For many decades, the Israeli-Arab conflict has remained unresolved despite numerous attempts. Being one of the most prolonged international relations issues in the world, the repercussions of the conflict extend beyond the boundaries of the Middle East region, posing effects on international security. Accordingly, the conflict involves historical and political matters, and Israel and Palestine claim sovereignty of the land. Some of the prevailing issues in the conflict include the legitimacy of Israeli occupation, the status of Jerusalem, and disputes over settlements, which have often escalated to violence. The most recent occurrence in the conflict is the Israeli-Hamas war, which took shape after the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7 2023. In response, the Israeli defence forces have invaded the Gaza Strip to eradicate Hamas, claiming it is a terror group. The violence has defied efforts of the international communities to negotiate peace, leading to alarming levels of casualties. Notably, the news media continue to package the proceeding of the conflict, each using a unique context and perspective different from the other. This paper analyses three news articles by reputable international media outlets regarding the variation in media coverage of the Israeli-Arab conflict shaped by sociopolitical factors.
First, The Network Times post titled “War Has Smashed Assumptions About Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” October 23, 2023, by Steven Erlanger, brands Palestine as a failed state infested by radicles.
The article points out that the October 7 attack breaks some of the issues disregarded in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The post states that “Some paradigms taken for granted about Israel and the Palestinians, both in Gaza and the West Bank, have been broken.” Accordingly, the NYT argues that Hamas attacking Israeli civilians reveals that the two-state solution framework has failed since the incidents discredited the ability of the Palestinian leadership to sit at the negotiation table. Besides, the article tends to isolate the extremist groups from the Palestinian authority while holding them responsible for not containing the radical extremist elements. Foreign. Ideally, the news article showcases the incident of Hamas’s attack on the Israelis as a terror attack which must be retaliated. It highlights the lack of capacity by the Palestinian authority to handle the issue, suggesting the Israeli forces must invade Gaza to track down the Hamas. The article states that the plight of the Palestinians is of no significance to the rest of the Arab nation, “The Arab world is moving on, despite the Palestinians.”
The article takes a pro-Israel perspective by reviewing the incident of the Hamas attack on Israel but assuming there is a distinction between Hamas and Palestine leadership. Besides, the article indicates pessimism by ruling out the possibility of negotiation between the two parties. Typically, from the tone, the article by the NYT uses the rise of hardline groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to rule out the possibility of diplomatic diplomacy, implying Israel should respond by military action. Suggesting that the U.S. should continue equipping Israel is insensitive to the situation in the Gaza Strip and the entire Palestine community.
Secondly, from an article by Reuters on January 25 2024, titled “Israel denies attack on U.N. refuge in Gaza that drew a rebuke from Washington,” by Nidal Al-Mughrabi, Fadi Shana and Henriette Chaca.
The report encompasses the incidents where the Israeli forces are condemned by the U.N., accusing them of striking a school sheltering Palestinian civilians. The report draws information from both the allegation by the United Nations and the defence response from the Israeli defence forces. Notably, the report also highlights condemnation of the incident by other parties while concentrating on the tension build-up between Israelis and the U.S. regarding possible war crimes. According to U.N. officials, the IDF is violating the regulations that protect civilians during the war. On the other hand, the article also gives a detailed IDF side of the narrative, highlighting the likelihood of the Palestine militants near the scene of the incident. The article states, “Israel’s military initially released a statement describing the wider Khan Younis area as a base of Hamas fighters and acknowledged that fighting was taking place near large numbers of civilians.”
Typically, the Reuters article entails a neutral perspective narrating the occurrence of civilian casualties indicating the use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Even though the viewpoint seems to side with the Palestinian side, it also covers the IDF’s argument towards justifying their actions.
The third article is by Aljazeera titled ‘’Life draining out of Gaza – U.N. on aid attack,’’ by Federica Marsi, Usaid Siddiqui, Ali Harb and Brian Osgood, February 29, 2024.
The Aljazeera article focuses on the military manoeuvres in Gaza and openly condemns the actions of the IDF. Accordingly, the report highlights the impacts of the Israeli military on civilian life in the most populous region of the Middle East. Aljazeera’s perspective stresses destroying essential infrastructure such as hospitals, electricity, residential houses, and water supply. The articles argue that the actions of the IDF amount to the collective punishment of civilians in Gaza. The coverage brands Israeli forces as evil by focusing on actions such as airstrikes on residential areas. For instance, the article states, “More than 100 Palestinians were killed after Israeli soldiers and tanks fired on a crowd of thousands waiting for desperately needed food assistance.”
The article by Aljazeera reporters takes a condemnatory perspective on IDF’s advancement in Gaza. The approach pinpoints the offensive as an arbitrary bombardment resulting in a humanitarian crisis.
Comparatively, the articles’ perspectives vary and differ significantly. The NYT attempts to attain balance but fails significantly as the coverage openly rules out the possibility of negotiating with Palestine leadership. The report argues in favour of Western ideology, even calling for military aid from the U.S. to Israel (Jackson, 2024). This shows media bias. On the other hand, Reuters highlights the events, giving fair coverage, including Israel’s defence of the allegations against them. The report tends to provide balanced coverage based on objectivity and multiple coverage. The third article by Aljazeera covers the Palestinian point of view. The direct criticism of IDF’s campaign in Gaza only focuses on the affairs of the Palestinians but ignores the justification by Israel.
In my perspective, the violence in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine is due to the rigidity of both parties in negotiations. Concerning the attack on Israel’s civilians on October 7, the actions of Hamas were equivalent to terrorism. However, the bombardment of civilian residents in Gaza by the Israeli forces cannot be justified. Instead, I believe that establishing everlasting peace in the region demands the creation of a Palestinian state. A two-state solution is the most pragmatic since it would protect Palestinian rights. Therefore, parties should resume diplomacy through third-party mediation to agree on new sovereign boundaries.
Conclusively, the complexities around the Israeli-Arab conflict make it one of the most prolonged diplomatic issues globally. Notably, reconciliation efforts must consider the various perspectives surrounding the matter, even those covered by the media houses, oblivious to bias cases. For the sake of civilian rights, both Israel and Palestine must consider amicable diplomatic measures to frame a long-lasting solution that will ensure peace in the region.
References
Jackson, H. M. (2024). The New York Times distorts the Palestinian struggle: A case study of anti-Palestinian bias in U.S. news coverage of the First and Second Palestinian Intifadas. Media, War & Conflict, 17(1), 116-135. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/17506352231178148
Suwarno, S., & Sahayu, W. (2020). Palestine and Israel Representation in the National and International News Media: A Critical Discourse Study. Humaniora, 32(3), 217-225. https://journal.ugm.ac.id/jurnal-humaniora/article/view/52911
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/2/29/israels-war-on-gaza-live-mass-killing-of-children-in-slow-motion-ngo
write