Mohammed Abunahel
October 18, 2024

Reframing the narrative: How mainstream media describe the Israeli war in Gaza

As war is taking place somewhere, there is also a hidden war in the media, concentrated on the uses of languages. Terms used in war reporting equal the weapons used to kill people; terms are the most potent tool outside the battlefield.

Most of the mainstream media, mainly Western media, is a tool to support Israel and its narration as well as justify its war crimes by using a particular language. In the current Israeli war against the Palestinian people in Gaza, some mainstream media are using different titles as the main page of other headlines to cover stories from Gaza. 

Some of those media are Aljazeera, which uses the title “Israel War on Gaza,” The Guardian and BBC use the title “Israel-Gaza war,” CNN uses the title “Devastation in Gaza as Israel wages war on Hamas,” and The New York Times uses the title “Israel-Hamas War.

However, the selection of any title may differ depending on what the media outlet is aiming to convey to the reader. This article examines these selections in detail.

Aljazeera: Israel war on Gaza

This term is highly accepted as it indicates the truth that Israel is the primary aggressor, implying that Israel is the only one responsible for starting its war acts against Gaza. It also portrays Israel as the dominant and proactive force. This term also highlights the Israeli attention on Gaza as the target of its military war, as well as establishing the geographical location of the Israeli war. 

Furthermore, this term draws attention to the imbalance of power that exists between Israel, which is supported by the United States, and Gaza, which has no support. It also indicates that Gaza is portrayed as the party that is defenseless and victimized. It has the potential to conjure up images of Gaza as a territory that is under siege, highlighting the misery of the people who live there.

The Guardian and BBC: Israel-Gaza war

Both media use this term to create a "balanced approach," using the hyphen. This hyphenated phrase suggests that both Gaza and Israel are engaged in a war, neglecting the fact that Israeli is the aggressor and Gaza is the victim. Both media aim to indicate that the war is a "bilateral confrontation." It also creates an image that Israel and Gaza are military equivalents. 

In doing so, it avoids portraying Israel as the sole aggressor. This term does not correctly describe the truth that Israel is settler colonialism, committing genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine. It also downplays the significance of the Israeli violence and military operations.

The New York Times: Israel-Hamas War

This term follows the hyphen technique to create a "balanced approach."  This title describes the war as it is only between Israel and Hamas. Does Palestine have 5% of the Israeli military power to call it a war? Israel is committing war crimes, which leads to describing it as a genocide in Gaza; however, Palestine is not equally militarily equivalent to Israel. 

On the other hand, this suggests that Israel and Hamas are two equal parties. However, It is possible that a skewed perspective of the Palestinian national struggle could result from the fact that the power dynamics, military capabilities, and international support for Israel are markedly different from those of Hamas.

More importantly, this term suggests that the Israeli war is only against Hamas, not the Palestinians. If so, why has Israel murdered thousands of Palestinian civilians?

This title eliminates the history of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. It shifts it towards Hams only, leading to interpreting it as a 'war ' in isolation from other cases without understanding its roots or broader ramifications.

CNN: Devastation in Gaza as Israel wages war on Hamas

Hamas is wronged by its designation as a "terrorist organization;" therefore, formulating a title by targeting the Israeli war against Hamas, not the Palestinian people, is absolutely aiming to justify the Israeli war as it is targeting a terrorist organization, not civilians. 

Moreover, it is plausible that this approach may elicit empathy toward Israel while simultaneously diminishing or disregarding the consequences of Israeli war crimes, including the daily genocide and undiscriminating killing of civilians.

This systematic title creates an incomplete understanding of the Israeli war dynamics, potentially leading to a one-sided interpretation of events, framing it as a consequence of Israel's actions against Hamas. 

Using the term "wages war" intentionally implies the Israeli war is nothing more than a reaction and makes it deliberately more specific by using the phrase "on Hamas." This framing put Hamas as the "aggressor" and Israel as the "victim." Even though using "devastation" indicates that this devastation is only for Hamas’ assets and properties, not the Palestinians’ properties.

In conclusion, Aljazeera stands out as it aims to emphasize Israel's role as the aggressor and Gaza's role as the victim. The Guardian, CNN,  BBC,  and the New York Times proposed titles that lack depth, context, and nuance. At the same time, these titles are reducing the amount of Israeli war crimes and the suffering experienced by Palestinian civilians—moreover, titles targeted to oversimplify the complexities of the Palestinian national struggle.