Research Article

Framing of Palestine-Israel Conflict in Indian and Pakistani Newspapers: An Analysis of the Indian Express and the Dawns

Pardeep Singh Bali¹* and Manmeet Kour²

¹Research Scholar in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Punjabi University Patiala, Punjab, India

²Research Scholar in the Department of Social Work, University of Delhi, India.

Submission: March 5, 2024;Published: March 14, 2024

*Corresponding author: Pardeep Singh Bali, Research Scholar in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Punjabi University Patiala, Punjab, India

How to cite this article: Pardeep Singh Bali* and Manmeet Kour. Framing of Palestine-Israel Conflict in Indian and Pakistani Newspapers: An Analysis of the Indian Express and the Dawns. Rec Arch of J & Mass Commun. 2024; 1(1): 555554. 10.19080/RAJMC.2024.01.555554

Abstract

This paper attempts to explore the media coverage of the recent conflict between Israel and Palestine which took place between 11th of May 2021 until the 22nd of May 2021. The main question this study proposes to answer is regarding the patterns of representation of Palestinians and Israelis in the leading newspaper of India and Pakistan. Guided by framing theory, a content analysis was conducted on two leading newspapers, The Dawn and The Indian Express. It has been seen that Pakistani newspaper used negative adjectives more frequently to describe Israelis than Palestinians, whereas Indian newspaper remained neutral, but pro-Israel bias was visible. The study revealed that Pakistan portrayed Palestinians as victims and Israel as villain. However, the adjectives used to describe killings were similar.

Keywords: Media; Palestine; Israel; Framing; Biased; The Dawn; Indian Express

Abbreviations: IDF: Israeli Defense Forces; UNGA: United Nations General Assembly; PLO: Palestine Liberation Organization; NWICO: New World Information and Communication Order

Introduction

In any conflict situation, the media becomes an important and perhaps the only source of information for the masses outside. Being a major player in conflict ridden societies, media sometimes uses different frames to build news based on similar incidents, probably under the influence of different forces, internal, as well as external. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been a subject of major concern and the cause of major instability around the world. According to the Pew Research Center’s news interest index, in 2002, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was reported as, “one of the most closely followed foreign news stories not directly involving Americans in the 16-year history” [1]. Due to the extreme distress of the public in the conflict, media have often come under harsh criticism for favoring one side or the other. There has been a substantial amount of research conducted to assess media coverage of the conflict.

The bulk of the research conducted has attempted to study the prejudice intrinsic in the reporting of the conflict. This prejudice should not be astonishing, considering relationship with Israel, as well as Palestine. Most of the research conducted has shown that the media coverage of the conflict favors the Israeli perspective over that of the Palestinians [1-3]. Considering the disturbances in the Middle East including wars in Iraq and Lebanon, it is important to clarify how the media express their pro-Israeli or pro-Palestine bias. This paper focuses on the recent Palestinian-Israeli conflict as it relates to media coverage, specifically print media. The researcher conducted a content analysis of The Indian Express (Indian newspaper) and The Dawn (Pakistani newspaper). The purpose of this research is to analyze how print media frame the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and how that assists in the expression of a pro-Israeli and pro-Palestine bias within Indian and Pakistani media.

Historical Background

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict revolves around the struggle between Jewish nationalism, also known as Zionism, and Palestinian nationalism [4]. The conflict can be seen as a fight between two groups of people both claiming the right to the same piece of land. The Jews claim Palestine as their ancestral homeland since most of the historical events recorded in the Old Testament took place in Palestine, making it the focus of many Jewish religious practices and customs [4]. On the other hand, the Palestinians assert right to the land in which they had been living since the end of the seventh century [5]. Historically, from 1517-1918, Palestine was a part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Being divided into small districts, Palestine was a part of greater Syria. By the mid-19th century, the population of Palestine was, “500,000, more than 80% Muslim Arab, 10% Christian (mostly Arab), about 1% Druze (an offshoot of Shi’ite Islam) and about 5% Jewish” [4]. Although the Arabs and the Turks were both Muslims, these two groups of people spoke different languages and had different ethnic line leading to the birth of Arab Nationalism [4]. Jews who had been ousted from Palestine by the Romans in the first century A.D formed the Jewish national movement in Europe. In Europe, the Jews were far from incorporated into the culture because they lived in separate communities based on the laws, traditions, and customs of the Old Testament. The Jews viewed a land of their own to unravel their problems of estrangement [4].

Theodore Herzl, an incorporated Western Jew, wrote a note called Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) in which he proposed mass migration of Jews to a land of their own. The two options proposed were Palestine and Argentina. At the first Zionist Congress held in Basel, Switzerland an official World Zionist Movement was established, and their credo stated, “The aim of Zionism is to create for the Jewish People a home in Palestine tenable by public law” [4]. Tensions between the Zionists and Arabs began as early as the 1880s when Zionist settlers arrived in Palestine. Once the Arabs became conscious about the intentions of the Zionists to build a Jewish homeland in Palestine, resistance to the movement started [4]. This was obvious to the Muslim Arabs, and to the Jewish Arabs already in Palestine. These Jewish Arabs reacted negatively to the Zionist movement for two reasons. First, these individuals did not see a need for a Jewish state. Secondly, they did not want to aggravate relations with the Arabs [6]. There was also a religious basis forming the negative reaction by the Jewish Arabs to the Zionist movement. Some Jews believed that their long-awaited Messiah would be the one to establish for them a Jewish homeland. Therefore, there was no need for the Zionist movement.

After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations determined that Palestine, Iraq, and Syria were to exist as independent nations. Palestine and Iraq were to be governed by Great Britain, while Syria was to be governed by France [2]. The mandate for Palestine called for it to serve as a Jewish homeland as stated in the Balfour Declaration in 1917 [4]. When the British authorization was first established, the Palestinian Arabs thought of themselves as part of the larger administrative regions in Syria and Lebanon. However, with the separation of Palestine from these regions, Palestinian nationalism was born. The common factor among all the Arab political factions was their opposition against a Jewish homeland in Palestine. However, despite sharp opposition, the Jewish community was able to establish Zionism as a national political movement [4].

At first, the Jewish national political movement insisted on Palestine to become a homeland for the Jews. However, they agreed on a division of Palestine to establish Israel as a state for the Jews. The Palestinians demanded an independent Arab state. The U.N. General Assembly gathered to deal with the Palestine question. Great Britain agreed to end its mandate of Palestine but would remain neutral to proposals to divide Palestine. However, the Arabs emphasized their opposition to the partition plan and threatened to oppose by force since, “the Jews, representing only a minority of Palestine’s population, would receive the best parts of the land and that partition would leave nearly as many Arabs as Jews in the proposed Jewish state” [4]. Regardless of the Arab opposition, on November 29, 1947, the General Assembly voted in favor of the partition [4]. The United States, an advocate of the partition was accused of “‘diplomatic intimidation’” [6]. Quigley [6] states that, “Without ‘terrific pressure’ from the United States on ‘governments which cannot afford to risk American reprisals,’… ‘would never have passed’” (p. 37).

On May 14, 1948, the state of Israel was declared, and the Arabs kept their promise to resist forcefully. The Arabs fought five wars with Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982. Separate from the wars, the Palestinians engaged in two uprisings (1987- 1993 and 2000-present). Following the 1967 war, Israel expanded to include the West Bank and the Gaza strip. These lands have come to be known as occupied territories. Many United Nations resolutions have asked Israel to maintain its pre-1967 borders. U.N. resolution 242 insists on Israel’s complete withdraw from territories occupied [7].

Resolution 242 was first written in French. When it was translated from French to English, the meaning was changed. Instead of the resolution stating that Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories, the resolution states that Israel must withdraw from territories occupied. This translation makes the resolution ambiguous. Nevertheless, to date, Israel has not maintained its pre-1967 borders. There have also been numerous U.N. resolutions condemning the behavior of the Israeli government and military. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) has been accused of excessive force in dealing with the Palestinian resistance. In 1978, Israel invaded Lebanon. However, Israel moved northward and took siege of West Beirut. In 1982, the IDF was held personally responsible for the massacres carried out in the Sabra and Shatilla Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon in which hundreds of men, women, and children were murdered. Although these attacks were carried out by Lebanese Maronite Christians militias, Israel was accused of allowing the massacre to take place and came under harsh criticism due to the large number of Lebanese and Palestinian causalities. After difficult negotiations, a peace agreement was signed between Israel and Lebanon in May of 1983 [4].

Paul Findley [8] reports that between 1955-1992, sixty-five U.N. resolutions targeted Israel, while zero resolutions targeted the Palestinians. Donald Neff states, “Aside from the core issues— refugees, Jerusalem borders— the major themes reflected in the U.N. resolutions against Israel over the years are its unlawful attacks on its neighbors; its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes and other collective punishments; its confiscation of Palestinian land; its establishment of illegal settlements; and its refusal to abide by the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war” (“Lessons to be Learned,” 1993, para. 10). Although Ariel Sharon was held personally responsible for the killings in Sabra and Shatilla, he entered the El Aqsa Mosque, an Islamic holy site, on September 28, 2000. The second Palestinian Intifada (uprising) began in response to this visit. As had happened with the first uprising, Palestinians rebelled against the Israeli government and military.

“By December of 2001, three hundred Palestinians and thirty Israelis had died. By September 2002, the death toll rose to 1626 Palestinians and 559 Israelis” [2]. In 2006, Israel again invaded Lebanon. This war became known as the July war, or the second Lebanon war. This war was driven by Israel to extinguish resistance forces, primarily Hezbollah. Hezbollah forces had taken two Israeli soldiers’ captive. Israel responded with massive air strikes on civilian infrastructure. On August 18, 2006, four days after the official ceasefire, Guardian Unlimited/Associated Press released an article entitled, “Mideast War, by the Numbers.” The article reported 845 Lebanese deaths with a total of 4,051 Lebanese wounded. Over 900,000 Lebanese people were displaced. 157 Israeli deaths were reported with 860 Israelis wounded. 300,000 Israelis were displaced [9].

Indian Relations

India’s support for the Palestinian cause is an integral part of the nation’s foreign policy. In 1974, India became the first Non- Arab State to recognize Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. In 1988, India became one of the first countries to recognize the Palestinian State. In 1996, India opened its Representative Office in Gaza, which was later shifted to Ramallah in 2003. India has played an active role in extending support for the Palestinian cause across various multilateral fora. India co-sponsored the draft resolution on “the right of Palestinians to self-determination” during the 53rd session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and voted in favour of it. India also voted in favor of UNGA Resolution in October 2003 against construction of the separation wall by Israel. In 2011, India voted in favor of Palestine becoming a full member of the UNESCO. India co-sponsored and voted in favor of the UNGA Resolution on November 29, 2012, that enabled Palestine to become a ‘non-member Observer state’ at the UN without voting rights. India supported the Bandung Declaration on Palestine at the Asian African Commemorative Conference in April 2015 as well as supported the installation of the Palestinian flag at UN’s premises in September 2015. [10,11].

India formally recognized Israel on September 17, 1950. Soon thereafter, the Jewish Agency established an immigration office in Bombay. This was later converted into a Trade Office and subsequently into a Consulate. Embassies were opened in 1992 when full diplomatic relations were established. Since the upgradation of relations in 1992, defense and agriculture have been the main pillars of bilateral engagement. In recent years, ties have expanded to areas such as S&T, education, and homeland security. The future vision of the cooperation is of a strong hitech partnership as befits two leading knowledge economies. Political ties between the two countries are friendly. President Pranab Mukherjee visited Israel in October 2015. From Israel, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President Ezer Weizmann visited India in 2003 and 1997 respectively. There have been frequent Ministerial level exchanges in the recent past. While Home Minister, Rajnath Singh visited Israel in November 2014, the Israeli Agriculture and Defense Ministers visited India in January and February 2015 respectively [10,11].

Pakistan Relation

Since the early part of the twentieth century, Pakistan vociferously opposed the demand for a Jewish national home in Palestine. In 1947 it became the most boisterous and articulate opponent of the partition plan for Palestine. As a state conceived as the homeland for the Muslims of the Indian sub-continent, Islamic solidarity has been the primary vehicle of Pakistan’s foreign and Middle East policies. This, coupled with the desire to ingratiate itself with the Islamic world, compelled Pakistan to unconditionally support the Arab countries in their conflict with Israel. Like many Third World countries, Pakistan often played the “Israel card” to discredit neighboring India. On occasion, Pakistani leaders have painted their domestic critics and opponents as “conspirators” with Israel or Zionism. And suggestions for a reevaluation of Pakistan’s policy toward Israel have been routinely denied, or viewed as Indian, Israeli, or Zionist conspiracies. For its part, Israel has been reluctant to discuss its relations with countries with whom it does not have formal diplomatic ties. [12] Prolonged diplomatic isolation compelled Israel to master the art of clandestine or back-channel diplomacy.4 Its relations with several countries were preceded by protracted political interactions, diplomatic contacts, or military contracts. The absence of formal relations has often caused Israel to seek unconventional approaches to promote and safeguard its vital interests. Even within the context of Israel’s clandestine diplomacy, Pakistan is unique. In several cases, the absence of diplomatic relations did not inhibit Israel from selectively or partially disclosing the nature and extent of its diplomatic contacts. For instance, its “secret contacts” with Jordan became public long before formal ties were established in 1994, and strict censorship regulations did not inhibit Israel from discussing Morocco’s role in its peace agreement with Egypt. Until the nuclear tests, however, contacts with Pakistan rarely figured in academic or media discussions in Israel. It suited both countries to keep their contacts and exchanges under wraps. For Pakistan, this secrecy enabled its rulers to maintain regular contacts with Israel, even while maintaining public opposition to the Jewish state. Because of Pakistan’s failure to engage in public diplomacy and its reluctance to normalize relations, Israel had to approach the subject cautiously. Any leaks or premature disclosures were detrimental to the existing channels of communication. As a result, in contrast to the case of India, the Pakistani refusal to establish diplomatic relations never figured prominently in Israel’s diplomatic offensive [13].

Literature Review

Coverage of Arab Conflicts has multiple dimensions and the scholars have attempted to look at those dimensions differently. A good number of these have to do with how the US and western media covered them [14-16]. Other studies point at how the Arab media covered the events. And some have attempted a comparison of coverage by Arab and the US media [17]. Very few studies look at how the media of a non-participating country covered these conflicts and the dominant narratives that emerged from these coverages [17]. In India, as in the past during Gulf War and subsequent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, it has been observed that the coverage shows western perspectives. Many scholars have studied the dimension of international news media and its role in coverage of Arab Uprisings where the researcher studies how western media has shaped political understandings in the affected countries. [18].

Prior to this, a similar trajectory of studies has been explored especially after the expansion of CNN as “global television” network during Iraq War in 1991 [19,20] Tuathail, 1997). Baudrillard [21] explores how broadcasting changed in many parts of the World with the direct satellite broadcasting of news by CNN during the Gulf War. It also weighs the impact of this change on coverage of international conflicts. He adds that an important event in global broadcasting of news ushered in a whole lot of changes wherever CNN had a footfall spelling huge shifts in the way conflicts have been telecast before. Many of these scholars have explored the coverage primarily in the context of the Arab world or the United States and the West. There is very little literature exploring the dimension of a non-participant country’s perspective, a distant but important stakeholder like India during such conflicts. Regrettably, there aren’t too many Indian channels which use Al-Jazeera or Abu Dhabi TV as feed. However, the stateowned Doordarshan channel, with the widest coverage of all, has been carrying brief bulletins by an Indian programming company, Third Eye TV. This provides independent and far more critical spot coverage of the events in Iraq [22].

Barrett [23] argued about the Indian mediascape in the wake of expanding foreign television network and internet. He refers to the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) debates of 1970s when the global domination of four western news agencies was seen as a form of information imperialism. He argues that in this market-led development, there has been further deterioration in the relations of power. This imbalance in information and communication flow was aimed to be overcome as reflected from the MacBride commission report and its recommendations.

Kumar [24] argues that Gramscian hegemony and not overt imperialism characterizes contemporary media and the paradigm shift due to technological convergence and digitization has collapsed to serve monopolies. Though Kumar talks about the digital mediascape, the arguments hold true for even the conventional news television.

Talking about conflicts, Thussu and Freedman argue that the mainstream media has been identified as the battleground, the surface upon which war is imagined and executed [25]. They assign two other narratives regarding the role of mainstream media in communicating conflict. They see the media as critical observers and publicists. They quote Robert McChesney, John Nicolas and Noam Chomsky who argue that an increasingly market-led media largely ignores dissenting voices in favor of corporate and government tunes. To this, one can add that when it comes to coverage of international conflicts, the news television follows the narratives provided by the western news agencies and foreign news channels.

To study this rather unexplored dimension of how news television covered international conflict, Arab Conflicts in this case, this research looks at the framing analysis approach. Several scholars have studied the dependence of Indian viewers on mainstream news television for their information about far away regions and their conflicts. And how the news organizations frame news stories in the process of packaging the information have also been explored. Framing theory suggests how something is presented to the audience, through the frame. Framing in turn influences the choices people make about how to process that information [26]. Framing has been defined as the ways in which representations functions to re-contextualize (and thus change meaning of) that which they represent. Goffman [27] states that audiences tend to perceive events in terms of primary frameworks and the type of frame which we employ provides a way of describing the event to which it is applied.

Tuchman [28] writes that “news is a window on the world and through its frame, Americans (public) learns of themselves and others, of their institutions, leaders, and lifestyles and those of other nations and other people’s. The news, need to know, and should know. But, like any frame that delineates the world, a news frame may be problematic. The view through a window depends upon whether the window is large or small, has many panes or few whether the glass is opaque or clear, whether the window faces a street or a backyard”. Thus, the news media have the power to shape news consumers’ opinions and topics about which they are ignorant. Gamson and Modigliani define frame as a “central organizing idea for making sense of relevant events, suggesting what is at issue” and Gitlin [29] identifies frames as principles of selection, emphasis, and presentation composed of little tacit theories about what exists, what happens, and what matters. Accordingly, media frames are persistent patterns of cognition, interpretation, and presentation of selection, emphasis, and exclusion, by which symbol-handlers routinely organize discourse, whether verbal or visual.

According to Iyengar and Simon [30], the media coverage of conflicts in the West Asia was exposed to episodic framing which increased public support for U.S. military intervention to resolve the conflict. Entman [31] identifies framing as a process that essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in the communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/ or or treatment recommendation for the item described. Frame analysis serves the following purposes within the context of media research: to define problems, to diagnose courses, to make value judgments and to suggest remedies.

Methodology and Research Procedures

In this study, the researcher has used content analysis method. Content analysis is the statistical semantics of political discourse. Two types of content analysis exist, quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative content analysis is described as the process by which the symbols of communication are assigned numeric values. The relationship among these values is analyzed using statistical methods to draw inferences about their meaning [32]. Qualitative content analysis is defined as drawing of inferences based on appearance and nonappearance of attributes in messages [33]. To this research, the researcher will focus on the use of qualitative content analysis because, “qualitative methods have proven successful, particularly in political analyses of foreign propaganda” [34].

This study employs the method of content analysis to study the coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in The Indian Express and The Dawn. These newspapers were chosen because of their reputation as being one of the largest Indian and Pakistani newspapers. Data collection contained news articles related to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, which the selected newspapers covered during the period from May 11, 2021, to 22 May 2021. A total of 23 news articles were collected from The Indian Express (Indian newspaper) and The Dawn (Pakistani newspaper).

Findings

Coverage of Israel-Palestine conflict in The Indian Express

Indian newspaper, the Indian Express gave wide coverage to the recent altercation between Israel and Palestine. A total of 11 reports, including editorials and articles were published in The Indian Express during 11-days of the war. The newspaper mostly used Israeli sources for the information and did not directly attack Israel for the conflict. On the first day of the war, on 11th of May 2021, Indian newspaper covered the incident under the headline “After violence at holy sites in Jerusalem, rockets fired, 9 Killed in Gaza”. The major content of the report revolved around rocket fired by Hamas and Palestine. The newspaper talked about causalities in Gaza, but it was clear enough to state that Israel retaliated to the assault of Hamas. In this report, newspaper mentioned both Palestine/Gaza and Israel eight times each.

On 12th of May 2021, the newspaper covered the incident under the headline, “10 Children among 28 killed as Israel strikes Gaza, mobilises troop”. This report talked about civilian causalities, but also showed inclination towards Israel by quoting their sources, which claimed that at least 16 of the dead were militants. The newspaper here tried to balance the crime by reporting that two women in Israel were killed by rockets fired from Gaza. Indian newspaper also carried statement of the Israeli military, which stated that it was sending troop reinforcements to the Gaza border. In this report, the newspaper mentioned Israel nine times as against five time’s mention of Palestine.

On 13th of May 2021, Indian newspaper covered the ongoing war under the headline “Israel- Palestine violence escalates to major crisis”. The newspaper focused on killing of Hamas commander by Israel. Once again, the newspaper relied on the Israeli sources for the information. The newspaper quoted Israel Military and stated that a joint operation of soldiers and intelligence officers across Gaza has simultaneously killed Hama commanders. About the civilian casualties, the newspaper showed inclination towards Israel by reporting that rockets fired from Hamas and Islamic Jihad-targeted Israeli cities killed six people and wounded more than 100. The newspaper mentioned Israel more than 12 times, whereas Palestine/Hamas was mentioned only eight times.

On the following days, the Indian Express carried an Editorial “A Grave Setback’, in which the newspaper talked about killing of Israeli citizens in Hamas attack. The newspaper carried an article, “India, Israel and Palestine”, in which the author asserted that earlier India’s policy was pro- Palestine but now it has been perceived as Pro- Israel. On 22nd of May 2021, the Indian Express under the headline, “Israel- Hamas ceasefire takes hold” discussed the victory of Israel at the end of 11 days of fighting. The newspaper also showed Palestine celebrating the ceasefire.

Coverage of Israel-Palestine conflict in The Dawn

Similarly, the Pakistani newspaper gave wide coverage to the latest conflict between Israel and Palestine. A total of 14 news reports, articles and editorials were published in The Dawn. On 11th of May 2021, the newspaper covered the start of conflict under headline, “20 killed as Israel targets Hamas positions in Gaza”, in which the newspaper quoted Abu Obeida, spokesman for Hamas military wing, saying “The rocket attack was a response to what he called Israeli crimes and aggression in Jerusalem. This is a message the enemy must understand well. He threatened more attacks if Israel again invades the sacred Al Aqsa compound or carries out evictions of Palestinian families in a neighborhood of east Jerusalem.” The newspaper mentioned Israel 22 times, as compared to 31 times Palestinian/Hamas.

On 12th of May 2021 the Dawn covered the incident under headline, “28 killed as Israel rains death and destruction on Gaza”, in which the newspaper focused on the attacks by Israel. The newspaper wrote, “Israel unleashed new air strikes on Gaza while militants barraged southern Israel with hundreds of rockets.” The newspaper also reported that 13-storey residential block in Gaza containing a civilian Hamas office collapsed after one of several dozen Israeli air strikes. The newspaper mentioned Hamaz/ Palestine for 13 times and Israel was used for 18 times.

On 13th of May 2021 the Pakistani newspaper endorsed stand of its government about Palestine. The newspaper carried a report under headline, “PM backs Twitter drive for solidarity with Palestinians”, in which the newspaper wrote, “To express solidarity with the people of Palestine, who are treated savagely by Israeli security forces, Prime Minister Imran Khan on Wednesday joined trending Twitter campaigns #We stand with Palestine and #We stand with Gaza.” The newspaper mentioned Hamas/Palestine for 32 times, as compared to 14 times Israel.

On May 14, 2021, The Dawn covered the ongoing conflict under headline, “Israel pounds Gaza with air strikes; Palestinian fatalities cross 100,” in which the newspaper stated that the heavy bombardments coincided with the start of Eidul Fitr, which marks the end of the holy fasting month of Ramazan and saw the faithful pray at mosques and amid the rubble of Gaza’s collapsed buildings. The newspaper mentioned Hamas/Palestine for 33 times, as compared to 24 times Israel. On preceding days, the Dawn carried an editorial, “Palestine Bloodbath’ in which newspaper stated that Palestine was bathed in blood, its people left to mourn and carry the tiny coffins of its children. While some would classify the current violence as a ‘conflict’ between Israelis and Palestinians, it is more of a one-sided assault on the Palestinian people by Tel Aviv’s war machine.

On 18th of May 2021, the newspaper covered the incident under the headline, “FM gives call for protests against Israeli atrocities on Friday”, in which the Dawn reported that Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi used the National Assembly platform to give a call for countrywide peaceful protests the ongoing Israeli aggression in Palestine on May 21 (Friday). On 19th of May 2021, The Dawn in an article “Palestinian’s Right to Live” written by Zahid Hussain talked about brutalities on the people of Palestine. The author wrote that this is not the first time the people in Gaza have suffered Israeli brutality that has caused death and devastation. Yet the kind of ferocious and incessant bombardment carried out by the Zionist administration this time has not been seen for a long while. Children and women are among the main casualties of Israel’s latest military action that has entered its second week.

On 21st of May 2021, the newspaper covered the incident under the headline, “Pakistan for deployment of global force to save Palestinians”, in which the newspaper endorsed its government’s stand of deploying an international protection force to end the ongoing violence in Palestine. On 22nd of May 2021, the Dawn reported “Israel, Hamas agree to ceasefire to end 11 days of violence”, in which the newspaper talked about a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, ending a bruising 11 days of violence that caused widespread destruction in the Gaza Strip and brought life in much of Israel to a standstill. The newspaper also reported celebrations on Gaza streets in the minutes after the truce began as cars honked their horns, and some guns were fired in the air.

Conclusion

This study compared and analyzed the media coverage of 2021 Israel-Palestine war, found within two South Asian countries- India and Pakistan. In doing so this study connected elements of political discourses to media content and illustrated how content gets structured within a political context. To put it more succinctly, this study illustrated distinctions between what a reader in India and Pakistan would have understood of the 2021 Israel-Palestine War. This is not to disregard individual agency in the acceptance, rejection, or potential reformulation of a given discourse. But it does show how powerful institutions play a role in shaping the kinds of stories offered to national readerships in the first place. The purpose of this research was to analyze how print media of India and Pakistan frame the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that assists in the expression of a pro-Israeli or pro-Palestine bias. More specifically, the researcher set out to learn how The Indian Express and the Dawn framed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Results from the Indian Express analysis suggest that the newspaper tends to justify Israeli killers and killings, condemn Palestinian killers and killings, and assign more prominence to the Israeli side. Results from the Dawn analysis suggest that the newspaper source tends to justify Palestinian killers and killings, condemn Israeli killers and killings, and assign more prominence to the Palestinian side.

The study comprised of 11-days of conflict, so the sample size happened to be small. From this small sample size, the researcher was able to discover biases, followed by the newspapers of two countries. It was found that Indian newspaper-the Indian Express discussed not only Israeli deaths, but also provided equal space for Palestinian killings. Similarly, Pakistani newspaper-the Dawn discussed Palestinian deaths more often, as compared to the deaths of Israelis. It was found that Pakistani newspaper used negative adjectives more frequently to describe Israelis than Palestinians, whereas Indian newspaper remained neutral. The study revealed that Pakistan portrayed Palestinians as victims and Israel as villain. However, the adjectives used to describe killings were similar.

During this study, it was discovered that Pakistani newspaperthe Dawn accused Israel of the conflict in almost all its headlines. It portrayed Israel as the villain of the game, whereas Palestinians were presented as victims. The Indian newspaper-Indian Express mostly remained neutral in its reporting, which was evident from the fact that most of the reports were carried on inside pages, unlike Pakistani newspaper, which carried Israel-Palestine war on the front page. The Indian newspaper, despite remaining neutral showed pro-Israel bias, as the newspaper mostly used Israeli sources for the information and did not directly attack Israel for the conflict.

The major content of the reports carried by Indian Express revolved around rockets fired by Hamas and Palestine. The newspaper sided Israel by stating that it retaliated to the assault of Hamas. Indian Express talked about civilian causalities, but showed inclination towards Israel by quoting their sources, which claimed that they killed militants. The newspaper also tried to balance the crime by reporting that civilians in Israel were killed by rockets fired from Gaza. Even in articles and editorials, Indian newspaper talked about killing of Israeli citizens in Hamas attack. The newspaper supported stand of the Indian government in an article by claiming that earlier India’s policy was pro- Palestine but now it has been perceived as Pro- Israel.

Similarly, Pakistani newspaper gave wide coverage to the latest conflict between Israel and Palestine, but its reportage remained highly inclined towards Palestine. The Dawn quoted Palestinian and Hamas sources for information, which showed that Palestine remained close to the newspapers. The newspaper supported Palestine of launching rocket attack, claiming it to be a response to Israeli crimes and aggression in Jerusalem. The Dawn also endorsed the stand of its respective government by reporting that PM backs Twitter drive for solidarity with Palestinians. The newspaper wrote, “To express solidarity with the people of Palestine, who are treated savagely by Israeli security forces, Prime Minister Imran Khan on Wednesday joined trending Twitter campaigns #We stand with Palestine and #We stand with Gaza.” The Dawn carried an editorial, “Palestine Bloodbath’ in which it stated that Palestine was bathed in blood, its people left to mourn and carry the tiny coffins of its children.

Meanwhile, it was also observed that despite casualties on both sides, newspapers from India and Pakistan gave more prominence to the death of Palestinians, as it had reported more civilian deaths. However, Pakistani newspaper condemned Israeli killers, while as Indian newspaper partially justified it. This study shows a consistent trend in coverage of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict. Bias was largely consistent throughout most of the reports examined. This study has shown a new factor in the ways in which the Pakistani newspaper expresses a pro-Palestine bias, whereas Indian newspaper showed pro-Israeli bias.

References

1. El Masry M (2006) Death in the Middle East: An analysis of how the New York Times and Chicago Tribune frame violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Journal of Middle East Media 5: 1-47
2. El Tuham (2003), HSA content and textual analysis of the BBC WORLD NEWS and CNN Headline News online services: Frames and news sources in coverage of the second Palestinian intifada.
3. Ross SD (2001) Framing of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict in thirteen months of New York Times editorials surrounding the attack of September 11, 2001. Conflict and Communication Online 2(2): 1-11.
4. Peretz D (1996) The Arab-Israeli dispute. New York: Facts on File, Inc.
5. Said EW (1980) The Question of Palestine. New York: Times Books.
6. Quigley J (1980) Palestine and Israel: A challenge to justice. Durham: Duke University Press.
7. Laqueur W, Rubin B (2001) The Israeli-Arab reader. New York: Penguin Books.
8. Findley P (1998) Deliberate deceptions: Facing the facts about the U.S- Israeli relationship. New York: Lawerence Hill Books.
9. (2006) Guradian Unlimited/Associated Press. War by the numbers.
10. (2021) Ministry of External Affairs Website. Palestine_Relations_for_MEA_Website.pdf
11. (2021) Ministry of External Affairs Website.
12. Mushahid Hussain (1988) How Pakistan Views Israel and the Palestinians. Middle East International p. 21.
13. Yegar Moshe (2007) Pakistan and Israel. Jewish Political Studies Review 19:3-4.
14. BBC Trust (2012) Report on BBC Coverage of “The Arab Spring”.
15. Dube J (2013) International News Media Coverage of the “Arab Spring”: Actors, Technology and Political Impacts.
16. Guzman AL (2015) Evolution of News Frames during the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 93(1): 80-98.
17. Alalawi N (2015) How Media Covered “Arab Spring” Movement: Comparison between the American Fox News and the Middle Eastern Al Jazeera. Journal of Mass Communication & Journalism 5: 281.
18. Straaten I (2013) Framing Arab Spring. Wageningen University, Wageningen
19. Lee ST, Maslog CC, Kim HS (2006) Asian Conflicts, and the Iraq War. International Communication Gazette. 68(5-6): 499-518.
20. Luke TW, Tuathail GÓ (1997) On Videocameralistics: The Geopolitics of Failed States, CNN International and (UN) Governmentality. Review of International Political Economy 4(4): 709-733.
21. Baudrillard J (1995) The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. Indian University Press.
22. Bidwai P (2003) Revulsion, Disgust in India at the War, 2003.
23. Barrett OB (2011) Rethinking News Agencies, National Development, and Information Imperialism.
24. Kumar S (2011) Hegemony in Contemporary Culture and Media and the Need for a Counter Initiative.
25. Thussu DK, Freedman D (2005) War and the Media: Reporting Conflict 24/7. London: SAGE.
26. Asemah ES, Edegoh LO (2012) Mass Media Agenda and Conflict Resolution in Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria. An International Journal of Arts and Humanities.
27. Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
28. Tuchman G (1978) Making News. New York, NY: Free Press.
29. Gitlin T (1980) The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkelry: University of California Press.
30. Iyengar S, Simon A (1993) News Coverage of the Gulf Crisis and Public Opinion: A Study of Agenda-Setting, Priming and Framing. Communication Research. 20(3): 365-383.
31. Entman R (1993) Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication. 43: 51-58.
32. Riffe D, Lacy S, Fico FG (1988) Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
33. Holsti OR (1969) Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
34. Krippendorff K (2004) Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
35. Laqueur W, Rubin B (2001) The Israeli-Arab reader. New York: Penguin Books.
36. Alam, A. Arab Spring: A View from India. In Routledge Handbook of the Arab Spring: Rethinking Democratization (1st ed., pp. 636-649). Routledge, 2015.