From “War” to “Humanitarian Crisis”: How Has the Language of Global Cultural Institutions Changed the Narrative on Gaza?

The language adopted in statements from international cultural institutions regarding events in Gaza has undergone a notable shift towards what is known as “white language”—formulations that do not accurately reflect the reality of an area subjected to continuous bombardment under a complete siege for over two years. In statements issued by major film festivals, global museums, and artistic and literary unions, expressions such as “Humanitarian Crisis,” “The Situation,” and “Humanitarian Suffering” are repeatedly used, while the direct descriptor “War on Gaza” has seen a clear decline.

This linguistic shift appears simultaneously across different institutions and in various contexts, making it a common feature in cultural discourse recently. This occurs amid a noticeable convergence in the language of political and international statements and declarations, which themselves rely on general humanitarian vocabulary when addressing developments in Gaza. This has allowed these formulations to become a ready-made linguistic reference within the cultural field, without naming the actor or referring to the military context.

With the repetition of this pattern in institutional cultural discourse, a broader question arises about the nature of these institutions’ approach to events and their reasons for resorting to a “safe” linguistic reference: Is it due to funding concerns, or adherence to a specific political lexicon?

The Political Lexicon First

A few weeks after the war on Gaza began in October 2023, major international and political institutions adopted a specific lexicon, focusing on the humanitarian impact and avoiding direct description of military action. In its periodic updates, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) stated that “The humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip continues to deteriorate.”

In a statement by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), events were described as “A Catastrophic Humanitarian Crisis,” focusing clearly on the humanitarian consequences of the war without naming it as a war.

This lexicon quickly solidified at the highest levels of international discourse. On October 27, 2023, the UN General Assembly, in its resolution ES-10/21, called for “an immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce.” The Security Council repeated the same formulation in its Resolution 2720 in December 2023, when it spoke of “the urgent humanitarian needs stemming from the humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” using the phrase “the Gaza humanitarian crisis.”

Over time, this lexicon became the dominant political language and automatically transferred to cultural institutions, which found themselves under increasing pressure to take a position without directly clashing with politics. In European Union statements, for example, a statement from the European External Action Service in January 2024 described events as “The catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza,” without referring to war or military operations.

Ceasefire with Conditions

In the American context, the same shift appeared, albeit in a different form. Instead of using the term “Ceasefire” in the early stages, official statements focused on “humanitarian pauses.” The US Mission to the UN stated in an official Security Council briefing that it supported “Humanitarian pauses to facilitate assistance.” The term “Ceasefire” entered the discourse later but was coupled with political and security conditions.

The political lexicon quickly found its way into cultural discourse. In April 2024, when deciding to keep the Israeli pavilion closed at the opening of the Venice Biennale, the expression “war on Gaza” was not used at all. The statement linked the pavilion’s opening to a specific condition: “A Ceasefire and Hostage Release Agreement.” Here, naming the event is replaced by a procedural condition, allowing the institution to avoid describing the war itself.

The same approach was repeated in major museums. Statements and remarks associated with major American art institutions used descriptions like “Ongoing humanitarian suffering in Gaza,” an expression that highlights human pain but separates the suffering from its political and military cause.

In film festivals, such as Sundance, films addressing Gaza were presented as “Stories from affected communities