The semantic battles fought in the media are just as important as the physical wars fought on the battlefield. In fact, domestic media in the United States and Europe have the ability to shape the nature of foreign wars they participate in or support. This is certainly true in Ukraine. Western media outlets have systematically documented Russia’s conduct of the war, including Ukrainian civilians. By humanizing Ukrainians against the Russian aggressor, the West has been able to continue to provide Ukraine with weapons and support. However, since October 7, 2023, Western media have done the exact opposite in their coverage of Israel’s war in Gaza, creating a stark double standard. They have engaged in a thorough and systematic dehumanization of Palestinians, enabling Israel to unleash indiscriminate violence in Gaza, the West Bank, and beyond. Palestinians have been collectively labeled “terrorists,” and violence against them has been accepted as inevitable. More subtle acts of one-sided, biased reporting that favors Israel—sharing only the official Israeli version of events or avoiding rational speculation about Israeli behavior—have similarly produced results. This would allow the United States and its allies to continue providing military, economic and diplomatic support to Israel while avoiding criticism of Israel.
Despite extensive reporting by Israeli lawyers claiming that the BBC is deeply biased against Israel, investigations, misconduct testimony, and deep-rooted anxiety among journalists show that the opposite is true. Israel has benefited from favorable media coverage, while Palestinians have suffered immensely, leading one Israeli analyst to call media bias against Israel “one of the greatest historical fictions in Israeli history.” Another Israeli analyst goes so far as to claim that all media attacks on Israel are a weak form of backlash, showing that support for Israel in the West is a strength, not a weakness. A similar effect has occurred among pro-Palestinian campus protesters in the United States. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, the media has reported the slanderous protests as violent and anti-Semitic.
The bias against Israel is intentional. A prime example is the sudden surge in the use of the passive voice, especially in headlines. This is generally considered a great “sin” for journalists, as it removes the agency of the agent. There are too many examples to discuss here. Most notably, the May 2022 Israeli killing of Palestinian journalist Shirin Abu Akle and the killing of six-year-old Gazan boy Hind Rajab, who was trapped in a car with his family by an Israeli tank, were reported using the passive voice to deflect blame from Israel. More recently, Israel shot and killed Aysenur Eygi, a U.S.-Turkish activist who was protesting Israeli aggression in the West Bank town of Beita. However, several headlines said she was “killed,” “murdered,” or “shot,” without specifying how or by whom she died.
More insidiously, media outlets have suppressed the use of certain language to fit the criteria for Israeli or pro-Israeli audiences. For example, CNN has been subject to Israeli Defense Force media censorship when publishing articles about Israel. The New York Times, in a leaked memo, restricted the use of words like “genocide,” “massacre,” “occupied territories,” “refugee camps,” and even “Palestine.” More generally, media outlets have avoided using language that could be considered anti-Israeli.
One might think that media bias is merely a semantic conflict and that more focus should be given to reporting the actual war. However, by blaming Israel for its war in Gaza and by dismissing the deaths and suffering of Palestinians as an accidental byproduct of the conflict, the bloodshed has only accelerated. The popular narrative has helped to build public support for Israeli policy in the West, allowing Israel to remove its local sources of information from Gaza, thereby evading responsibility and securing additional support from the West. Despite the absence of reports of the horrors and horrors unfolding in Gaza, the United States and some of its European allies (notably Britain and Germany) have been able to gain sufficient domestic consent to continue to provide Israel with weapons and diplomatic support.
This approach worked for Israel, but it was not perfect. As the list of alleged war crimes against Israel became more public and pressure from Palestinians and their allies in the United States and Europe increased, some limited course corrections were made. First, there was a significant backlash among Israelis themselves regarding Israel’s claims about the events of October 7, and the justification for the massacre in Gaza (now the West Bank). Second, there was an increased discussion of Israel’s policies and crimes in the West and in its institutions, including the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. In the United States, support for Israel has declined significantly in recent months. Britain has suspended some arms sales to Israel, while Germany and the United States have maintained or accelerated their support.
Third, the United States and the West have lost significant soft power in the Global South due to their continued support for Israel. The UN General Assembly, which has repeatedly called for a ceasefire in Gaza and supported Palestinian membership, represents perhaps the most centralized form of opposition to continued support for Israel. Most countries in the Global South have led or supported international legal action against Israel since October 2023. Analysts have noted more generally that the US and its allies have used their soft power reserves to support Israel, and that postcolonial support for Palestine appears to have returned.
Dehumanizing Palestinians and blaming Israel for the violence in Gaza has helped Israel perpetuate the war. The result has been death and destruction in Gaza on a scale not seen since World War II. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear that Israel relies on Western military support to continue the war. This goal seems to align with the stated interests of the United States and some of its European allies, given their continued supply of weapons to Israel. This approach will perpetuate the war in Gaza and the West Bank, expand Israel’s domestic economic and political ties, increase opposition to Western influence in the Global South, and significantly increase support for non-Western (i.e., China and Russia) influence worldwide.
In the short term, Palestinians have paid a price with their lives and livelihoods, and will continue to do so as policymakers and media outlets in the United States and Europe continue to defend Israel. But in the medium to long term, this approach is likely to backfire and will cost America enormously both globally and regionally. It has already backfired in the media sphere. Young people, who primarily consume news through social media (where, despite heavy repression, pro-Palestinian sources have been far more successful than traditional media in sharing information and analysis), are, at least in the United States, far more opposed to Israel.
Ironically, the conclusion drawn here suggests that pro-Israel media sources would benefit from more even coverage of Israeli actions, and likewise pro-Israel governments and officials would benefit from holding Israel accountable for its actions. In both cases, such actions would allow for a stronger push for a ceasefire and reduce the threat of a potentially destructive regional war.
Additional Resources on E-International Relations
