Justifying Different Responses to Russia and Israel : A Discourse Analysis of the International Olympic Committee’s Framing of the Wars in Ukraine and Gaza

This thesis examines how the International Olympic Committee (IOC) justifies its different responses towards Russia and Israel in relation to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Despite comparable humanitarian suffering and allegations of serious violations of international law, the IOC has imposed extensive sanctions on Russia while refraining from adopting similar measures towards Israel. Using qualitative discourse analysis of official IOC statements, the study analyses how these differences are justified through language. Drawing on Judith Butler’s concept of grievability and Herman and Chomsky’s distinction between worthy and unworthy victims, the analysis shows that the IOC constructs systematically different discourses across the two conflicts, framing lives depending on their grievability and as worthy or unworthy victims.