Sabahat Fida
Language is not just a tool of communication; it is a weapon of control. Nowhere is this more evident than in the way Western media distorts the reality of Israel’s war on Palestine.
Through selective framing, passive language, and outright dehumanization, mainstream coverage has turned genocide into “self-defense,” occupation into “conflict,” and Palestinian resistance into “terrorism.”
Words are being manipulated to justify war crimes, erase Palestinian suffering, and manufacture consent for Israel’s relentless assault on Gaza.
Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “Language is the blood of the soul into which thoughts run and out of which they grow.” This statement underscores the idea that language is deeply tied to human consciousness and identity, shaping not only how we communicate but also how we think and act.
The linguistic relativity hypothesis suggests that the structure and vocabulary of a language condition the thought processes of its speakers. This means that the way a language is constructed can limit or expand the way individuals perceive and interact with the world.
Words are not neutral; they carry historical, cultural, and political weight. When language is manipulated, whether intentionally or not, it can be used to control narratives, reinforce biases, and influence public opinion.
Throughout history, language has been weaponized in various contexts, from personal relationships to large-scale political conflicts. The words used in legal systems, advertising, propaganda, and warfare have the potential to sway masses, justify actions, and even incite violence. Hate speech, dehumanizing rhetoric, and manipulative framing can distort reality, pitting communities against one another and justifying oppression.
A stark historical example is Adolf Hitler’s use of language to rally support for genocide. His speeches and writings framed Jewish people as an existential threat to Germany, creating a climate of fear and resentment that culminated in the Holocaust. Similarly, the 1994 Rwandan genocide was fueled by radio broadcasts referring to the Tutsi minority as “cockroaches,” dehumanizing them to the point where mass slaughter became socially acceptable.
Media Bias and the Gaza War
Malcolm X once warned that if people are not careful, the media will have them hating the oppressed and loving the oppressors. This idea is particularly relevant when examining Western media coverage of the Gaza war, where language has been strategically employed to shape public perception. The use of misleading terminology, passive voice, and selective framing has resulted in asymmetrical reporting that obscures the reality on the ground.
Journalistic malpractice in the coverage of the Gaza war has included genocide-enabling propaganda, the suppression of Palestinian voices, and the uncritical repetition of Israeli government narratives. Abdulkader Assad, a linguist and journalist based in the United States, has analyzed the language used in major news outlets and found numerous examples of distortion.
One such case is a headline from the Wall Street Journal that read, “Hamas starts planning for end of war with Israel.” This framing falsely suggests that Hamas was the aggressor who initiated the conflict, rather than responding to a long-standing military occupation and blockade.
Dehumanization Through Passive Language
Another significant issue in mainstream reporting is the use of the passive voice when describing Israeli military actions, which serves to obscure agency and downplay responsibility. This is particularly evident in how Palestinian casualties are reported. Instead of stating that the Israeli military killed civilians, media outlets often use phrases like “Palestinians killed in airstrike” or “Civilians die in explosion,” which obscure the perpetrator of the violence.
A glaring example of this was seen in coverage of the al-Ahli hospital blast in Gaza City, which killed hundreds of displaced civilians seeking refuge. Instead of directly attributing responsibility, media outlets framed the event in uncertain terms, emphasizing that the source of the explosion was “unclear.” Meanwhile, unverified claims about Hamas beheading Israeli babies circulated widely, even being repeated by President Joe Biden before later being retracted.
Israeli officials have also engaged in explicit dehumanization, referring to Palestinians as “human animals,” a phrase that mirrors the language used in past genocides. The Nazis described Jews as “rats,” while Rwandan Hutu extremists called Tutsis “cockroaches.” When such rhetoric goes unchallenged or is downplayed in mainstream media, it reinforces a narrative that justifies violence against the targeted group.
The Instrumental Power of Language
The way language is structured can influence the perceived severity of events. Israeli military actions are often described using neutral or euphemistic terms, such as “evacuations” instead of forced displacement or “targeted operations” instead of aerial bombardments. Conversely, Palestinian resistance is frequently framed as “terrorism,” reinforcing a narrative that delegitimizes their struggle for self-determination.
Lara Gibson, a linguist who studies media framing, has noted that Western media outlets use vague language when describing Israeli attacks on Gaza while using clear and emotionally charged language when reporting attacks on Israel. For example, an Israeli civilian killed in an attack is described as being “brutally murdered,” while a Palestinian child killed by an Israeli airstrike is said to have “died in the conflict.” This disparity in language creates a subconscious bias in readers’ minds, making one side’s suffering appear more legitimate than the other’s.
Inaccurate Terminology and Loaded Language
Another way media bias manifests is through the use of inaccurate terminology. Some news outlets refer to the Palestinian Ministry of Health as the “Hamas health ministry,” a phrase that falsely implies that casualty reports from Gaza are unreliable and politically motivated. This tactic subtly delegitimizes the suffering of Palestinian civilians by suggesting that their deaths are either exaggerated or fabricated.
Similarly, the portrayal of individuals in conflict zones often reflects inherent biases. A 19-year-old Israeli soldier might be described as an “innocent girl taken hostage by Hamas,” while a three-year-old Palestinian girl killed by Israeli airstrikes might be mentioned in passing, with the phrase “a bullet found its way into the van of the young lady,” removing any direct attribution of responsibility.
Metaphors and Hyperbole
Metaphors and historical comparisons are also frequently employed to frame the Gaza conflict in a way that favors Israeli narratives. Israeli officials have repeatedly likened the war to the Holocaust, suggesting that their military actions are necessary to prevent another genocide. Nir Barkat, Israel’s economy minister, stated, “We remember what happened to the six million Jews killed by Nazis, and we won’t let that happen again.” Such statements evoke deep emotional responses, reinforcing support for military actions regardless of their legality or ethical implications.
Meanwhile, Israeli officials have a long history of using hyperbole to justify aggressive policies. For decades, they have warned that Iran was on the brink of developing nuclear weapons, with predictions shifting from 1998 to 1999, then to 2000, 2004, 2005, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, and so on. These exaggerated threats have been used to rationalize preemptive strikes and international sanctions, despite a lack of concrete evidence.
Leading Questions and Media Credibility
Another problematic journalistic practice is the use of leading questions when interviewing Palestinians. Many Western journalists begin their interviews by asking Palestinian spokespeople whether they condemn Hamas, effectively forcing them into a defensive position before they can articulate their perspectives.
Israeli officials, in contrast, are rarely asked to condemn their government’s war crimes, allowing them to control the narrative without being held accountable.
The corrupt use of language in media coverage has eroded public trust in journalism, undermining the moral and ethical foundations of the profession.
David Riesman, an American sociologist, observed that modern mass media functions as both the wholesaler and retailer of information, determining what narratives gain traction and which voices are silenced.
When language is used as a tool for manipulation rather than truth, the consequences extend far beyond mere words—they shape history, influence policy, and determine the fate of entire nations.