Evolving Media Narratives: How News Framing Impacts Public Opinion on the Israel-Hamas Conflict

The decades-long conflict between Israel and Hamas has been heavily shaped by media representation and narratives on both sides. How the conflict as framed in global media impacts public opinion and diplomatic efforts. This article is an attempt to analyse the historical shifts in media narratives, the different frames applied, and the effects on public perception and international policy.

My interest in this topic has been motivated by the jingoistic coverage of the Israel-Hamas war seen on India’s television media which has sought to view the Israeli-Palestine conflict from their own biased prism of Hindu-Muslim perspective.

More on that sometime later…Meanwhile back to the subject of this article.

From Underdogs to Oppressors

The portrayal of the Israel-Hamas conflict in media has evolved significantly since the 1948 formation of Israel. Early Western media depicted Israel in a positive light as the underdog — a newly formed nation surrounded by hostile Arab neighbours.

This sympathetic narrative shifted after the 1967 Six-Day War when Israel gained control of the West Bank and Gaza. Global coverage became more critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. In the 1980s, American media developed a pronounced pro-Israel bias due to the Israel lobby and close U.S.-Israel ties. Meanwhile, Arab media demonized Israel and stirred anti-Semitic portrayals of Jews. Media biases solidified on both sides in subsequent decades. News outlets like Al Jazeera adopted pro-Palestinian frames while Western outlets frequently supported the Israeli perspective.

Defensive to Disproportionate

These opposing narratives continue today. Pro-Israel media justify military actions as self-defence against Hamas rocket fire. Pro-Palestinian media portray Israeli attacks as disproportionate, inhumane aggression toward oppressed civilians.

International media often counterbalances these biases but faces backlash for perceived favouritism from either side. Objective, neutral coverage remains a challenge.

The dominant frames applied to this conflict significantly impact public opinion. While, within Israel and Palestine, the media reinforces polarized views, outside observers tend to sympathize with the narrative they are most frequently exposed to.

Pro-Israel media has secured Western support, especially in America. However, globalization and social media have diversified information sources, allowing alternative Palestinian perspectives to gain more sympathy, particularly among younger generations.

While biased media coverage entrenches divisions on the ground, international policy is swayed by prevailing global narratives. The pro-Israel slant in American media translates into diplomatic support and substantial military aid. Meanwhile, growing sympathy for the Palestinian cause has led many countries to recognize Palestine as a state and provide humanitarian aid.

The fact remains, that a balanced media coverage that avoids polarized narratives could potentially facilitate more impartial policymaking, something that remains elusive.

However, shifts toward more nuanced global coverage have increasingly influenced international policy. Truly objective media representation remains difficult but vital for perceptions that recognize the complexities on both sides rather than contributing to unilateral blame.

The path forward lies in inclusive storytelling that humanizes victims and emphasizes shared goals of stability and coexistence.

Originally published in Diplomacy & Politics.