Nations, including South Africa, have reported casualties from the escalated conflict, with Department of International Relations and Cooperative Governance spokesperson Clayson Monyela confirming the deaths of two citizens, one of whom also had an Israeli ID number. Ibraheem Abu Mustafa/Reuters
TENSIONS between Israel and Palestine have flared up, with both sides launching attacks on each other. The conflict has escalated in recent weeks, with hundreds of people killed and injured.
The latest round of violence began in May, when Israeli forces raided the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem, a holy site for both Muslims and Jews. The raid sparked protests and clashes between Palestinians and Israeli police.
In response to the protests, Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip, launched rocket attacks on Israel.
Israel responded with airstrikes on Gaza, which have killed hundreds of civilians, including many children. The United Nations and the United States have called for a ceasefire, but both sides have so far refused to comply.
Nations, including South Africa, have reported casualties from the escalated conflict, with Department of International Relations and Cooperative Governance spokesperson Clayson Monyela confirming the deaths of two citizens, one of whom also had an Israeli ID number.
The latest round of violence is just the latest chapter in this long and tragic saga as Palestine continues its fight for democratic freedom under apartheid style laws imposed by the Israeli government.
The media’s reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict has been particularly intense, following the Israeli government’s airstrikes on the Gaza Strip in response to rocket attacks from Hamas.
While both Israel and Palestine have relied on the media to alert the world to the conflict, the media has also been criticised for its biased coverage and for documenting the human cost of these airstrikes.
For example, the Associated Press published a number of articles and videos about the civilian casualties of the conflict. One article, published on August 5, 2023, described the story of a family who lost four of their children in an Israeli airstrike.
However, the media has also been criticised for its biased coverage of the conflict. For example, a study by the Media Tenor found that Israeli sources were featured more prominently in the coverage of the 2014 Gaza War than Palestinian sources.
In addition to its focus on Israeli sources, the media has also been criticised for its use of language.
“Mainstream media coverage, influenced by colonial powers, decontextualized the conflict and spread fake news that demonises not only the Palestinian resistance but the Palestinian people as a whole,” said Nidal Al-Azza, Director of the BADIL Resource Centre for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights.
“The language used deceptively favours the Israeli colonial-apartheid regime's side, while misleading visuals contribute to polarisation. Palestinians are dehumanised on a massive scale; headlines continue to claim that Israelis are “killed, slaughtered, and burned,", while Palestinians simply ‘die’.”
Azza said that media channels were used to spread false information and support prejudices about Muslims, the colonies, and race.
Additionally, the extensive removal of Palestinian content from social media sites obliterates the Palestinian perspective.
“Thus, multimedia coverage can also be seen as an obstacle to the Palestinian people's pursuit of self-determination and their right to resist.”
For example, a study by the group If Not Now found that the media often uses more sympathetic language when describing Israeli deaths and injuries than when describing Palestinian deaths and injuries.
Another study by the University of Maryland found that exposure to biased media coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict can lead to decreased support for Palestinian rights.
It said that this type of biased reporting can have a number of negative consequences, making it difficult for the public to understand the conflict and its causes. It can also lead to public support for policies that are harmful to Palestinians.
Africa 4 Palestine Director Muhammed Desai said that the reluctance of some media outlets to hear about the Palestinian conflict indirectly contributes to the continued violence perpetuated against Palestine.
He likened it to the media coverage of sexual assault victims, which focuses on a victim’s defensive actions against their attacker rather than the assault.
“There are in some instances of a mischaracterisation of the issue. Palestinian resistance and resistance operations must be put into context. The Palestinians have been occupied and denied their rights for over 70 years,” Desai said.
“They have been living in conditions that the UN General Secretary has referred to as “hell on earth”. We agree with the ANC; it is no wonder and no surprise that the oppressed masses of Palestine will lash out at their oppressors.
“The Israeli occupation, apartheid, and oppression are the root causes of this violence. Every single death, both Palestinian and Israeli, is in the hands of the Israelis,” he said.
Al Jazeera released an Instagram reel this week criticising what they called a demand for the condemnation of violence against civilians that seemed to only be reserved for Palestinians.
“Palestinians like [name] Zomlot, or other Arabs and Muslims, are asked to condemn violence against Israeli civilians, especially when it's the first thing that they are asked. They're basically being asked to qualify their humanity. They're basically being asked to say "Yes, I don't want to kill you”, and this was a specific rhetoric that's been weaponized against specific populations of Arabs and Muslims for decades now.”
“There's an underlying assumption that if an Arab or Muslim does not condemn a particular type of violence, then they are in fact in favour of it; that is the default that they are in fact themselves threats.”
Israeli journalist and spokesperson for Media Team Israel, Rolene Marks, believed that the media’s reporting was based more on the bilateral sides taken by governments’ in backing Israel or Palestine.
“Every country, every civilised country, is standing with us. Social media is full of support for us. Except for those who are so full of their own hatred that they have to see pictures of beheaded babies. It doesn't just frustrate us.
“We're dumbfounded. The evidence is there. Hamas filmed themselves and uploaded it to social media. Everywhere for people to see. To people's families. The world is appalled. This has hurt the Palestinian people more than anything.
Marks said that Israelis who watched the global response were dismayed by countries, like South Africa, who were reluctant to directly defend Israel’s response to the Hamas’ attack.
She particularly criticised the BBC’s reluctance to label Hasmas as terrorists and other media outlets for their lack of transparency over the reported deaths of Israeli and Palestinian citizens.
“It’s a true story when they say the media really sometimes will contribute as weapons of destruction, more than being the builders of a peaceful society, because they know what they're doing for the most part,” Marks said.
And we’ve tried as regular citizens to call out the media when we see that they're reporting misinformation or spreading disinformation—but it's a long road.
“It’s a very difficult and long road, but you know what? Stories like this really, really help. The Arab media has also been disgusted at what they've seen because this is not Islam. It’s not.”