable,” “obstacles were lifted”—without naming who created or sustains the suffering, thus evading accountability and obscuring Israeli genocidal culpability.
2. Narrative Framing and Rhetoric
A. False Equivalence and Power Symmetry:
There is no overt both-sides rhetoric, but the omission of perpetrators and flattening of power asymmetry through abstract humanitarian framing implicitly implies neutrality, which reinforces a false balance.
B. Pathologization of Palestinian Resistance (Muqāwama):
Not applicable. Resistance is not mentioned at all—neither condemned nor validated—reflecting a sanitized, depoliticized narrative of Palestinian suffering.
C. Deployment of the “Good Victim” Trope:
Yes. The focus is on passive suffering and hunger, implicitly reinforcing the “good victim” framework—those deserving of help are those who suffer quietly, without resistance, stripped of political or revolutionary identity.
D. Narrative Centering:
The UN and UNRWA are centered as saviors and problem-solvers. Palestinian voices are entirely absent, and their conditions are framed as a humanitarian logistics issue rather than a genocidal siege.
E. Validation Through Western/Israeli Authority:
Yes. The speaker frames the UN as the legitimate vehicle for aid and change, implicitly suggesting that Palestinian testimony or resistance is not sufficient or relevant to address the crisis. The “tangible impact” of UN actions is used to frame effectiveness without naming the systems of domination impeding that work.
F. Balancing Grief or Grief Hierarchies:
Not applicable within the text. Israeli grief is not invoked, but the omission of Palestinian specificity and the generalization of suffering still contributes to trauma flattening.
3. Tone and Emotional Framing
A. Tone and Moral Clarity:
The tone is technocratic and humanitarian. While it uses moral language (“unconscionable”), it lacks abolitionist clarity or political indictment. It does not name genocide or demand structural accountability.
B. Specificity vs. Abstraction in Mourning:
Abstraction dominates: “people in Gaza,” “suffering,” “aid,” “obstacles.” There are no names, kinship ties, or direct portrayals of Palestinian humanity beyond their role as recipients of aid.
C. Trauma Hierarchies and Conditional Grief:
The framing suggests grief is contingent on starvation, implying that Palestinians are most worthy of attention when facing death by deprivation rather than acknowledging the structural genocide they face across domains.
D. Performative Condemnation and Irrelevant Moral Inserts:
No condemnation of Hamas or October 7 is present, which avoids this common rhetorical derailment. However, it instead performs neutrality by depoliticizing genocide entirely.
4. Legal and Ethical Ramifications
A. Incitement and Propaganda Amplification:
No direct incitement is present. However, the omission of genocide, settler colonialism, and occupation contributes to propaganda laundering by framing the situation as merely humanitarian.
B. Islamophobia, Anti-Palestinian Racism, and Orientalism:
Yes—through omission. The framing erases Palestinian indigeneity, culture, and struggle. They are reduced to abstract victims dependent on UN intervention rather than recognized as people resisting extermination.
C. Selective Use of International Law:
UN frameworks are mentioned as operational capacities (“expertise, experience, resources”), but legal instruments like the Genocide Convention or Geneva Conventions are entirely absent.
D. Normalization of Occupation:
Yes. There is no reference to occupation at all. The territory is treated as an aid site, not as a colonized and besieged land.
E. Normalization of Genocidal Tactics:
Yes. The root causes of starvation and dehumanization—siege, bombing, forced displacement, settler invasion—are omitted. Aid obstruction is framed as an operational challenge rather than a weapon of genocide.
5. Framing Gaps and Structural Harm
A. What is Missing?
Genocide framing
Naming Israel as perpetrator
Palestinian identity and resistance
Historical continuity of the Nakba
Right of return, sumud, or muqāwama
Any structural analysis of settler-colonial violence
B. Respectability Politics and Liberal Exceptionalism:
Yes. The call to “deliver safely” through official UN channels implies that only orderly, institutional intervention is legitimate, erasing grassroots resistance and suggesting Palestinians must be passive to be aided.
C. Erasure of Continuity:
Yes. The crisis is framed as recent and contingent, not as part of an ongoing genocidal continuum since 1948.
D. Centering of Western Grief:
Not applicable directly, but the centering of UN personnel implicitly reinforces Western institutional authority over Indigenous grief and resistance.
E. Reinforcement of Settler Logic:
Yes. By framing the solution as aid rather than liberation, the statement reinforces the settler regime’s existence and the legitimacy of its control over borders and supply chains.
F. Moral Architecture of the Piece:
The moral center is UN responsibility, not settler-state accountability or Palestinian liberation. It performs informed grief but does not name the structures responsible for that grief.
6. Narrative Colonization and Epistemic Theft
A. Western Moral Translation:
Yes. Palestinian suffering is made palatable for international audiences through humanitarian grammar rather than revolutionary or legal frameworks of genocide.
B. Displacement of Narrative Sovereignty:
Yes. The UN speaks for Palestinians, defines what matters (“significant aid”), and determines what suffering is “unconscionable.” Palestinian analysis, history, and demands are absent.
C. Epistemicide and Lexical Erasure:
Yes. Terms like ibāda jamāʿiyya, Nakba, muqāwama, Zionism, and occupation are completely erased.
D. Positionality Toward Palestinian Voice:
Palestinian voices are entirely absent. The statement speaks over and about them through institutional optics.
E. Appropriation of Grief or Language:
Yes. Palestinian suffering is used to call for UN action, but stripped of political agency, historical context, or justice demands.
7. Conclusion: Critical Assessment
A. Narrative Function:
To reframe genocide as a humanitarian crisis solvable through UN logistics, erasing settler-colonial violence and Palestinian resistance.
B. Call to Action or Containment?
Containment. The call is for aid delivery, not dismantling genocidal structures or holding perpetrators accountable.
C. Perpetuated Harms:
Erasure of genocide and perpetrators
Dehumanization through abstraction
Narrative laundering via humanitarianism
Silencing of Palestinian identity and resistance
D. Reframing the Narrative:
A Palestinian-led reframing would name Israel as the settler-colonial perpetrator, center genocide and blockade as intentional weapons, and demand liberation—not just aid. It would invoke muqāwama, sumud, and the right of return.
E. Solidarity or Spectacle?
Spectacle. It performs grief to garner legitimacy for institutional aid but offers no solidarity, justice, or structural confrontation.
TL;DR Summary
Framing: Liberal Humanitarian / Narrative Laundering
Dehumanization Present: Yes — Palestinians labeled vaguely as “people in Gaza”; no names, identities, or roles
False Equivalency or Both-Sides Rhetoric: Yes — through omission of perpetrator and power structure
Delegitimization of Palestinian Resistance: Yes — through erasure
Use of Euphemisms for Genocide: Yes — “humanitarian crisis,” “aid,” “suffering,” no mention of genocide
Evidence of Islamophobia: Yes — erasure of culture, language, and framing through Orientalist savior logic
Evidence of Anti-Palestinian Racism: Yes — denial of identity, reduction to passive aid recipients
Epistemic Theft or Narrative Colonization: Yes — UN as speaker, Palestinian frameworks erased
Who Is Centered? UNRWA, Western institutions
Named or Erased? Palestinians erased via abstraction
Overall Harm Level: 4 (High narrative harm through omission, laundering, and erasure)
“There has been no safe, dignified and significant aid in Gaza for more than three months now. People’s suffering is unconscionable, deepening further on a daily basis. We have got to and must go back to bringing in aid at scale to people wherever they are and deliver it safely. The only way to do this is through the United Nations including UNRWA. We have the expertise, experience and resources. We demonstrated tangible impact during the ceasefire, when obstacles were lifted. Delaying the decision to properly respond to the deepening hunger will further push down people in Gaza to an endless bottom and deepen dehumanization.” — UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini Posted on X: 06/04/2025