Portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian
Conflict in Regional Media
Analysis of the use of framing in media coverage in Al Jazeera and
Times of Israel of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from 2019-2024
Jordan Leclint
_________________________________________________________________
Examensarbete: 15hp
Programme and course: Statsvetarprogrammet, SK1523
Level: Undergraduate
Term and year: HT 2024
Supervisor: Sindre Gade Vikstrand
Word Count: 10569
2
Abstract
This paper studies and analyzes how casualties of war/killing are framed in regional media
outlets in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from 2019-2024. With this study I will use a
catalog of 10 articles from Al Jazeera and 10 from Times of Israel to analyze which framing
methods are more prominent in the media outlets, and the different ways these framing devices
are used. This analysis is conducted by using a qualitative analysis method, and using a coding
frame inspired by the operationalization method of Mohammed ElMasry (2009). The framing
analysis of the sample articles found that both news outlets primarily condemned the other. On
the one hand, Times of Israel primarily framed the Gazan factions as criminals. On the other
hand, Al Jazeera primarily focused on humanizing the victims of the Israeli attacks. There is
also an analysis of how these framing devices are used. During my analysis I also explored that
Times of Israel primarily uses the framing of criminality to justify the actions against the
Gazan factions, and to justify the actions of the military. Moreover, Al Jazeera uses humanizing
framing to counter the Israeli narratives.
Keywords: Framing, Israeli, Palestinian, Media, Al Jazeera, Times of Israel, Prominence
3
Table of Contents:
1. Introduction 4
2. Literature Review 6
2.1. Literature Regarding Media Framing in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 6
2.2. Framing of Killing in Media 7
3. Theoretical Approach 9
3.1. Framing Theory 9
3.2. Legitimation 10
4. Specified Aim and Research Question 12
5. Research Design and Methods 13
5.1. Methodology 13
5.2. Coding Frame and Operationalization 14
5.2.1. Definitions of the Coding Expressions 17
5.2.2. Validity 18
5.3. Data Collection Method 18
5.3.1. Choice of Sources 19
6. Data Collection and Results 20
6.1. Summary of Data Collection of Chosen Articles 20
6.2. Analysis of Prominence in News Framing 29
6.3. Analysis of Different Uses of Prominent Framing Indicators 33
6.3.1. Times of Israel Framing of Gazan Factions 33
6.3.2. Al Jazeera Framing of Israeli Actions 35
7. Conclusion 37
8. Bibliography 38
9. Appendix 43
4
1. Introduction
Media coverage has been a key factor within the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conflict
is undoubtedly one of the most complex in modern times, and many articles have been written
about it over the years in countless media sources. However, media outlets are often criticized
for a lack of critical and objective perspective, or favoring one side over the other. Not only
regional media outlets are accused of being biased and unobjective, but also western media
outlets are accused of the same thing. Needless to say, western media outlets has been heavily
criticized for being biased and impartial, and there are several empirical studies conducted on
this topic to support this narrative. However, as of the time of writing, there seems to be a lack
of studies conducted about news sources from Israel and the rest of the Middle East about their
portrayal of the conflict. With this in mind, I decided to pursue the study of articles from this
region, with the intent of filling this research gap, which is the study of media framing in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In my study, I will use a catalog of articles from Al Jazeera and
Times of Israel, which are two international regional sources.
Furthermore, this study will focus on the articles framing on the use of deadly violence in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, from both sides. Death is a recurring theme, and topic of discussion
in the majority of the articles I have read prior to my research from both sides. In addition, one
of my primary sources is a research paper of media framing of killing by ElMasry (2009),
which provides an insight into how this topic can be analysed. With this in mind, I decided to
focus on the portrayal of the killing and deadly violence specifically within the regional news
sources such as Al Jazeera and Times of Israel.
Additionally, this study will use a catalog of 10 articles from Al Jazeera and Times of Israel,
and analyse how they frame the killing. Moreover, these articles will be used in my study as a
snapshot of the portrayal of killing in this conflict. My study focuses on articles made in the
past five years. This is in order to analyse a wider range of different subject matters related to
the conflict from both sides, and how killing on different occasions is portrayed by the regional
news outlets. I will be conducting my analysis using a qualitative method analysis of the
5
articles, where I will be using a coding frame that is intended to analyse forms of framing
related to killing within armed conflicts.
To conclude, the aim of my study is to explore and analyse how the regional media sources
have portrayed killing and deadly violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from 2019 to
2024. Additionally, to gain an understanding of how these sources, that are more regional to
the conflict, portray deadly violence of both sides. Moreover, this study will analyse the
framing devices that are more prominent in the articles in regards to killing. This is in order to
have a clearer understanding of how killing is predominantly portrayed through framing in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict from regional news outlets in the last five years.
6
2. Literature Review
Many different studies have been conducted about the media framing of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. These studies cover a range of different news outlets from several regions in the
world, and those different studies and research have also covered many different time periods.
After all, this is a very popular topic of research, as a simple Google search would find
hundreds of scholarly articles analysing media framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Additionally, I will explore the literature surrounding this topic, and what previous studies have
focused on, and then discuss what I will be contributing with my study to the research field.
2.1. Literature Regarding Media Framing in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Within my research into the topic, I found out that several research papers were published in
the last year, as of the time of writing in November 2024. In other words, it seems that
analysing media framing has become more common in relation to the onset of the ongoing
2023 Gaza War, and how the conflict has become a focal point of media discourse. Many
articles regarding this topic have focused on different western media's framing of the conflict
(Nystedt, 2024). Moreover, how media outlets from countries such as Sweden and Germany
have framed the conflict (Hoare and Ziegler, 2024; Asmus, 2024), and some have focused on
media framing from social media (Taylor, 2024). They all contribute in different ways to the
furthering of this academic field, which this study aims to further improve.
An inspirational article in regards to how I should approach my research was e.g Asmus
(2024), who analysed the German articles while presenting them in a table format and grouping
the categories she used for her content analysis, which I found would fit for summarizing my
coding frame for my own analysis. Many of the other articles helped with specific structural
choices of how a study such as this should be laid out. Warshagha et al. (2024) does a
comparative analysis between the Washington Post and Al Jazeera, and analyses how they
frame the conflict in order to stir public sentiment, which was similar enough to my study
where I decided to source some structural elements from it (Warshagha et al, 2024). The
articles mentioned above also helped identify the research gap that my analysis would
contribute to the wider field of research into the topic of analysis of media framing in this
specific context. However, as will be evident in later chapters, another article I found
7
informational and inspirational when conducting this study, which I wish to further elaborate
on.
2.2. Framing of Killing in Media
The scholarly article that helped inspire my article the most is ElMasry’s (2009) article named
Death in the Middle East: An Analysis of How the New York Times and Chicago Tribune
Framed Killings in the Second Palestinian Intifada. It played a significant role in narrowing
my research scope from a more general analysis of the portrayal/framing of war in the media,
to focusing on how killing is framed by the media. It also strongly influenced the analytical
direction of my study, as the framing devices and theoretical framework used is the same as the
one of ElMasry, in order to adapt his operationalization method. However, many adjustments
were made from his work to mine, as there are specific design choices in his articles that I was
unable to adapt, or that I did not feel was suitable for my study to adapt.
Firstly, my analytical method is a qualitative content analysis, which is already different from
ElMasry’s more data driven quantitative content analysis. This made more specialized
analytical components he used for his analysis redundant in mine, such as the statistical
analysis. Moreover, his coding sheet for analysing indicators was specialised for his analysis of
articles from the time period of 2000-2002, which are unusable for my analysis. I also decided
that it was not beneficial to use a coding sheet, due to easier and just as effective analytical
focuses being available.
Secondly, his articles are sampled by ‘death days’, where the three categories for the 2 year
period were ‘Palestinian only’ death days, ‘Israeli only’ death days, and ‘both’ death days
(ElMasry, 2009: 19). This did not make much sense to use for my research, as this sample
method required a larger sample of articles. Moreover, this also served ElMasry’s specific
analytical direction, which is different from mine.
Additionally, the final key change was the omission of the third analytical component for
legitimation/de-legitimation; prominence. While justification and condemnation remain highly
relevant analytical components to my research direction, prominence as a framing indicator is
8
not as relevant to my research as it was to ElMasry. Prominence was used by ElMasry to
analyse what point of view is expressed more clearly in the news coverage. This made sense
for his article of analysing American news outlets, where the focus was “to find out what
framing devices the papers used to express pro-Israeli bias” (ElMasry, 2009: 32). However, this
is not what I am analysing, or intend to discuss in any substantial depth as my research is
intended to be descriptive, and focusing on two regional news outlets, an Israeli one and a
pro-Palestinian’s Middle Eastern one. Therefore, this analytical unit was omitted.
Finally, the difference in analytical direction, as well as the analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict in mine and El-Masry’s article will naturally provide different insights. ElMasry’s
article was published in 2009, with his text samples being from the time period of 2000-2002.
This means that his body of work is approximately 20 years old. Since then, there has been
significant development. In 2002, the dynamics of the conflict were very different. For
example, the key player of modern Palestinian politics, especially in Gaza, Hamas, had not yet
been elected to power in the Gaza Strip. Therefore, a reexamining of the media portrayal of
killing is important in order to update the research into this field. Furthermore, a key focus of
ElMasry’s research was to analyse how the American news outlets New York Times and the
Chicago Tribune framed the killing in the conflict before and after September 11 2001. As far
as my analysis is concerned, analysing tendencies of news reporting during or after a certain
period is not a primary concern. Additionally, my analysis deals with articles more regional to
the conflict; Al Jazeera and Times of Israel, with a different analytical angle.
9
3. Theoretical Approach
In this section I will be going over the main theoretical framework that will work in the
background of the research and analysis. When considering theories for explaining media
portrayal of conflicts, the most relevant theory to use would be the framing theory. As well as
that, I will also be discussing the concept of legitimation, as the coding frame and the analysis
of framing will include mentions of legitimation and de-legitimation, as well as their
counterparts of justification and condemnation. Therefore, providing a conceptual
understanding of this would be beneficial. These theoretical components will later be applied
to analyse the use of framing in the articles written by Al Jazeera and Times of Israel regarding
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
3.1. Framing Theory
When framing is brought up, it can refer to either the media frame or the individual frame
(Gamson & Modigliani, 1987). For the purposes of this study, when mentioning framing, it is
exclusively in reference to media framing. A media frame refers to the “words, images,
phrases, and presentation styles that a speaker (e.g. a media outlet) uses when relaying
information about an issue or event to an audience” (Gamson & Modigliani, 1987). Scheufele
(1999) expands on media framing by highlighting the concept of frame building. Frame
building refers to the dynamics of how speakers such as media outlets choose specific frames.
These frames can be affected by a variety of internal factors such as journalistic norms,
organizational policies, and routines within media organizations. Moreover, external factors
can also affect the frame building, such as social movements, political actors, public relations
campaigns, and economic pressures (Scheufele, 1999).
The chosen frame reveals what the speaker sees as relevant to the topic at hand (Chong and
Druckman, 2007: 100). This indicates that analysing what the ‘speaker’ is emphasizing in the
writing, reveals how they wish to frame the events. In the context of the portrayal of killing in
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by my chosen news outlets, the choice of how the speaker
frames the event reveals what aspects of the deaths should be focused on. Relevant examples
of what the speaker might focus on would include questions like: Were the deadly actions
proportional? Who were the people who committed the killing?
10
In ElMasry (2009), it is further elaborated on that media framing suggests that the way
information is packaged and presented can define problems and issues and provide coherence
and meaning for communication receivers, manifest content is given meaning and coherence
through framing. Framing is described as a process that plays itself out through the use of
various textual devices such as metaphors, catchphrases, associations, depictions, placement
and repetition (Entman, 1993 in ElMasry, 2009: 9). It is also suggested that frames have at least
four locations in the communication process; the communicator, the text, the receiver, and the
culture. Due to the nature of the analysis as a content analysis, the location that will be focused
on is the text. Regarding text, Entman states that it “contains frames, which are manifested by
the presence or absence of certain keywords, stock phrases, stereotyped images, sources of
information, and sentences” (Entman, 1993 in ElMasry, 2009: 9).
Taking into consideration that a text is considered the cornerstone of producing any media
framing. In my study, I will not only explore solely the texts and use of certain keywords, but
also the other framing techniques such as pictures, videos, and ambiguous language.
As Entman indicates, they are part of the larger framing process (ElMasry, 2009: 9).
3.2. Legitimation
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, being legitimate refers to “accordant with law or
with established legal forms and requirements”, for example a legitimate government
(Merriam-Webster, n.d). ElMasry refers to legitimation in similar ways, where legitimation is
in reference to “the act of making something valid, justifiable, reasonable and right” (ElMasry,
2009: 10). He elaborates on what constitutes de-legitimation, which refers to as “to suggest that
something is evil, criminal and unacceptable” (ElMasry, 2009: 10). Therefore, it is through
legitimation and de-legitimation that different media outlets will decide the level of objectivity
and biases about different conflict events.
By, for example, referring to a freedom fighter as a terrorist, or vice versa, that will function to
legitimize or de-legitimize a person of the group. Thus, the language and the rhetoric is vital in
framing the conflict in articles. There are instances where writing regarding people being killed
11
being framed as for example “genocide” and “atroicity”, where another article may frame it as
“collateral damage” or as part of self-defense or defense of the homeland and its people.
Therefore, the media has the power to legitimate or de-legitimate serious events in dramatic
and different ways, depending on the way it frames it.
12
4. Specified Aim and Research Question
Prior to introducing the research design and the analysis, it is important to emphasize what
specifically my thesis is attempting to accomplish. As my work is descriptive in nature, my
main aim is to examine and understand how two regionally based and internationally broadcast
news outlets from each conflict party, Al Jazeera and Times of Israel, most prominently frame
the conflict, and how they may differ in their framing of killing in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, using the available evidence from my sample articles. The research questions that my
thesis explores will be the following:
1. What framing methods for killings are most prominently used in the articles?
2. What are the main differences in the use of these framing devices by the two regional
media outlets?
These two research questions interrelate and aim to give the reader a better insight into the
concept of framing methods and devices. Due to the use of the word prominently in my
research question, I find it relevant to define it for the purpose of clarity. The definition of
prominence means “standing out so as to be seen easily; particularly noticeable”
(Dictionary.com, n.d). To rephrase, the analysis of prominence of framing is essentially trying
to figure out which form of framing stands out the most from the articles in their portrayal of
the conflict.
13
5. Research Design and Methods
In this chapter I will be going through the research design and method I have chosen. I will be
discussing in more depth the methodology used, and which analytical approach I used to
conduct the analysis. I will provide an in-depth description of the coding frame, and discuss
what will be measured, how it will be measured, and through what mechanisms I will be using
to ensure that the analysis remains objective, and is possible to be used for future studies. I will
also provide an overview and discussion of my data collection. Finally, I will detail why I
chose to focus on Al Jazeera and Times of Israel, and what methods I used in order to find the
articles.
5.1. Methodology
The method that I will be using for analysing the articles will be a qualitative content analysis.
A qualitative content analysis is a form of content analysis which includes more complex
interpretations of texts that can only be done by humans, and that can systematically describe
the contents of the qualitative data by categorising parts of the material with a coding frame
(Boreus and Kohl, 2018: 50-51). Many different elements of the texts can be measured or
counted, for example the appearance of certain words, expressions or portrayals, metaphors or
certain forms of argumentation (Boreus and Kohl, 2018: 51). Content analysis is useful for
finding patterns in larger samples of text, and has many different purposes such as determining
if news reporting is partial or impartial, or how the news reporting communicates certain
events (Boreus and Kohl, 2018: 51-54). As this work is aiming to analyse the portrayal of
killing in media, it is a necessity that there is a human understanding of the definitions and the
theory that is involved in determining and assessing how the news articles portray killing in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I will be making use of a coding frame for my research design, which is inspired by
Mohammed ElMasry’s (2009) operationalisation method. Coding frames conducted as a part of
qualitative content analysis are typically done manually, as manual coding makes it possible to
conduct more complicated assessments and interpretations of texts (Boreus and Kohl, 2018:
58). In making a coding frame for a content analysis, there needs to be something that can be
measured. These are called recording units. These can consist of anything that can be
14
differentiated in different forms of texts (Boreus and Kohl, 2018: 59). My coding frame is
looking for certain keywords and discussions in the articles that are associated with the
sampling units. The sampling units (which in the future will be referred to as framing
indicators or devices) come in the form of the framing indicators for legitimation (justification)
/de-legitimation (condemnation), and these are used to determine the nature of how the news
articles frame killing.
The coding frame needs to be used consequently. This means that if two different samples of
articles are compared, then it is important that these are assessed in the exact same way
(Boreus and Kohl, 2018: 61). To accomplish this I will be making use of double coding.
Double coding means to organise the order of which the texts are analysed, to minimise
systematic inadvertent sliding in the assessment of the articles. Systematic sliding entails that
over time texts may be assessed differently (Boreus and Kohl, 2018: 62). Textens Mening och
Makt mentions that one should begin by working on a few texts from one of the samples, then
move over to a few texts from the other sample. This way the sliding has less of an impact on
the results gathered, as if there is any sliding it will affect both samples equally in theory
(Boreus and Kohl, 2018: 62).
The book also makes mention of four different strategies of reading and interpreting texts;
interpreter oriented, sender oriented, receiver oriented, and discourse oriented. I have chosen
to work with the interpreter oriented strategy. This strategy focuses on the meaning of the text
from the perspective of the person analysing the text. A way of using this strategy is when the
analyser uses specific tools or interpretations for a certain purpose that would be unknown to
the sender and recipient of the texts being analysed (Boreus and Bergström, 2018: 31-32).
Based on what has previously been discussed about how I am planning to analyse the portrayal
of killing in the media through a descriptive qualitative content analysis, this is deemed as the
most suitable strategy for interpreting the articles.
5.2. Coding Frame and Operationalisation
The coding frame will analyse the articles based on two main forms of
legitimation/de-legitimation; justification, condemnation. ElMasry labels justification as a form
15
of legitimation, and condemnation as a form of de-legitimation (ElMasry, 2009: 10). As
previously mentioned, legitimation refers to the act of making something; in this context
violent acts, valid, justifiable, reasonable and right, and to condemn is to suggest that
something is evil, criminal and unacceptable (ElMasry, 2009: 9-10). In this viewpoint, it is
through legitimation and de-legitimation that the media present favorable or unfavorable views
about people and events. My coding frame will include a table of the 10 Al Jazeera articles,
and one of the 10 Times of Israel articles. In these tables I will include the numbers of the
articles, which will be used for referencing the articles in future discussion. I will also be
including the name of the article, and have two columns dedicated to the justification and
condemnation that the article uses. I will also have a column outlining the date of publication
of each article.
I will highlight all the indicators present in the articles regarding justification and
condemnation, and rank the indicators from one to four for which I perceive is the most
prominent (1) to the least prominent (4) in the article. This is based on how important and
emphasized this framing device is in the article, and will be further developed in section 6.2.
Some key words I will use to indicate the prominence in each framing indicator in the coding
frame will be “extensive”, “frequent/detailed”, “some” or “brief”, where extensive is most
prominent and brief is least prominent. A framing indicator being used “extensively”, and is
heavily emphasized as a key part of the article, it will be labeled as 1. A framing indicator
being used “frequently/detailed”, in that it is often mentioned, emphasized and repeated, it will
be given a 2. If a framing is “sometimes” used, and is not deemed to be an important part to the
overall framing of the article, it will be given a 3. If a framing device is being used “briefly”
and is not important to the articles framing of the killing, it will be labeled a 4. A framing
indicator will be not be mentioned in regards to the article in the coding frame if at least one of
the three criteria are met:
1. It does not feature at all in the article.
2. Any statements relevant to a framing indicator are directly contradicted or explicitly
dismissed in the article.
16
3. If an article uses a framing device equally for both sides’ without any further elaboration. An
article is deemed to treat both sides equally if, for example, both sides have one citation from a
spokesperson each with similar length with no added commentary by the journalist.
If I discover any ambiguity in choosing the indicators, or which indicator that may have been
left out for whatever reason, it will be given as an asterisk* and I will be discussing the
ambiguity in the appendices.
Below is an example of how the coding frame would look for a hypothetical article, where I
include some abridged notes about the use of each framing device and their prominence
ranked. Italics indicate how much I deem that they have featured, and the underline indicates
the basis of how I determined that the article used this framing device. How these framing
devices are understood is developed in the following subchapter.
# Article Name Justification Condemnation Date
1 Example: Israel 2. Self-Defense: Frequent mention of 2. Humanization: Frequent mention of 1 Jan
bombing kills 50 preemptive defensive actions death tolls and people affected by the 2019
people in Gaza undertaken to prevent harm. attacks
3. Explicit Rationale: Some mention 2. Aggression: Frequent mention of Israel
of neutralising Hamas’ fighting “attacking” Gaza.
capability. 3. Cruelty: Some mentions of “complete
4. War/Battle: Brief mentions of and violent repression”, “discriminatory
operations and military targets. practices”
3. Criminality: Some use of terms such
as “genocide”, “massacre” to describe
Israeli attacks.
17
5.2.1. Definitions of the Coding Expressions
Justification is a form of framing which is used to legitimize the actions of the party in
discussion. This framing includes four key indicators that are used to analyse legitimation of
the article: Self-Defense, War/Battle, Explicit Rationale, and Accident. Firstly, self-defense is a
form of framing where an article would portray that someone needed to kill in order to prevent
harm from being inflicted upon him/herself or others (ElMasry, 2009: 11). This is typically
seen in writing that references one party attacking first, and that the other party is “responding”
or “defending” themselves against the violence. Secondly, mention of War/Battle is an implicit
way of legitimizing the actions, as killings are mostly considered as an inevitable consequence
of an engagement between two equal parties (ElMasry, 2009: 11-12). The mention of wars,
operations, military targets or mention of engagements in the context of killing is a strong
indication of using this framing method. Thirdly, explicit rationale refers to highlighting a
specific reasoning behind why an operation leading to death was carried out. Providing the
explicit rationale for the killing frames it as something conducted through a planned operation,
and in many cases serves to justify the actions (ElMasry, 2009: 13). Finally, accident is a form
of framing where killings are justified under the notion that these consequences were
unintentional, or that innocents were killed as a consequence of killing, trying to kill, or
striking a key target (ElMasry, 2009: 13).
In addition, condemnation refers to the explicit or implicit declaration that something is wrong
and unacceptable (ElMasry, 2009: 14). Similarly to justification, it also has 4 main indicators.
These include: Aggression, Criminality, Cruelty and Humanization.
To start with, aggression is a form of condemnation where killing is framed and characterised
as being committed with unnecessary initiation of hostilities for no stated reason (ElMasry,
2009: 14). Key words such as stating that one party began the “attack”, “bombing” or other
hostile actions indicates the use of aggression. Moreover, framing killing as an act of
criminality represents a powerful form of de-legitimation as criminal actions are denounced
heavily. ElMasry believes that the framing of criminality can be seen in terms of word
selection, such as when articles refer to certain actors as “terrorists”, “extremists” or
“fundamentalists” (ElMasry, 2009: 14). Moreover, descriptions such as for example
18
“occupation” or “illegal settlements” and references to other inherent acts of criminality can
frame a party or actions as criminal. Furthermore, the media can also condemn killings and
killers by attributing it as an act of cruelty. This is often seen through key use of terminology
with connotations to cruel and excessive violence and killing, such as “savage”, “barbaric”,
and “massacre” (ElMasry, 2009: 14). Moreover, in more recent times, terms with historical
connotations have been more frequently used in reference to the conflict such as “genocide”,
“apartheid” or “coloniser”, that invoke the same form of framing. Finally, the articles may also
de-legitimise and condemn killing by humanizing the people killed by one of the parties in the
conflict. Providing more details about the data regarding people killed, including the name,
age, family, or even more in-depth such as hobbies or occupation can implicitly condemn the
killers as it highlights the humanity in the deceased people and generates sympathy for the ones
affected by the killers.
5.2.2. Validity
As previously covered in chapter 2.2, there are aspects from ElMasry’s coding, focus, and
analysis that are removed or adjusted from my work to his. With that being said, there is not a
fundamental difference in my work and the work of ElMasry. The key components of the
coding frame remain the same, and the definitions of the indicators were not changed outside
of adding a few more keywords, and I am making use of the same theoretical framework that
ElMasry was. Therefore, the analytical component that I am using remains a tried and tested
method which yielded results in previous work, and is also grounded on methodological
frameworks which are mentioned in academic books, as covered in section 5.1.
5.3. Data Collection Method
The data used for this research are the following. The primary source is the 20 articles from Al
Jazeera and Times of Israel, which I found by using the Google search engine, using a simple
random sampling method. A simple random sampling method is in this case choosing a sample
of texts in a random way where each article has an equal chance of being chosen as the other
(Vitter, 1985: 37). As I have no way of knowing what the Google algorithm is going to give me
for articles, the random sampling of articles by Google’s algorithm with my method would
reflect what the average person searching for the conflict for the first time would encounter. Of
19
course, there is no way to ensure perfectly random selection using this method, but I believe it
gets close to reflecting what sorts of articles a human would encounter in their reading, which
are the sorts of articles that I am interested in analysing.
Within these 10 Google searches for each news outlet, 4 of these searched for Gaza, 3 for the
West Bank and 3 for Israel. There are two other set criterias for the articles that I will choose.
Firstly, they have to involve mention of death, or deadly actions in the article so that the
operationalisation method can be used as intended. This is also to align it with the scope of my
work, which is to examine the portrayal of killing in media. Secondly, I will not be using any
articles labeled as ‘live update’. This is purely to make the analysis more consistent and to
make data collection less confusing for myself, as the ‘live update’ format of articles are
different from normal articles. They are mostly a collection of headlines and do not provide
much substance that can be broken down using my analytical framework.
5.3.1. Choice of Sources
The key components of my study is to understand how regional news outlets frame killing in
the conflict. Both news outlets were selected on the basis that they were mainstream, meaning
that they are prominent news sources in their region that have a regular and large audience, and
that they also have an English-speaking journalist team. Al Jazeera is a Qatari-based news
outlet, and is also among the most prominent news sources originating from the Middle East
that covers international news, but also focuses on the regional news relating to the Middle
East such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although it is not located in Palestine, the Qatari
government has close ties to Palestinian authorities, and Al Jazeera is a voice for the
Palestinians vicariously. Times of Israel is an Israeli-based news outlet that is among the largest
and most reputable in Israel, and also has an English-speaking journalist-team covering
international news, while also focusing on regional news relating to Israel. As both news
outlets are mainstream, regional, and sympathize to either conflict party, and contain a major
English-speaking journalist-team. Therefore, they were deemed to be appropriate news outlets
to sample the articles from, and to analyse them for my study.
20
6. Data Collection and Results
In this chapter of the study I will be summarising the results gathered from the articles and
discussing them in relation to my research question. I will be describing which of the framing
indicators most prominently used by Al Jazeera and Times of Israel in the sample of articles I
have chosen. This paper will also discuss the characteristics that regional news sources
showcase in regard to framing events of the conflict, and how they may differ. During this
discussion I will be highlighting key parts of the articles, which will help explore the research
questions in a profound manner.
6.1. Summary of Data Collection of Chosen Articles
In this segment I summarise my general findings using my data collection method from the 10
Al Jazeera and 10 Times of Israel article. The first table consists of the 10 Al Jazeera articles,
and the other 10 consists of the Times of Israel articles. The table includes my observations
about the framing indicators for justification and condemnation present in each of the articles,
and an abridged passage providing insight into how I believe the framing device was used.
Al Jazeera Articles:
# Article Name Justification Condemnation Date
1 3: Explicit Rationale: Some 2. Criminality: Frequent use of terms such 25 June
Israeli settlers
religious claims and historical as “illegal settlements”, “apartheid” 2021
refuse to vacate
arguments from settlers to justify “crimes against humanity”.
illegal West Bank
their actions. 2. Humanization: A personal story of
settlement
Khabeisa, and emphasis on the importance
of olive orchards to Palestinian livelihoods.
3. Cruelty: Some mention of
disproportionate violence and killing by
Israeli forces, and destruction of olive trees
and homes.
4. Aggression: Brief mention of Israel as
21
the aggressor.
2 4. Explicit Rationale: Short 1. Humanization: Extensive descriptions 13 May
More than 40
mention of Hamas firing rockets at of the people fatally shot. Also frequent 2021
Palestinians hurt
Israel, with no direct reference to mention of people wounded in protests.
in occupied West
self-defense framing. 2. Cruelty: Frequent mentions of
Bank as tensions
“complete and violent repression”, “Israel’s
rise
discriminatory practices” and burning of
religious sites.
3. Aggression: Some mention of “Israeli
bombardment of … Gaza”, and
Palestinians wounded or killed by settler
groups.
3. Criminality: Some mention of “illegal
settlement” and “coloniser”.
3 There is no attempt at justifying any 1. Humanization: The article extensively 1 Dec
‘My son was
of the actions in this article using details the death of the Dmaidi family’s 2023
killed on October
any of the aforementioned framing eldest son, and its aftermath.
6. There was no
indicators. 2. Aggression: Frequent mention of recent
Hamas’
“attacks” orchestrated by the IDF and
settlers.
3. Cruelty: Some description of
“rampaging” attacks, attack by settlers as a
“Pogrom”; an organised massacre.
3. Criminality: Some mentions of the
illegality of the settlements, the occupation
and land theft.
4 3. War/Battle: Some mentions of 1. Humanization: Extensive mention of 17 Nov
Israel bombs
military operations and campaigns death tolls, and the issues facing the people 2024
residential
conducted by Israel. of Gaza.
22
building in north 4. Explicit Rationale: Brief 2. Aggression: Frequent mention of Israeli
Gaza’s Beit mention of Israeli military targeting bombings across Gaza.
Lahiya, killing 50 Hamas. 3. Cruelty: Some mention of Israel
“leaving tens of thousands to starve”, and
emergency workers unable to reach the
“siege” to provide aid.
3. Criminality: Use of terms such as
“genocide”, “massacre”.
5 4. Self-Defense/Explicit 1. Humanization: Extensive accounts of 10 May
A year on from
Rationale*: Brief description of people such as Abed losing their home and 2022
war, Gaza
Israel responding to rocket fire, and belongings in May 2021.
frustrated at slow
the Israeli casualties. 2. Cruelty: Frequent mention of
reconstruction
4. War/Battle: Brief description of displacement of people and worsened
the attack of the Israeli military living conditions after “devastating” Israeli
offensive. attacks.
3. Aggression:Mention of the 2021 War as
Israeli “offensive” attack on Gaza, labeling
them as the aggressor.
3. Criminality: Some mention of Israel
allegedly restricting vital resources from
entering Gaza.
6 3. War/Battle: Some mention of an 2. Humanization: Detailed description of 9 Nov
Israeli forces kill
“armed confrontation”, and the person killed in the raid, and mentions 2024
Palestinian man
“ongoing military operation” of others injured or killed since October 7.
in raid on
2. Aggression: Frequent mentions of
occupied West
“assaults”, “offensives” and “daily arrests”
Bank town
conducted by the IDF.
3. Criminality: Some mention of
“occupation”, and “arrests”
23
7 2. Explicit Rationale:Much care is 2. Criminality: Frequent mention of 12 May
Israeli soldier
given to detail the reasons for the “occupation”, “violation of international 2020
killed during raid
actions of the IDF. law” and “illegal settlements”.
in occupied West
3. War/Battle: Some mention of 3. Humanization: Some attention given to
Bank
key terminology such as “clashes” the death of an Israeli soldier from the rock
and “raids” present in the article. throw.
4. Self Defense: Brief mention of
response to the rock thrower, and
protective measures.
8 3. Explicit Rationale: Some 2. Criminality: Frequent mention of 12 Oct
Israeli forces kill
mention of the IDF responding to “occupation”. 2022
Palestinian in
violence and protecting civilians. 2. Cruelty: Emphasis on the restrictions
West Bank:
3. Self-Defense: Palestinians are for Palestinians and heavy police presence,
Ministry
mentioned as the initiators and that framed as worsening living conditions.
Israeli forces responded to attacks. 3. Humanization: The killing of Usama
3. War/Battle: Some mentions of Adawi is explained in some detail.
“military raids” and “operations”. 4. Aggression: Brief mentions of past
aggressions by Israeli forces during 2022.
9 3. Explicit Rationale: Some 1. Aggression:Much of the article is spent 18 Aug
Israel kills three
statements from the IDF and Hamas detailing the Israeli attacks, with brief 2019
Palestinians in
of the killing of suspects and mention of the attack of the Palestinians.
besieged Gaza
bombing of Gaza. 2. Humanization: Frequent emphasis on
Strip
4. Self-Defense: Brief mention of why the victims and other Palestinians
Israel responding to aggression would want to attack Israel.
from the victims, as well as Hamas. 2. Criminality: The article mentions
4. War/Battle: Brief Israel's crimes; siege of Gaza, unlawful
contextualization of the Gaza “war” imprisonment, and frequently refers to
“siege” and “blockade” of Gaza.
24
3. Cruelty: Some mention of “crippling”
blockades and economic conditions on
Gaza caused by Israel, delay in allowing
ambulances to reach the area of conflict.
10 There is no attempt at justifying any 1. Humanization: The narrative is focused Oct 11
Today in Gaza, I
of the actions in this article using on the writer and the civilians of Gaza 2023
no longer believe
any of the aforementioned framing living through the chaos after October 7.
we’ll get out of
devices. 2. Cruelty: Detailed descriptions of the
Israel’s assault
human toll of the bombings, and Israel’s
alive
indiscriminate attacks.
3. Aggression: Some descriptions of the
Israeli bombings of the area, which
implicitly places them as the aggressor.
25
Times of Israel Articles:
# Article Name Justification Condemnation Date
1 Israel said 2. Explicit Rationale: Outlines the 2. Criminality: The article labels Sinwar 19 Oct
worried Hamas intentions of using Sinwar’s body as as a “terror chief” and frames the attacks 2024
could kill a ‘bargaining chip’. by Hamas and Hezbollah as “barbaric”.
hostages to 2. Accident: The death of Sinwar is
avenge slain framed as a part of a “random clash”
leader Sinwar and “chance encounter”.
3. Self-Defense: Some mentions of
pre-emptive measures to minimise
risks of harming hostages.
4. War/Battle: Brief mentions of
military operations in the context of
the killing of Sinwar.
2 As Islamic Jihad 2. Self-Defense: Frequent mention 2. Criminality: Frequent mention of PIJ 6 Aug
sparks of responding preemptively to and Hamas as “terrorists”. 2022
Gaza-Israel threats from the PIJ and defensive 3. Humanization: Brief mention of lack of
conflict, all eyes actions to prevent harm to civilians. essential needs for Gazans due to conflict.
are on Hamas 3. War/Battle: Some mention of Humanizes Israeli civilians threatened by
striking military targets. the conflict.
3. Explicit Rationale: Some IDF 3. Cruelty: Some mention of PIJ intending
rationale provided about the need to to “mow down” Israelis and “targeting
neutralize the PIJ threat. civilians”, portraying a grim picture of
excessive violence.
3. Aggression: Some framing of
“PIJ-prompted surge of violence”, and
mentions of “attacks”.
3 Sgt. Ido 1. Self-Defense: Heavy emphasis on 1. Humanization: Extensive account of 27 Dec
26
Binenstock, 19: Binenstock dying in defense of the death of Binenstock on October 7 by 2023
Died on himself, his comrades, and his Hamas.
battlefield country from the terrorists. 2. Criminality: Frequent mentions of
trying to save 2. War/Battle: Actively describing Hamas as “terrorists”.
friends the battle that killed Binenstock. 3. Cruelty: Description of the “brutal”
attack, and detailing the cruelty of battle
from Binenstocks story.
3. Aggression: Some mentions of Hamas
as instigating the attack on October 7.
4 Hamas and 3. Explicit Rationale: Statements 2. Criminality: Frequent mention of 17 Mar
Islamic Jihad from Hamas and PIJ, labeling the “terrorist”, “terror group” in reference to 2019
praise deadly attack a resistance against the attacker, and Hamas and the PIJ.
West Bank occupation. 2. Humanization: Descriptions of the
terror shootings 3. War/Battle: Framing of the people wounded or killed by the violence,
attack as an “operation” by Hamas and detailing a father of 12.
and PIJ. 3. Aggression: Describing the event as
“assault”, and the terrorist shooting at
soldiers and civilians.
3. Cruelty: Some mention of “stabbing”
and civilian casualties.
5 2020 sees fewest 1. War/Battle: Extensive discussion 2. Criminality: Frequent description of 31 Dec
soldiers, of the “fighting”, “operations”, the opposition groups as “terror groups” 2020
civilians killed “war” and “battles” taken place and the attacks as “terror attacks”.
in war or terror during 2020. 3. Aggression:Mention of “assaults”,
in Israel’s 2. Self-Defense: Detailing of the “attacks” and “projectiles fired” at Israel
history preventative and protective by opposing groups the past year.
measures in the West Bank and 4. Cruelty: Brief mention of a “brutal
Gaza. assault” in the West Bank
27
2. Explicit Rationale: Frequent
mentions of the reasons for
undertaking these defensive and
protective measures.
6 At least nine 3. Self-Defense: Some description 2. Cruelty: Abbas detailing the event as a 14 May
Palestinians that the IDF “responded” to the “bloody day” and “brutal and programmed 2021
reported killed rocks and Molotov’s thrown. killing” by the IDF, and torching of police
as violence 3. Explicit Rationale: The IDF stations.
spreads to West claims that they targeted the “main 2. Humanization: Detailing the dead in
Bank rioters” in the exchange. the attack and previous attacks, and
mentioning two by name.
3. Criminality: Some descriptions of
Israel as “occupiers” by Abbas and Hamas,
framing it as illegal.
4. Aggression: Brief mention of Israeli
“aggression”.
7 2 Jewish 3. Explicit Rationale:Mention that 1. Cruelty: Extensive description of the 14 Sep
Israelis the assault was done due to protest and killing, including “brutal” 2023
sentenced over nationalistic hatred and desire to “maiming” “stoning” “looting” “barrage of
brutal assault of terrorize. firebombs, shootings and brawls.”
Palestinian 2. Aggression: Frequent mention of
during May “assault”, “assailants”, and framing of the
2021 riots killers and Israeli protesters as the
aggressors.
3. Criminality:Mention of “violation of
basic human values”, and conviction of
Israeli criminals after May 2021 attacks
3. Humanization: Some description of the
person killed, and the human toll of the
28
demonstrations.
8 Yahya Sinwar: 1. Explicit Rationale: Extensive 1. Cruelty: Extensive mention of Sinwar’s 17 Oct
Radical Islamist description of Sinwar’s motives for ideology, and dubbing him a “butcher”, 2024
ideologue “liberating Palestine”, “armed “the face of evil”, and responsible for the
utterly struggle” and “to destroy [Israel]” deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians.
committed to 3. War/Battle: Contextualizing 2. Criminality: Dubbing Sinwar a
Israel’s Sinwar’s story before, after and “murderer”, mention of his time in prison
destruction during “war(s)” and his role in them. and frequent mention of him and Hamas as
“terrorists”, “terror group”.
3. Aggression: Framing of Sinwar as
orchestrator of October 7 attacks, mention
of “assault” and “attacks”.
4. Humanization: Limited detail about
Sinwars struggles growing up in Khan
Younis in Gaza.
9 Man shot dead 2. Explicit Rationale: The deaths 1. Humanization: The article extensively 19 Sep
in are framed as part of an ongoing describes recent victims of the crime wave, 2023
Tuba-Zangariyy crime wave with gang feuds and their families unable to attend funerals, and
e, taking Arab institutional neglect. the wider human toll of the crime wave.
community toll 2. Criminality: Frequent mention of crime
to 176 this year and gang-related activities, threats and
killings.
3. Aggression:Mentions of several
“attacks” conducted, and premeditated
targeted killings of gang members.
3. Cruelty: Description of murder of
family members, and families unable to
attend funerals in fear of attacks.
10 Shin Bet says it 1. Explicit Rationale: Extensive 1. Criminality: Extensive mention of Dec 31
29
foiled 1,040 explanation behind the killings, arresting Palestinians and stopping 2024
major terror most were perceived as threats. “terrorists” “kidnappings” “stabbings” etc.
attacks in West 1. Self-Defense: Extensive framing 2. Cruelty: Framing of October 7 as
Bank, Jerusalem of actions as “thwarting”, “devastating”, an “onslaught”, “atrocity”
in 2024 “eliminating”, and “responding” to 3. Humanization: Description of the
threats. hostages, and a video displaying the rescue
3. War/Battle: Some mention of the of a named hostage.
“war” following October 7 as 4. Aggression: Brief framing of October 7
context behind the actions. as a Hamas “attack”.
4. Accident: Brief mention of
“mistakenly” killing three hostages
in Gaza, and the “chance encounter”
killing Sinwar.
6.2. Analysis of Prominence in News Framing
As can be seen in the table, the most frequent indicator used for justification is explicit
rationale, which is used 16 times in the sample, and the most frequently used indicator for
condemnation in the sample is criminality, used 19 times. However, the question of what is the
most prominent framing indicator is another one entirely, and requires a more detailed analysis.
I will be in part using a mathematical method to narrow down the prominent indicators, in
order to make a content analysis of the more prominent indicators.
As prominence is defined as “standing out so as to be seen easily; particularly noticeable”
(Dictionary.com, n.d), it needs to be a key part of the framing of a majority of the articles.
Before proceeding, I think I should provide clarity as to how I ranked the prominence of the
framing indicators, in order to understand in more depth what lies behind the number. As an
example, in Al Jazeera #9 (Aljazeera, 2019), I labeled, 1- aggression, 2- humanization, 3-
explicit rationale, 4- war/battle. In regards to why aggression was labeled as the most
prominent, it was based on the extensive detail, focus and importance in the article regarding
the framing of Israel as the aggressor in this killing. In most of the 20 small paragraphs,
30
including the headline and accompanying video, there is mention of Israeli forces attacking or
killing Palestinians in Gaza, such as:
“Israel kills three Palestinians in besieged Gaza Strip” (headline)
“... funeral for 3 Palestinians in their early 20s… targeted by the Israeli army” (video)
“At least three Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces” (1/20)
“one other Palestinian suffered “critical” injuries following the overnight attack” (2/20)
“medics said that Israeli forces… hours after the attack” (5/20)
“the Israeli army said an attack helicopter and tank had fired…” (6/20)
“Israeli air raids hit parts of… Gaza” (7/20)
“four armed men who were killed … by Israeli fire” (11/20)
“spokesman for Islamic Jihad, blamed continuous Israeli aggression” (13/20)
“... Israeli aggression…” (14/20)
“Israel has waged three wars on Gaza since 2008” (15/20)
“... the Israeli army has killed more than…” (16/20)
The underlined words are what I used to determine the framing of aggression in the article.
Even this segment about framing of aggression in this article had to be abbreviated slightly due
to just how extensive the framing of aggression was in the article, and this was the standard I
set for labeling a framing device as the highest amount of prominence.
Humanization was a framing indicator I labeled as a two in the article, due to its frequent use
of humanizing the victims of the conflict. However, this way of framing was not the primary
focus of this article. This content analysis has to be done slightly differently, due to the less
explicit descriptions that humanizing framing typically involves.
There is mention of the three people who were killed, with one in critical condition,
with the names of the dead explicitly named with their (young) ages. A video included
a funeral of the three Palestinians, which showcases the human toll of the war on the
people of Gaza. The article also provides quotes and sourcing from Hamas and PIJ,
where they highlight that these men did not act irrationally and that they were acting
31
out of “anger and frustration with the current situation inside the Gaza Strip”, the
‘current situation’ is later framed as a “crippling blockade”. Moreover, the anger is
framed as being caused by Israel with the statement “There is anger among the
Palestinian youth over Israeli aggression and crimes …”. This provides a very human
explanation for why the Palestinians are arming themselves against Israel, and
humanises their actions. There is also some mention of the wider picture of the human
toll by stating Palestinian deaths and injuries from protests the past year.
I interpreted the following framing of humanisation as a big part of the article's storytelling, but
I felt it was not present enough to warrant labeling it a one. At the start of the article we get
told of the three people killed by Israel, and after some further contextualizing of the event, and
previous events, we get told why the victims did what they did. The humanizing framing is
prominent in the writing, but not as extensive as the framing of aggression, or other framings
of humanization present in other articles.
Explicit rationale is present in some form in the article with the Israeli army's statements and
accompanying tweets about the separate incidents they responded to, which is why it was given
a three.
“We just identified a number of armed suspects from Gaza approaching the security
fence with Israel. We fired towards them.” - IDF
“The Israeli military said three rockets were fired from Gaza towards Israel, two of
which had been intercepted by its Iron Dome aerial defence system. No Israelis were
hurt.” “(in response) Israeli air raids hit parts of the northern Gaza Strip” - IDF
“The narrative from Hamas has been that this is a case of angry armed men who are
acting by themselves out of a sense of anger and frustration with the current situation
inside the Gaza Strip.” - Hamas
Three explicit rationales were provided toward the main points of discussion in the articles,
which provided some insight into Israel’s and Hamas’ viewpoints about the violence. As it is
somewhat more attention given to the explicit rationales from Israel, this serves as justification
32
framing. This is not an effective frame though, as much of the article discusses Israel’s
historical aggression and humanizes the victims of the attack, somewhat undermining the IDF
statements. As it is not a frequent or consequential framing device used in the article, but still
has some appearance, it was given a score of three.
War/Battle was given a score of four in the prominence scale, as there was little mention of it
throughout the article and served little purpose. There are two short mentions of Israel having
waged three “wars” on Gaza since 2008, and mention of the 2014 war. As the key words for
the framing device does appear it has to be mentioned, but it does not provide much
significance to the framing of the article.
In order to narrow down which indicators are used most prominently, firstly I measured the
frequency of the appearance of certain framing indicators in the sample size. In descending
order, criminality is used 19 times, humanization and aggression is used 18 times, cruelty is
used 17 times, explicit rationale is used 16 times, war/battle is used 12 times, self-defense is
used nine times, and accident is used two times. It is safe to say that war/battle, self-defense
and accident are not the most prominent framing devices, as they do not make a frequent
enough appearance in the framing of the articles.
The second method I will utilize to explore which of the five remaining indicators are most
prominent is to aggregate how they were ranked from the 1-4 score in prominence, rounded to
two decimal figures. In regards to the aggregated framing of the different indicators,
criminality had an average of 2.37 in prominence when it appeared in the articles,
humanization had on average 2.06, aggression averaged 2.88, cruelty averaged 2.53, and
explicit averaged 2.63. These results indicate that explicit rationale and aggression are less
prominent when they do feature in the articles.
Humanization, cruelty and criminality seem to be the most prominent indicators that can be
observed from both articles. Based on observations of the table, and my analysis of the articles,
criminality is most prominently used in Times of Israel, and humanization is the outstanding
framing method in Al Jazeera articles. Cruelty is used to similar levels in both Times of Israel
33
and Al Jazeera, but is not the most prominent in either news outlet. The analysis will therefore
focus on how humanization and criminality are used in the articles to frame the conflict.
6.3. Analysis of the Different Uses of Prominent Framing Indicators
As can be observed from the table, there are quite a few differences in the ways Times of Israel
and Al Jazeera frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are two differences that I wish to
highlight that were especially relevant within my chosen sample. Firstly, there are the different
points of emphasis of both articles. While Al Jazeera focuses on the human toll of the conflict
in order to frame and challenge different aspects of the conflict framing used by other parties,
Times of Israel focuses primarily on delegitimizing their opposition as criminals in order to
legitimize the actions of the Israeli military.
6.3.1. Times of Israel Framing of Gazan Factions
In regards to Times of Israel, criminality is used most prominently, but is also seemingly
framed quite consistently. In seven out of 10 articles the framing of criminality for Hamas, PIJ
or those affiliated with them, was mainly done through framing them as “terrorists” or other
terror-related terms, either directly stating that the groups and their leaders are “terrorists”, or
by connecting their actions as acts of terrorism, or both. This is in order to condemn them, their
actions, and to delegitimize the Palestinian factions as a governing body. This also functions to
justify the actions of Israel to combat these factions in Gaza. This is seen in many examples
throughout the articles, where I outlined the key ones.
In Times of Israel #3 (TOI Staff, 2023c), Hamas is almost exclusively framed as terrorists
when mentioned, or simply just as the “terrorists”. This is seen with citations such as “Sgt. Ido
Binenstock, 19, was killed by Hamas terrorists on the battlefield on October 7”, and “In the
middle of a war and facing so many terrorist forces”.
In Times of Israel #4 (Rasgon, 2019), the headline introduces Hamas and PIJ as praising acts of
terrorism, then the author goes on to label them as terrorists directly and that they frequently
support terrorism, which condemns their actions as criminal. This is seen by quotes such as
34
“Hamas and Islamic Jihad praise deadly West Bank terror shootings”, “Hamas calls spree
‘heroic’ and ‘courageous’”, “The terror group frequently praises shooting, ramming and
stabbing attacks against Israelis”
Times of Israel #8 (Times of Israel, 2024b) frames a leader of Hamas, and the actions of
Hamas as terrorism and uses it to denounce the idea of a negotiated peace with Hamas and
justifying the continuation of the escalated conflict started on October 7. This is seen with
quotes such as “Michael Koubi … who interrogated Sinwar for 180 hours in prison … once
asked the terrorist …”,
“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has categorically rejected a post-war plan for
Gaza… saying any such talk now would be a reward for terror.”
Within the three outliers where there was little or no mention of terror-related terms, one was
discussing inter-communal crime inside Israel, and one was discussing the sentencing of an
Israeli assault. In other words, Hamas and PIJ were not mentioned in the articles. Therefore, it
seems as if a primary method of framing for criminality in Times of Israel is to frame the
Palestinian factions inside Gaza as terrorists, when they are mentioned. Placing emphasis on
framing the opposing party, and the people affiliated, as “terrorists” acting against Israel
delegitimize their actions as made with criminal and evil intentions. This consequently also
attempts to justify and legitimize the actions and policy taken by Israel to oppose and
undermine Hamas, as Israel is the nation defending itself against the “terrorists”, as can be seen
with the following quote from Times of Israel #10
“Hamas’s October 7, 2023, devastating attack on southern Israel, when thousands of terrorists
stormed the border to kill some 1,200 people and abduct 251, sparking the war in Gaza.”. It
frames Hamas as criminals, and the aggressors, in order to later legitimize the undertaking of
killing high ranking Hamas members, interrogating, arresting and “handling” thousands of
Palestinians across the West Bank and Gaza by associating them with the illegitimate
“terrorists” of Hamas (Fabian, 2024). For example, 2350 of the 6000 “wanted” Palestinians
arrested were framed as being “affiliated with Hamas”, where the arrests were also framed as a
“large-scale counterterrorism operations” in the West Bank (Fabian, 2024).
35
6.3.2. Al Jazeera Framing of Israeli Actions
Humanization is seen as the most frequent framing device in Al Jazeera. It is given a score of
one point in prominence in four articles, and given a score of two in another four articles. Most
of the articles mention, to various extents, the human toll and personal stories relevant to
developments, attacks and death in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Humanizing framing in this
context functions as a way to condemn Israel's actions. However, these human stories also
serve a secondary function for many of the articles, that is of addressing certain contested
narratives in the media. These include the viewpoint of Hamas being the aggressors on October
7th, and disproportionate use of violence by Israel.
In Al Jazeera #3 (Al Tahhan, 2023), the article tells the story of a family who lost their eldest
child in an attack on their village in the West Bank on October 6th 2023. The personal story
captures in detail about one individual case of how death affects those close to them, which
serves its own function in condemning the actions. However, these stories also serve a
secondary function of undermining the framing that Hamas were the aggressors on October
7th, and that Israel is acting in self-defense against “terrorism”.
The framing that Hamas was not the initiators is captured in the article quite clearly. The article
however, mentions past engagements in the village, before later adding a quote from Labib’s
father. He repeats that the attacks in the West Bank village, before or after October 7th, had
nothing to do with Hamas: “my son was killed on October 6, there was no Hamas … When
they burned down Huwara in February, there was no Hamas. When they attacked our house yet
again two weeks after they killed my son, there was no Hamas” (Al Tahhan, 2023). This
directly opposes the Israeli rationale that Hamas instigated the war. This rationale is mentioned
in Times of Israel #3, #8 and #10 in the coding frame (Times of Israel, 2023c; (Times of Israel,
2024b; Fabian, 2024).
Al Jazeera #5 (Humaid, 2022) focuses on the implications of the 2021 war in Gaza through the
lens of Imadeldin Abed and Mohammed el-Sayed. It highlights through Abed that people were
left “without furniture, clothes or money” as a result of their home getting bombed, and the
36
article highlights through el-Sayed that they or their loved ones suffer life-changing or
life-ending consequences from the war. In addition, through these stories the article also
portrays a broader picture of disproportionate use of violence from Israel.
There is emphasis placed on highlighting the wider scale of the destruction of the May 2021
war. This is done through providing the data of Palestinian casualties and internally displaced,
where over 2200 were injured including 261 dead, with over 113 000 people displaced from
their homes (Humaid, 2022). After providing the Israeli rationale for the justification for the
offensive of responding to rocket fire from Gaza and blaming Hamas, the article highlights the
13 dead in Israel (Humaid, 2022). This framing of cruelty by using the juxtaposition of the
Israeli casualties versus casualties in Gaza being so strikingly different also has the effect of
highlighting the disproportionality of the violence, challenging the framing that this violence
was a justified response. The humanizing framing serves as the backbone of which this
narrative is elaborated upon in the article.
37
7. Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to analyse and explore the use of different framing devices related
to the portrayal of killing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This research is based on the two
research questions that were mentioned earlier. The first one is concerning the prominent
framing indicators in the articles, and the second interrelated question is what differentiated
these uses of framing in Al Jazeera and Times of Israel. In order to answer the question I used a
qualitative content analysis of 20 articles from the regional news outlets from 2019-2024,
where I analysed what framing indicators were present in each one of the articles.
After obtaining the data from the selected articles, I compiled them into a coding frame in
order to conduct my analysis. I used the summarized articles in order to aid in my analysis of
the prominent framing devices in the articles, as well as providing a qualitative analysis of
what constitutes prominence. After exploring which indicators were more prominent in the
articles that I analyzed, I found out that criminality was more prominently used in Times of
Israel, and humanization was more prominently used in Al Jazeera. Additionally, I used a
qualitative content analysis to understand how these frames were used in both news outlets,
and how they were used by both of them. I found out that the use of criminality in Times of
Israel was primarily used to delegitimize Hamas as a governing body by frequently referring to
them as terrorists. Moreover, the framing of Hamas as illegitimate in turn justifies the actions
of Israel. By contrast, Al Jazeera used the humanizing framing in order to condemn Israeli
actions but also to highlight, and contest narratives of for example questioning if Hamas were
the aggressors on October 7th, and disproportionality of the conflict.
This study has explored a lesser discussed topic in relation to the media framing of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It undertook an analysis of two sources from regional media that
are connected to each one of the conflict parties, and analysed how they portray killing in the
conflict. The study also expands on existing research into portrayal of killing in the conflict
more specifically from the previous research mentioned in chapter two.
38
8. Bibliography
Al Jazeera (2019) Israel kills three Palestinians in besieged Gaza Strip, Al Jazeera.
Available at:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/8/18/israel-kills-three-palestinians-in-besieged-ga
za-strip (Accessed: 18 December 2024).
Al Jazeera (2020) Israeli soldier killed during raid in occupied West Bank, Al Jazeera.
Available at:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/5/12/israeli-soldier-killed-during-raid-in-occupied
-west-bank (Accessed: 17 December 2024).
Al Jazeera (2021a) Israeli settlers refuse to vacate illegal West Bank Settlement, Al
Jazeera. Available at:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/25/occupied-west-bank-aflame-as-israeli-settlers
-refuse-land-return (Accessed: 01 December 2024).
Al Jazeera (2021b) More than 40 Palestinians hurt in occupied West Bank as tensions
rise, Al Jazeera. Available at:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/13/at-least-35-palestinians-wounded-in-occupie
d-west-bank-clashes (Accessed: 06 December 2024).
Al Jazeera (2022) Israeli forces kill Palestinian in West Bank: Ministry, Al Jazeera.
Available at:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/12/israeli-forces-shoot-dead-palestinian-in-wes
t-bank-ministry (Accessed: 17 December 2024).
Al Jazeera (2024a) 50 killed after Israel bombs building in Gaza’s Beit Lahiya, Al
Jazeera. Available at:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/17/israel-bombs-residential-building-in-north-g
azas-beit-lahiya-killing-50 (Accessed: 10 December 2024).
Al Jazeera (2024b) Israeli forces kill Palestinian man in raid on occupied West Bank
Town, Al Jazeera. Available at:
39
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/9/israeli-forces-kill-palestinian-man-in-raid-on
-occupied-west-bank-town (Accessed: 15 December 2024).
Al Tahhan, Z. (2023) ‘My son was killed on October 6. there was no Hamas’, Al Jazeera.
Available at:
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/12/1/my-son-was-killed-on-october-6-there-wa
s-no-hamas (Accessed: 07 December 2024).
Boreus, K. and Bergström, G. (2018) ‘Introduktion’, in Textens Mening och Makt. Lund:
Studentlitteratur, pp. 1–35.
Boreus, K. and Kohl, S. (2018) ‘Innehållsanalys’, in Textens Mening och Makt. Lund:
Studentlitteratur, pp. 36–65.
Boxerman, A. (2021) At least nine Palestinians reported killed as violence spreads to
west bank | The Times of Israel, Times of Israel. Available at:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/at-least-six-palestinians-reported-killed-as-violence-sprea
ds-to-west-bank/ (Accessed: 13 December 2024).
Chong, D. and Druckman, J. (2007) ‘Framing theory’, Annual Review of Political
Science, 10(1), pp. 99–118. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054.
ElMasry, M. (2009) ‘Death in the Middle East: An Analysis of How the New York Times
and Chicago Tribune Framed Killings in the Second Palestinian Intifada*’, Journal of
Middle East Media, 5(1), pp. 1–47.
Fabian, E. (2024) Shin Bet says it foiled 1,040 major terror attacks in West Bank,
Jerusalem in 2024 | The Times of Israel, Times of Israel. Available at:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/shin-bet-says-it-foiled-1040-major-terror-attacks-in-west-
bank-jerusalem-in-2024/ (Accessed: 01 January 2025).
Gross, J. (2020) 2020 sees fewest soldiers, civilians killed in war or terror in Israel’s
history, Times of Israel. Available at:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-in-2020-by-numbers-2227-west-bank-arrests-1400-so
rties-176-gaza-rockets/ (Accessed: 12 December 2024).
40
Hamas-Israel Conflict 2023: Frequently asked questions (2023) Israel Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Available at:
https://www.gov.il/en/pages/swords-of-iron-faq-6-dec-2023 (Accessed: 02 January
2025).
Hoare, M. and Ziegler, L. (2024) Framing the Israel-Palestine conflict: A comparative
analysis of Svenska Dagbladet and Dagens Nyheter. dissertation. Högskolan Väst,
Institutionen för ekonomi och it.
Horovitz, D. (2022) As islamic jihad sparks Gaza-Israel conflict, all eyes are on Hamas,
Times of Israel. Available at:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-islamic-jihad-sparks-gaza-israel-conflict-all-eyes-are-o
n-hamas/ (Accessed: 07 December 2024).
Humaid, M. (2022) A year on from war, Gaza frustrated at slow reconstruction, Al
Jazeera. Available at:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/10/year-on-war-gaza-frustrated-slow-reconstruct
ion (Accessed: 13 December 2024).
Humaid, M. (2023) Today in Gaza, I no longer believe we will get out of this alive, Al
Jazeera. Available at:
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/10/11/today-in-gaza-i-no-longer-believe-we-wil
l-get-out-of-this-alive (Accessed: 22 December 2024).
Legitimation definition & meaning (1001) Merriam-Webster. Available at:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legitimation (Accessed: 05 January 2025).
Nystedt, M. (2024) Justification and Condemnation: Media Framing of Violence in the
Israel-Palestine Conflict. dissertation. Lund University Faculty of Political Science.
Prominent definition & meaning (1001) Dictionary.com. Available at:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/prominent (Accessed: 04 January 2025).
Rasgon, A. (2019) Hamas and Islamic Jihad Praise Deadly West Bank Terror shootings,
Times of Israel. Available at:
41
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-and-islamic-jihad-praise-deadly-west-bank-terror-
shootings/ (Accessed: 10 December 2024).
Scheufele, D. (1999) ‘Framing as a theory of media effects’, Journal of Communication,
49(1), pp. 103–122. doi:10.1093/joc/49.1.103.
Taylor, C. (2024) Framing the Israeli-Palestine conflict after October 7th, 2023 A
comparative analysis of news organizations’ Instagram Reels, Framing of Conflict
Reporting in the Israel-Hamas Conflict in German Online Newspaper Articles.
dissertation. Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication.
TOI Staff (2023a) 2 jewish Israelis sentenced over brutal assault of Palestinian during
May 2021 riots, Times of Israel. Available at:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/2-jewish-israelis-sentenced-over-brutal-assault-of-palesti
nian-during-may-2021-riots/ (Accessed: 13 December 2024).
TOI Staff (2023b) Man shot dead in Tuba-Zangariyye, taking Arab community toll to 176
this year, Times of Israel. Available at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240625000221/https://www.timesofisrael.com/man-shot-d
ead-in-tuba-zangariyye-taking-arab-community-toll-to-176-this-year/ (Accessed: 29
December 2024).
TOI Staff (2023c) Sgt. Ido Binenstock, 19: Died on battlefield trying to save friends,
Times of Israel. Available at:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/sgt-ido-binenstock-19-died-on-battlefield-trying-to-save-f
riends/ (Accessed: 14 December 2024).
TOI Staff (2024a) Israel said worried Hamas could kill hostages to avenge slain leader
Sinwar, Times of Israel. Available at:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-worried-hamas-could-kill-hostages-to-avenge-
slain-leader-sinwar/ (Accessed: 07 December 2024).
TOI Staff (2024b) Yahya Sinwar: Radical Islamist ideologue utterly committed to Israel’s
destruction | The Times of Israel, Times of Israel. Available at:
42
https://www.timesofisrael.com/yahya-sinwar-islamist-ideologue-utterly-committed-to-isr
aels-destruction/ (Accessed: 17 December 2024).
Vitter, J.S. (1985) ‘Random sampling with a reservoir’, ACM Transactions on
Mathematical Software, 11(1), pp. 37–57. doi:10.1145/3147.3165.
Warshagha, A., Soo Ang, P. and Huan, C. (2024) ‘Comparative framing of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict in newspapers: An analysis of affect’, GEMA Online®
Journal of Language Studies, 24(3), pp. 112–130. doi:10.17576/gema-2024-2403-07.
43
9: Appendix:
* The sole statement of self-defense is also the only explicit rationale provided from the Israeli
side. As it makes little sense to use the same statement for two separate indicators, it is
therefore labeled as both Self-Defense and Explicit Rationale.
General observations of the results of the analysis for future research
The first major observation that can be made in regards to the use of framing in the chosen
sample of articles from Al Jazeera and Times of Israel is that condemnation is more often than
not the preferred method of which to frame an event. The only cases where justification is most
prominently used in Al Jazeera article #7 and Times of Israel article #1, #5, and #10.
In regards to Times of Israel #5 and #10, they provide general overviews of the IDF reports
from that year about the operations conducted to protect the citizens of Israel, and the key
events taken place during that year. These reports focus heavily on explaining in great detail
about the defensive measures undergone by the IDF, which leads to self-defense and explicit
rationale being used frequently and extensively in these articles and is highly likely the cause
of justification being used as the primary form of framing in these articles.
In the cases of Al Jazeera #7 and Times of Israel #1, both articles are exclusively discussing the
killing of an Israeli soldier and Hamas leader respectively. However, this is not anything that
can be taken as hard proof that the Al Jazeera coverage of Israeli death or Times of Israel
coverage of Palestinian deaths are typically framed as more justified. Times of Israel #6, #7 and
#9 also covers deaths of Palestinians exclusively, in most cases without any mention of Israeli
casualties or deaths, and the articles frame these deaths much more in forms of condemnation.
This is difficult to assess in regards to Al Jazeera, due to the lack of articles mentioning Israeli
deaths exclusively in my sample of articles. However, the present evidence does provide a
strong indication that the deaths mentioned are not tied to the use of framing indicators.
In the case of Al Jazeera #7 and Times of Israel #10 the use of condemnation and justification
is admittedly used very similarly, therefore it is also not impossible that the fact that there is
44
more justification than condemnation is merely a consequence of my personal observations,
and that other analysis of these articles may find different outcomes that would not label
justification as the primary form of framing used in these articles. With this in mind, it seems
evident that the analysis of whether or not articles are making more use of framing of
justification is not important to the overall discussion of the article's portrayal of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Another observation is that the articles referencing the larger-scale intensive conflicts of May
2021 and the ongoing war started on October 7 2023, seem to have more abundance of framing
of condemnation from both sides. Out of the chosen articles, Times of Israel articles #1, #3, #6,
#7, #8 and #10 and Al Jazeera articles #2 #3, #4, #5, #6 and #10 directly reference these
conflicts in the reporting. With the exception of Times of Israel #1 and #10, all of the articles
contain significant use of condemnation. Significant use of condemnation framing is
interpreted as the article containing 2 or more frames frequently or extensively used, at least
three condemnation frames used in total and limited or no justification framing for the other
party. As previously mentioned, Times of Israel #10 is a bit of an outlier in the sample size, due
to it being a yearly report discussing IDF operations. Times of Israel #1 is the only article from
this time frame which actively focuses on justifying the actions of Israel as opposed to
condemning Hamas, PIJ or others.
Out of the other 8 articles in the sample not discussing May 2021 or October 2023-present,
Times of Israel #2 and #4, and Al Jazeera #7 and #8 raised some eyebrows for different
reasons. Times of Israel #4 and Al Jazeera #8 made noteworthy remarks for justifying the
actions of Hamas and Israel respectively, something barely seen in the 2021 and 2023-present
articles. The article still frames Hamas or Israels actions more significantly in forms of
condemnation, but there is more noticeable use of justification framing indicators for the party
being condemned in these articles as opposed to the more intensive conflict periods. Times of
Israel #2 and Al Jazeera #7 do make more use of justification for framing, but more
importantly do not use a significant amount of condemnation framing either. There is not
enough evidence to make a claim whether the time period the article discusses affects the use
45
of framing, and is not entirely relevant to this study, but it is something that can be analysed in
future research.