Western Perceptions of the 'Others': Neutrality, Tolerance, and Conflict
Western views of the Middle East and its conflicts have long been shaped by “Othering,”,” the tendency to define non-Western societies as fundamentally different, often in ways that reinforce Western dominance. This perspective, rooted in Orientalism, presents the Middle East as an uncivilized region in contrast to the developed and superior West. Such narratives not only influence foreign policy but also shape public sentiment, media portrayals, and approaches to migration.
The term “Middle East” was first introduced (clarity) by outsiders as an attempt to categorize a diverse region stretching from Morocco to Iran. However, this classification often reduces complex histories and cultures into a single, generalized identity that is frequently associated with instability, religious extremism, and violence. These perceptions have been reinforced by global events, particularly after 9/11, when al Qaeda’s attacks on the United States led to a dramatic shift in how the Middle East was perceived worldwide. In response, the US launched the War on Terror, a global campaign that redefined international politics, security policies and military interventions.
This process of “Othering” has been mutual. While the West often portrays the Middle East as a threat, some religious fundamentalists in the region present the West as a corrupting force beyond reconciliation. These deeply rooted narratives contribute to cycles of misunderstanding and conflict, making diplomatic resolutions even more difficult.
The United Kingdom, shaped by its colonial past and modern political strategies, often takes a neutral stance on international conflicts. While the British public is overly concerned about the (most vulnerable populations) and the global crises, discussions tend to focus on legal and moral principles rather than direct personal impact. Unlike countries directly affected by war, Britain is distant from current battlefields, experiencing the backlash of these conflicts primarily through economic consequences, such as the effect of the Ukraine wart on global markets.
This neutrality, however, does not mean disengagement. The UKoften plays the role of a neutral mediator, influencing conflicts from behind the scenes instead of direct intervention. As Gideon Skinner, Senior Director of UK Politics at Ipsos, noted: “`People in the UK remain very concerned about the conflict between Israel and Gaza, particularly the impact on civilians from both sides”`.
Yet public opinion is deeply divided. A recent survey found that 16% of Britons believe the UK should support Palestinians, while only 8% think it should back Israel. Among those over 55, 13% favour Israel and 6% support Palestinians, whereas among 18-34-year-olds, just 5% support Israel, with 31% backing Palestinians. This generational divide highlights shifting attitudes within the West itself.
Even when military action is justified as self-defence, the UK public often still perceives it as just an attack. The Israeli-Gaza conflict illustrates this tendency: rather than seeing one side as defending itself, many view all military actions as aggression. This scepticism toward warfare is shapedshaped by historical experiences, especially Britain’s involvement in Iraq. The Arab-Israeli antagonism was deepened further as Israel’s perception was that of a l was perceived as a Western-aligned entity in the , while Palestinians was backed by Arab countries. This war of ideologies, cultures, ethnicities, and attitudes is evidenceof the West-East dichotomy and orientalism. .
One of the most controversial wars Britain participated in was the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Under Prime Minister Tony Blair, the UK joined the US-led invasion of Iraq, claiming Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) threatened global security. This led to significant criticism, especially since the UN Security Council did not approve the military action against Iraq, but nevertheless, they proceeded with the invasion anyway. When no such weapons were found, the war was widely condemned as a mistake. The Chilcot Inquiry, a public investigation into the UK’s role, later concluded that the invasion was based on flawed intelligence and lacked proper justification.
The Iraq War left a lasting impact on British public opinion. Many saw it as an unnecessary intervention that not only cost lives but also damaged the UK’s international reputation. This discontent sparked the Stop The War Coalition (STWC), an anti-war movement, formed in 2001 in the UK that initially opposed the Iraq War and has since extended its activism to other conflicts, including the Israeli-Palestinian issue. STWC has positioned itself as a defender of Palestinian rights, while also condemning racism, Islamophobia, and the weakening of civil liberties.
Britain’s cautious approach to war today is, in part, a reaction to these past mistakes. As Britain is a former empire, the public is still concerned about the image of their country. The fear of misjudging the situation again is adding to the neutral position in wars. While the UK has become more actively supportive of Ukraine, recognizing its strategic importance, it stays reluctant to engage too deeply in conflicts that could lead to another Iraq-type failure.
Scottish First Minister John Swinney emphasized this position in the statement: `Here in Scotland, we will, forever, stand with Ukraine`. . Similarly, UK Labour leader Keir Starmer has pushed for a coalition to provide Ukraine with long-term security guarantees. As the war in Ukraine is influencing many countries around the globe, it`s becoming a global interest to help to stop the war sooner. . However, even this support is framed in terms of strategic alliances rather than direct military involvement.
Western perceptions of the "Others" extend beyond war and diplomacy, also shaping attitudes toward migration. The UK and other European countries have long debated the balance between tolerance and security, especially in regards Middle Eastern migrants.. Germany offers a fitting example of this shift. After World War II, Germany embraced a democratic, inclusive approach by welcoming large migration waves, including Turkish workers in the 1960s-70s and over a million refugees from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan in 2015-16. However, as immigration levels increased, so did tensions. While many migrants face challenges integrating due to language barriers, job access, and cultural differences, rising anti-immigration sentiment has raised debates over border control and national identity.
This growing opposition to migration often relies on Orientalist stereotypes, describing Middle Eastern migrants as submissive and incompatible with Western values (example/source). The same Europe that once positioned itself as an example of human rights is now struggling with the consequences of its own “Othering,”,” treating migrants as outsiders rather than as part of a shared society.
The UK’s and Europe’s shifting positions on conflict and migration reflects a deeper struggle with the legacy of Orientalism. While neutrality and tolerance have historically defined Western policies, shifting public sentiment and political pressures are reshaping their perspectives. The reluctance to engage directly in conflicts, except where strategic interests are clear, reveals a fear of repeating the past mistakes.
The question remains: Will the West continue to define the "Other" as an outsider, reinforcing division, or will it move toward a more equal engagement with the world? And if it does, will it allow the "Others" to shape its identity in return, potentially leading to a crisis over what it means to be British, European, or Western in the first place?
Image courtesy of 9/11 Attack via Wikimedia Commons. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
