Author: Ceren Kale, Ankara University – Korean Language and Literature Graduate of 2024
TO THE POINT
The Israel-Gaza conflict offers a stark example of how media narratives play a defining role in influencing international perspectives and shaping the legal understanding of warfare. The events that began on 7 October 2023, when Hamas carried out a multifaceted operation involving rockets and incursions into southern Israel, led to a prolonged and forceful military campaign by Israel targeting Gaza. Media interpretations of these developments have varied significantly depending on geopolitical orientation. Western outlets have predominantly presented Israel’s response as lawful self-defense, often referencing Article 51 of the UN Charter. In contrast, non-Western coverage has highlighted the humanitarian crisis and raised legal concerns under international humanitarian law, frequently citing provisions from the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute.
The legal framing of Israeli actions has become a key point of contention. Although Western media often justify military operations as necessary responses to terrorism, the scale of destruction and civilian suffering in Gaza has prompted increasing criticism. Some analysts and observers now refer to the situation as an egregious case of forced displacement and targeted demographic restructuring. One significant exception to the prevailing Western media tone occurred with the extensive reporting on the ICC’s decision to issue arrest warrants—dated 21 November 2024—for Israeli leaders Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, citing suspected war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Nevertheless, dominant media in the West continue to obscure questions of culpability. The patterns in coverage mirror those seen during the U.S. invasion of Iraq, where claims of self-defense and national security overshadowed the human impact of military campaigns. Presenting Israel’s actions as counterterrorism efforts without sufficient legal scrutiny tends to diminish public concern for Palestinian civilian suffering and complicates accountability efforts within international legal forums.
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the contrasting approaches taken by Western and non-Western media in their coverage of the conflict in Gaza. It focuses on how international legal terminology, selective language choices, and political interests inform these narratives. Through the lens of international humanitarian law, framing theory, and jurisprudence, the article dissects how key legal concepts are invoked—or ignored—by different media systems. Ultimately, the analysis calls for legally informed and balanced journalism that recognizes the gravity of war crimes and the ethical responsibilities of reporting in conflict zones.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
The way legal terminology is employed in media coverage can significantly affect public interpretations of armed conflict. Western media often reference Article 51 of the UN Charter, citing Israel’s right to self-defense in response to Hamas’s attacks. However, this justification tends to neglect the principle of proportionality as detailed in Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. This provision prohibits operations in which civilian harm is excessive compared to the anticipated military advantage.
Non-Western media, by contrast, frequently utilize terminology such as “collective punishment” (Article 33, Fourth Geneva Convention), “ethnic cleansing,” and “war crimes” (Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute). These terms redirect the narrative from the language of state security to one of human rights violations and accountability.
Legal framing also affects how audiences understand core principles of international law, such as jus ad bellum (the justification for the use of force) and jus in bello (the conduct of hostilities). Western narratives often emphasize sovereignty and national security, while many non-Western perspectives interpret IHL as a universally applicable standard that overrides political alignment.
Another dimension of legal language involves the classification of actors. In Western narratives, Hamas is commonly labeled as a “terrorist organization,” a term used by various national governments. While this label is not inherently inaccurate, its frequent use can overshadow legal assessments of conduct by both parties. Non-Western media often omit this designation, instead concentrating on state behavior and the imbalance of power. This difference in terminology influences the framing of civilian status, military targets, and proportionality.
Terms like “human shields” are often highlighted in Western reporting to rationalize attacks that result in civilian casualties. While the use of human shields is outlawed by customary international law and specifically mentioned in Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) of the Rome Statute, this defense is seldom balanced by a discussion of whether alternative precautions were taken. In contrast, non-Western sources tend to question whether such attacks comply with Article 57 of Additional Protocol I, which obliges all parties to minimize harm to civilian populations.
The variance in how legal language is adopted reflects not only editorial biases but also differing interpretations of international obligations, ultimately shaping how conflict-related actions are perceived and judged on the world stage.
THE PROOF
The military campaign launched by Hamas on 7 October 2023 involved a combination of missile strikes, ground operations, and hostage-taking. This escalation prompted an extensive response from Israel, lasting over a year and involving airstrikes, blockades, and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. While many governments and media organizations condemned the Hamas attack as a form of terrorism, Israel’s military actions were met with divided coverage, particularly concerning their legality and humanitarian impact.
Major Western outlets, such as CNN and The New York Times, predominantly framed Israeli operations as defensive reactions. Headlines frequently used terms like “response” or “retaliation,” thereby framing Israel as a party acting under duress. Palestinian casualties were often described using passive constructions—for example, “Gazans died” or “bodies discovered”—which distanced the coverage from clear attribution of responsibility. In contrast, Israeli victims were often identified by name, with accompanying stories about their personal lives and grieving families.
Media organizations from outside the Western sphere, such as Al Jazeera and TRT World, emphasized the humanitarian consequences in Gaza. Reports detailed the targeting of schools, healthcare facilities, residential areas, and refugee shelters. These narratives frequently invoked legal standards outlined in Articles 48 and 51 of Additional Protocol I, along with war crimes statutes in the Rome Statute.
The International Criminal Court’s decision in November 2024 to issue arrest warrants for Israeli officials was widely reported. However, the emphasis varied: Western media often centered on the geopolitical controversy surrounding ICC jurisdiction, while non-Western outlets focused on the implications for justice and civilian protection.
An analysis by the Media Reform Coalition (2023) found that over 70% of major Western media reports avoided using terms like “occupation” and “blockade,” despite both being legally defined conditions under international law. In contrast, non-Western reporting consistently integrated these terms into their coverage. A study by Youmans (2024) further revealed that although Palestinian fatalities significantly outnumbered Israeli ones, coverage in Western media disproportionately emphasized Israeli losses. Additionally, emotive terms such as “slaughter” or “massacre” were primarily reserved for Israeli deaths, contributing to an asymmetrical portrayal of suffering.
FRAMING AND STRUCTURAL BIAS
Framing theory, as articulated by Robert Entman (1993), emphasizes that the presentation of information significantly shapes audience interpretations. In reporting on the Gaza conflict, media outlets in Western contexts often present the situation through a security-oriented frame that positions Israel as a democratic state responding to militant threats. In contrast, media from non-Western regions tend to adopt a framework rooted in human rights discourse, highlighting the humanitarian consequences and alleged violations of international law.
This divergence in perspective is not incidental but systemic. Institutional media in many Western democracies often mirror state foreign policy orientations. Wolfsfeld (1997) described mainstream media as arenas where dominant narratives are repeated and validated. This pattern emerges in the deliberate selection of sources, framing of events, and frequent absence of historical context, which collectively reinforce prevailing political ideologies.
Framing also contributes to constructing group identities and perceptions of moral legitimacy. According to Snow and Benford (1988), frames are central to mobilizing collective action by establishing a shared sense of injustice and collective responsibility. In this case, the frequent exclusion of Palestinian perspectives and the abstract language used to describe their suffering contribute to a process of dehumanization. Roland Barthes (1972) referred to this phenomenon as modern mythology—a mechanism through which dominant worldviews become normalized, and dissenting narratives are marginalized.
A notable development occurred in November 2023 when over 750 American journalists issued an open letter critiquing U.S. media organizations for insufficient representation of Palestinian voices and for downplaying Israeli breaches of international law (Wagner & Sommer, 2023). This internal critique marked a rare moment of institutional self-reflection and suggested a potential shift in professional norms regarding conflict coverage.
This conflict has also been characterized by unprecedented real-time exposure through digital platforms. Despite an abundance of visual evidence documenting destruction and civilian casualties in Gaza, major news organizations in several Western nations—excluding some like Norway, Spain, Ireland, and Malta—have refrained from explicitly identifying legal breaches. Elshaik et al. (2023) refer to this dynamic as “denial amid digital witnessing,” highlighting the contradiction between observable atrocities and editorial restraint.
CASE LAWS
- Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, ICJ Advisory Opinion (2004):
- Determined that the erection of the barrier and its related components violated principles of international law.
- Often cited by non-Western media to illustrate the illegality of Israeli occupation practices.
- Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC (2012):
- Recognized the enlistment of children and attacks on civilians as war crimes.
- Serves as a reference point for assessing violations related to civilian targeting in Gaza.
- Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel, Israeli Supreme Court (2004):
- Applied proportionality within the context of national security measures.
- Often cited in Western discourse to demonstrate internal legal checks in Israel.
- Prosecutor v. Omar Al-Bashir, ICC (2009):
- Reinforced that even sitting heads of state can be held accountable for crimes against humanity.
- Used symbolically in discussions surrounding Israeli leadership and international law.
- Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, ECtHR:
- Determined that indiscriminate air assaults violated civilian protections under human rights law.
- Cited in legal critiques of attacks on non-military infrastructure in Gaza.
- International Criminal Court Arrest Warrants (2024):
- Issued against Israeli officials for suspected war crimes and crimes against humanity.
- Marked a pivotal moment for legal accountability, though media reactions varied considerably.
CONCLUSION
The war in Gaza presents more than a diplomatic and humanitarian emergency—it serves as a critical test of the international community’s commitment to the principles of international law and ethical journalism. The role of the media in either reinforcing or challenging dominant legal interpretations is essential in shaping global understanding and potential avenues for accountability.
Western media, through selective framing and linguistic choices, have often failed to convey the full legal and humanitarian scope of the conflict. This narrative imbalance risks distorting international responses and weakening the credibility of justice mechanisms. By contrast, although non-Western outlets are not without bias, they have frequently offered a more comprehensive account of the legal dimensions and the human cost of warfare.
For journalism to fulfill its democratic mandate, particularly during armed conflict, it must be anchored in legal accuracy, historical awareness, and respect for human dignity. A commitment to informed, transparent, and ethically grounded reporting is essential not only for public enlightenment but also for the preservation of justice in times of crisis.
FAQs
Q1. How does legal framing influence public understanding of conflict?
A: Legal framing determines whether military operations are viewed as lawful defense or potential violations, shaping both societal attitudes and political outcomes.
Q2. What does the principle of proportionality mean in international humanitarian law?
A: The principle of proportionality prohibits military actions in which the expected harm to civilians would be excessive compared to the anticipated military benefit. Ignoring this balance can lead to classification of the act as a war crime under the Rome Statute.
Q3. Are journalists subject to legal standards during conflict reporting?
A: While not directly governed by IHL, journalists must adhere to codes of ethics, national defamation laws, and, where applicable, regulations against incitement or hate speech.
Q4. Can biased reporting be legally challenged?
A: Legal options are limited and vary by jurisdiction, but accountability can be pursued through press councils, public advocacy, and internal media reviews.
Q5. Why are certain narratives more prevalent in Western media coverage?
A: Dominant narratives often reflect the influence of national foreign policy, corporate ownership, editorial norms, and systemic media biases that prioritize particular geopolitical viewpoints.
