03 / Stakeholders & viewpoints
Not two sides. Many people, different power.
Separate people bearing the consequences from people making decisions—and from those shaping opinion at a distance. These are sourced summaries and editorial questions, not invented interviews or polling.
Directly affected
Palestinian civilians in Gaza
People living with displacement, damaged services and insecurity—not a single political bloc.
OCHA documents barriers to water, shelter and humanitarian assistance. These needs are evidence of lived conditions, not a survey of political preferences.
A question worth asking
Whose testimony is missing: women, children, disabled people, displaced families or those unable to leave?
Directly affected
Israeli civilians & hostage families
People affected by attacks, captivity, loss and fear—not interchangeable with the Israeli government.
The ICRC calls for humane treatment and the release of hostages. That humanitarian demand should not be read as a complete account of families’ varied political views.
A question worth asking
Can we hear personal experience without assigning every family the same position on the war?
Decision-makers
Israeli government & military
State institutions making military and access decisions and defending Israel in international proceedings.
Israel disputes South Africa’s genocide allegations. In incident reporting, OCHA also records Israeli authorities’ stated targeting rationales. A party’s explanation requires scrutiny rather than automatic acceptance.
A question worth asking
What evidence supports a stated military objective, and what civilian harm and precautions were assessed?
Decision-makers
Hamas
An armed and political organization, distinct from Palestinian civilians and the Palestinian Authority.
Canada lists Hamas as a terrorist organization and has no contact with it. Its use of violence and hostage-taking are central to accountability; explaining its role is not legitimizing its actions.
A question worth asking
How do armed control and coercion limit civilians’ agency? Do not infer popular consent from armed control.
Decision-makers
Palestinian Authority
Canada’s governmental interlocutor in Palestine, separate from Hamas.
Canada reports PA commitments to governance reform, elections and demilitarization in its recognition statement. Those are attributed commitments, not verified outcomes in this prototype.
A question worth asking
Who can authorize a future governing arrangement, and what would establish democratic legitimacy?
Institutions
Humanitarian workers & legal institutions
Aid coordination, civilian protection and adjudication are different mandates.
OCHA reports needs and access constraints; the ICRC explains humanitarian protections; the ICJ adjudicates disputes between states. Their different functions should not be flattened into one “UN opinion.”
A question worth asking
Is this source reporting observations, interpreting law, advocating action or issuing a binding decision?
Institutions
Canada & other outside governments
Diplomatic actors with policy choices and influence; not neutral spectators.
Canada states support for Palestinian self-determination alongside Israeli security and a two-state solution. Its policy statements are evidence of its position, not evidence that the position has achieved its goals.
A question worth asking
Which commitments are measurable, and whose assessment of results should Canadians consult?
Opinion-shapers
Winnipeg’s diaspora communities
Neighbours with different histories, family ties and experiences of discrimination—not representatives of foreign governments.
CMHR’s exhibition includes Palestinian Canadian testimony recorded in Winnipeg and Montréal. This prototype has not interviewed local Palestinian, Jewish, Israeli, Arab or Muslim residents and does not attribute a shared view to them.
A question worth asking
Who wants to speak, on their own terms? Who needs the option to attend quietly or not participate?
Opinion-shapers
Editors, creators & café audiences
People selecting stories, circulating images and forming opinions at a distance.
Editorial lens, not a measured audience finding: the choice of starting date, source and headline can change perceived responsibility. Visibility online is not proof of local consensus.
A question worth asking
What would change your mind? Can you trace a claim beyond the account that shared it?
Not exhaustive: Egypt, Qatar, the United States, regional governments, journalists and many civil-society movements warrant their own reporting. Local community interviews and a fuller comparison of primary statements are still needed.
