In recent weeks, a subtle yet evident shift has happened in mainstream media outlets in their portrayal of the Israeli Occupation Entity’s (IOE) genocidal campaign on Gaza. The initial narrative had emphasized "Israel's" so-called ‘right to defend itself’; however, that has now been replaced with calls for a ceasefire and evidenced accusations of war crimes.

But what has changed after 90 days? As the media landscape becomes a battleground for competing narratives, it is important to explore the consequences of an increasingly informed global audience challenging the IOE's attempts to portray itself as a victim, and ultimately victor. The recent shift in media coverage reflects and disguises several factors, including the new balance of power on the ground, the shift in US interests, as well as humiliating military and economic defeats. 

Operation Al Aqsa Flood ignited a wave of pro-Palestine protests across the world, from West Asia to the streets of Washington DC. In Iraq, protestors lined the Turaibil border, refusing to allow subsidised oil to be given to states that have ties with the Israeli Occupation Entity (IOE). Thousands of miles away in the British capital, over 800 thousand people took to the streets to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people. The IOE has spewed an endless amount of fabrications in the media that have quickly been debunked by curious social media users. From regurgitating the fabrications of military headquarters being under hospitals, to claiming Resistance fighters were playing with body parts, the BBC and other news outlets attempted to portray the aggressors as victims. Not only does this reflect a shift in global consciousness, it also suggests that the IOE is in a vulnerable place and must harness the victim position in order to maintain public support and monopoly on the narrative.

For the first time in history, all military operations carried out against the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) in Gaza by the Palestinian Resistance, have been well documented and widely shared on social media, preventing mainstream media from perpetuating the fabricated storyline of alleged IOE victories. Despite attempts by Western politicians and the media to portray the operation as though it was led by a group of disorganised, havoc-causing terrorists, the majority of the world saw it as a liberation movement, legitimate under international law.

Mainstream Western media outlets have had to change suit, as continuing to run and broadcast these lies would result in them losing complete legitimacy and credibility. Through international pressure via democracy and diplomacy, the majority of the world has voted for a ceasefire, leaving only the US defending the IOE. This has exposed the dissonance between professed US democratic values and the reality of US policy and actions, and forced the US to change its tone by asking the IOE to engage in targeted attacks rather than indiscriminate bombing, revealing the true nature of Israeli warfare. 

One of the reasons the media appears committed to preserving an untainted portrayal of the Israeli Occupation Entity (IOE), is to prolong its military campaign, which stems from the fact that, since the start of the war on Gaza, the IOE has failed to achieve a single military or strategic objective. Instead, it has experienced significant setbacks and defeats, with prominent commanders being lost on the Northern front and the Palestinian Resistance consistently ambushing them in Gaza. The IOE relies on media support to extend the duration of the conflict, buying time to achieve at least a hint of success. This is seemingly achieved by downplaying the size of pro-Palestine protests, or by framing the Resistance forces as villains. This indicates a deliberate attempt to shape narratives and perceptions surrounding the events in order to justify the length of the conflict, which most considered would be over by now, given the IOE brands itself as the strongest military power in West Asia.

Without such support, the IOE faces the prospect of a televised humiliating retreat and a catastrophic military failure. This outcome not only poses a severe risk to the IOE’s global image but, more critically, threatens the trust of Israeli settlers in their leadership, potentially resulting in a wave of disillusionment and mass emigration. 

Related News

Colombia's Silk Road turn: Breaking the chains of US hegemony

The fulfillment of Trumps dreams

The shift in media narrative mirrors the same shift in US strategy. Since the start of the Al-Aqsa Flood battle, the IOE not only sought refuge in the US, but also received the majority of their warfare equipment and aid from the US. They have also been following the instructions provided to them, indicating that the entire conflict is being managed by the US. For decades, through governments being toppled and endless wars, it has always been clear that the US intends to remain in what Mackinder (1919) refers to as the Heartland; "who rules the Heartland commands the World." After all, West Asia is an oil-rich region and is of strategic geopolitical importance.

The IOE was established as a military, imperialist colonial outpost for the US, as previously stated by US President Biden; "were there no Israel, we would have to create an Israel," an entity that will function to further and protect US interests in the region. As with all colonial projects in history, they are incredibly difficult to maintain and carry an expiration date, and with the IOE being over 7 decades old, it is no longer functioning as it was originally designed to. With the humiliating defeats the IOE is suffering in the battle in Gaza and the Northern Front, along with constant attacks on Israeli ships by Yemen and the continued attacks on US bases in Iraq, the US is looking to rethink its strategy. 

The initial strategy, which consisted of using the IOE as a military base to discipline the region into submission, was rendered powerless with the rise of Resistance movements across the region, resulting in the US having to defend the now fragile entity. Using the realist perspective in international relations, that argues states are after their own interests, what was once created to protect interests is in need of protection itself. It is for this reason that there appears to be a shift in strategy, whereby the US is seeking stability for its interests in the region, which would include not dragging the region into a full-blown war resulting in the minimised presence of the US in the region. It is therefore willing to forego the fragile entity that has been wreaking havoc since October the 7th, resulting in numerous attacks on US bases in the region as well as mass protests and boycotts. 

Not only has the IOE's economy taken a massive blow, the US and Western states are beginning to feel the economic impact of this genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people, namely due to Yemen’s disruption of shipping routes. In practice, the US sought to form a coalition with nations to halt Yemen's actions, but ended up securing support from only two ineffectual allies: Bahrain and Seychelles. Yemen and Iraq have both taken direct action against the US in the region, and have not been met with the traditional full-blown war or invasion by the US.

This could suggest that the US is attempting to maintain stability for its interests in the region, as it has bigger battles to fight such as the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, as it wrestles for its survival as the sole world hegemonic power. The potential threat to US interests might elucidate the change in media narrative, from encouraging the IOE to go to war, to now professing their alleged concern over excessive civilian causalities. The United States and other Western countries are utilising media channels to slowly introduce and accustom the public to this shift.

Despite democratic votes in West Asia such as in Iraq, calling for the exit of the US from the region, the US has ignored such calls and remained, suggesting that the US is keen on maintaining its influence and presence in the region. Given the IOE is emerging as the defeated party, it could be suggested that the US will attempt to remain in the region in their physical presence. This means that the US will have to understand the contemporary power dynamics in the region and appreciate that the Resistance is now a power to be reckoned with, meaning any solution to the current conflict would have to include negotiations with the Resistance. 

As with everyone else, the US is able to predict the downfall of the IOE, surrounded by the Resistance axis, an entity that was unable to take on Hamas; which ultimately would lead to the beginning of the end of US presence in the region. In order to swiftly end this war, which the IOE is unable to maintain, the media must assist in playing the role of distorting perceptions and make it look as though "Israel" is achieving goals, allowing for the war to come to an end. This is done by for example; exaggerating the number of Hamas members killed, presenting the killing of Hamas leader Arouri in Beirut as a military goal, and focusing on how many tunnels were discovered, albeit two months later. These events suggest the IOE is seeking de-escalation and an exit strategy to the conflict and must present the world, as well as their settler population, with fake and inflated victories. This is all while simultaneously receiving support from Saudi-backed channels such as Al Arabiya and Qatari-backed Al Jazeera to focus on Palestinian victimhood rather than reporting on the gains by the Palestinian Resistance.

The reality on the ground is that the IOE is failing militarily against what the West, including the media mouthpiece, has worked tirelessly to paint as a group of terrorists, leading to a need for a face-saving exit from the conflict through media manipulation.

It is evident that the media has served as a manipulative tool for the West to advance their agenda and attempt to shape public opinion. The shift in media narrative reflects the acceptance of the West of the new power dynamics equation in Gaza. The narrative of a group that was painted as disorganised terrorists versus the strongest military power in West Asia is quickly being retracted. As the Israeli Occupation Entity faces military setbacks as well as international and domestic pressure, the media becomes a crucial tool for shaping perceptions and salvaging control in the face of an inevitable reality and defeat. The call for a ceasefire, and concerns over civilian casualties, may serve as a smokescreen for a strategic retreat, highlighting the subtle interplay between media narratives and geopolitical realities and carving way for a negotiated rather than forceful eviction from the region.