GAZA, (PIC)
Global media outlets have avoided using terms with legal connotations such as “occupation”, “war crime”, and “gross human violations” when talking about Israel’s violations against the Palestinians.
In contrast, they resort instead to expressions misleading to public opinion such as “operation”, “defense”, “imposing control”, “security measures”, and “counter-terrorism”, which reflects their adoption of an approach contrary to the truth when dealing with the Palestinian cause.
Although the core of the existing problem in Palestine is represented by Israel’s continuation of the policy of occupation since the year 1948, global media outlets have provided coverage that hides the reality of this occupation, which highlights how the Palestinian is represented in the Western media, and the references used in attempts to “whitewash” the reality of the occupation through employing terms contrary to the truth, according to a report published by Anatolia Agency.
Despite the existence of a clear practice of occupation and colonization in Palestine, these facts have been presented for long years in the international media and political discourse in neutral and misleading terms such as “problem”, “crisis”, “conflict”, or “issue.”
According to international law, the occupation of lands, killing of civilians, forcing their displacement, confiscating homes, demolishing workplaces, destroying agricultural lands, seizing livestock, imposing a siege on neighborhoods, and the systematic restriction of the movement of people, are actions classified as “occupation”, “ethnic cleansing”, and “apartheid”, rather, many international law experts and human rights organizations describe them as “genocide.”
In a report dated April 2, 2025, the American “CNN” network described Israel’s escalation of its attacks in the Gaza Strip as an “expansion of military operations”, and described its occupation of lands as “seizing them”, while the forced displacement of Palestinians was depicted as an “order to evacuate the area.”
Global media outlets also deliberately avoided using terms such as “occupation”, “attack”, “invasion”, “massacre”, “siege”, “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing”, and “apartheid”, when describing Israel’s practices in this regard, despite the fact that these concepts are an accurate legal and moral description of Israel’s actions.
For example, media reports revealed that the management of the American newspaper “The New York Times” imposed censorship on the use of terms such as “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing”, “occupied territories”, and “massacre” when describing Israel’s actions.
Furthermore, reports dealing with Israeli attacks and the Israeli occupation were presented as “operations”, “defense”, “security measures”, “imposing control”, and “counter-terrorism”, meaning legitimate, necessary, and indispensable security measures.
Although international law considers Israel an “occupying power” in Palestine, media institutions such as “BBC”, “CNN”, “The New York Times”, and “The Washington Post” often used expressions such as “areas controlled by Israel”, or “disputed territories”, or “areas in which Palestinians claim rights”, which is considered an avoidance of describing the reality of the occupation directly.
In this context, the British “BBC” network published a report dated August 27, 2024, titled “Israeli settlers seize Palestinian lands under the shadow of war and hope to settle in them permanently.”
The “BBC” report described the Israelis who seize Palestinian lands as “settlers”, while the process of occupying Palestinian lands was described as a “takeover” and “acquisition.”
In a related context, the “Associated Press” agency published a report dated February 3, 2026, about the Israeli occupation of lands in the West Bank, describing the matter as “Israeli measures aimed at strengthening control over the West Bank.”
With this terminology, “Associated Press” has lessened the real impact of the occupation in the West Bank through concepts that ease the severity of the matter, through its use of terms such as “control” and “measures.”
Similar media outlets also depicted Israel as “the only secular democratic state in the Middle East”, while presenting the Israeli army as a “defense force.”
Among other examples of the unrealistic and misleading handling by global media outlets regarding the Palestinian issue is their description of Israeli assaults and attacks on Palestinians as “tension”, and calling the occupation of their lands an “acquisition” and “takeover.”
Moreover, Western media outlets often deliberately describe Israel’s practices against the Palestinians as “retaliation”, while depicting the actions of Palestinians or other parties in the region as an “attack”, “provocations”, or a “hostile act.”
According to studies and investigative reports in this regard, the term “retaliation” was used in about 79 percent of media coverage in the United States and Britain to describe Israel’s actions, while the same term was used in only nine percent in news dealing with the actions and practices of the Palestinians.
With this, Israeli attacks are presented under the name of “retaliation” to suggest that they are a “legitimate” and “necessary” response.
Likewise, Western media outlets resort, in their news coverage related to the Palestinian cause, to the expression “both sides” repeatedly, which creates a false impression of neutrality.
This discourse puts Israel and the Palestinian people, submissive under occupation, on an equal footing, which hides the reality of structural asymmetry, blurs the reality of the occupation, and prevents the public from understanding the true context of events accurately.
Regarding the Israeli war of genocide against the Gaza Strip, Western media outlets repeatedly used the description “Israel – Hamas war”, to contribute to creating an impression that Israel is engaged in a confrontation only with Hamas Movement, ignoring the reality that the Israeli attacks extend to include the entire Palestinian people.
Also, presenting Hamas Movement, which is a resistance movement that arose in the context of the occupation, as if it were a “state” or a party similar to Israel, led to consolidating a false perception of the existence of two equal parties in terms of power and legitimacy, despite the large structural difference between an occupying power or an occupying state, and a people living under occupation.