In recent years, media narratives surrounding the conflict involving Israel have increasingly come under scrutiny. This discussion raises crucial questions about the media’s portrayal of Israel’s ongoing actions. Where was the media coverage during the Nakba, the establishment of bantustans in Israel, and the continuous settler expansion in the West Bank? Furthermore, why is there only sporadic attention given to the dire situation in Gaza?
By Belén Fernández, author of The Darién Gap: A Reporter’s Journey through the Deadly Crossroads of the Americas and Inside Siglo XXI: Locked Up in Mexico’s Largest Immigration Center, among other titles. She is an opinion columnist at Al Jazeera. Originally published at Common Dreams
In October 2024, one year into Israel’s genocidal campaign against the Gaza Strip and its simultaneous attacks on Lebanon, the Israeli army hosted journalists from major Western media. This excursion included military personnel who were prepared to present the war-torn landscape in a way that favored their narrative—though the Western media has rarely needed much help in achieving this goal.
Reporters from reputable outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, Reuters, BBC, Fox News, and several others participated in this media venture. As noted by Habib Battah and Christina Cavalcanti in an investigation for the Public Source (8/27/25), this event resembled an awkward blend of traditional military embeds and free promotional trips often referred to as junkets.
Ignoring the fact that it is illegal for journalists or anyone else to enter Lebanon from Israel, we see yet another illegal incursion from a nation that has a long history of invading Lebanon. Battah and Cavalcanti stress that these journalists embedded themselves within “a national project of extraordinary transnational violence,” facilitated by an “extrajudicial occupying military power,” a critical aspect that was notably absent from their reporting.
The media successfully garnered sensational coverage as reporters jubilantly unearthed boots and helmets purportedly belonging to Hezbollah—alleged evidence of the group’s sinister intentions against Israel. The New York Times Jerusalem correspondent Isabel Kershner, known for conducting preemptive journalistic strikes against Lebanon, did not disappoint her audience with her report (10/13/24), titled “Just Over the Border From Israel, a Hezbollah Cache of Explosives and Mines.”
In report after report, Israel’s chosen journalists dutifully promoted the narrative that Hezbollah was the aggressor, despite the ongoing violence inflicted by an army that had already ruthlessly killed thousands in Lebanon, executing a scorched-earth strategy.
‘Urgent Evacuation Warnings’
While the October 2024 embed exemplified the media’s peculiar relationship with Israel, the same outlets continue to effectively sanitize Israeli brutality even when they are not embedded within military vehicles. Since March of that year, Israel has reportedly killed at least 3,613 people in Lebanon, displacing around 1.2 million, leveling entire villages, and advancing against the ecocidal policies forged in the Gaza Strip.
In stark contrast, there has been no comparable destruction on the Israeli side. A recent Reuters article (5/31/26) attempted to imply symmetry in the violence but had to be revised to remove a claim that tens of thousands of Israelis faced displacement due to Hezbollah fire.
Similar to the situation in Gaza, where genocide continues unchecked despite a supposedly declared ceasefire (FAIR.org, 10/21/25), media outlets report “ceasefires” in Lebanon while neglecting the fact that Israel is still actively bombing the country, decimating civilian lives, and setting the stage for land grabs through questionable “evacuation orders.” These so-called “evacuations” have primarily targeted the Shiite population, with Israel advising Christian and Druze communities not to shelter Shiite neighbors (New York Times, 4/1/26).
Lebanese journalist Habib Battah, co-author of the aforementioned Public Source investigation, suggested that these orders might be more accurately described as “ethnic cleansing directives.” However, such terminology would be too challenging for corporate media to embrace. Instead, these outlets use phrases like “urgent evacuation warnings” and “large-scale evacuation orders,” framing these actions as public safety measures rather than illegal, violent impositions. From a moral and legal standpoint, it is utterly indefensible to force individuals in foreign nations from their homes, often leading to bombings upon their compliance.
Then there’s the concept of the “Yellow Line” or “security zone”—terms similarly borrowed from Gaza (FAIR.org, 5/19/26) that denote the area of southern Lebanon unlawfully occupied by Israel. However, Israel has never respected any boundaries, with its latest “evacuation orders” extending into approximately one-fifth of the entire country, far beyond this unilaterally designated Yellow Line.
As Battah pointed out, the media’s use of such arbitrary terminology creates “artificial structures” and a misleading sense of order, obscuring the reality that these are simply illegal invasions. The media’s commitment to sanitizing Israel’s conduct, rather than questioning it, serves to normalize colonization.
‘A Warning to Residents’
The willingness of journalists to align themselves with Israel’s narrative is perplexing, especially given that Israel currently ranks as the number one killer of journalists worldwide. A Associated Press article (5/29/26) minimized the devastation in Lebanon to merely “ongoing fighting in southern Lebanon between Israeli troops and Hezbollah fighters.”
A June 4 Reuters piece blamed Hezbollah for “rejecting” a latest U.S.-mediated “ceasefire” plan, which would essentially grant Israel free rein to annex south Lebanon outright. Reuters omitted any mention of the thousands of Lebanese casualties since March, but did grant Israel the typical opportunity to justify its assaults: “The Israeli military, in a warning to residents of the south, said it was continuing to target Hezbollah facilities.”
This does not imply that corporate media entirely avoid reporting the destruction, displacement, and death in Lebanon; they do—and sometimes even do so sympathetically. However, their failure to provide a cohesive and contextualized narrative ultimately legitimizes Israel’s war crimes.
Imagine, for instance, if Hezbollah had killed thousands of Israelis in a three-month period and occupied northern Israel. In doing so, it would have devastated 5,000-year-old cities, bombed everything from homes to ambulances, to World Heritage sites, and even targeted environmental activists defending sea turtles. The horror would certainly be more prominently covered, and Hezbollah would not be allowed to claim repeatedly that it was merely targeting “military facilities.”
As the genocide in Gaza continues, officially claiming nearly 73,000 Palestinian lives, it is nothing short of an abomination that Israeli officials can still insist, with little media pushback, that their actions are only aimed at “terrorists” and “terrorist infrastructure.” If Israeli officials were to assert that two plus two equals eight, or that Elvis Presley were living in a cave in Madagascar, would the corporate media report such absurdities without questioning them?
By taking Israel’s assertions at face value, journalists ultimately endorse mass killings and occupation—as illustrated in the corrected May 31 Reuters piece that effectively made the case for Israel’s seizure of a 900-year-old castle, situated nowhere near the arbitrary “colored line.”
The advance into Beaufort Castle has granted Israeli troops a vantage point over much of southern Lebanon and northern Israel, from which attacks have been launched towards Israeli residential areas.
‘Iranian Proxy on Its Borders’
The media’s selective contextualization and omission of historical facts enable Israeli propaganda to morph into “news.” A common tactic involves incessantly reminding audiences that Hezbollah is a “powerful Shia group supported by Iran,” as highlighted by the BBC (5/28/26).
On March 13, CNN published an analysis from Tel Aviv titled: “The War That Never Ended: Israel Seizes Moment to Finish Fight Against Hezbollah, Iran’s Proxy in Lebanon.” The analyst went on to justify Israel’s need for military strength to protect civilians from the Iranian-backed group.
While mentioning Hezbollah’s backing from Iran is often viewed as necessary, similar context regarding Israel’s alliances is rarely provided—such as describing Israel as a genocidal state supported by a global superpower as it seeks to complete its fight against Hezbollah.
As for the root of this conflict, the media often neglect to mention that Hezbollah emerged as a direct response to Israel’s brutal 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which resulted in mass casualties among Lebanese and Palestinians. This long history of conflict is vital to understanding the current war, yet journalists who address the background tend to gloss over it, as seen in the New York Times’ vague description (6/3/26), stating that “Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Shiite militia group, has been in conflict with Israel on and off for decades.”
In a May 13 NBC News article entitled “Amid Ceasefire, Israeli Forces Ramp Up Destruction of Homes in Southern Lebanon,” the origins of Hezbollah were touched upon: “The group, formed in the early 1980s as a civil war consumed Lebanon, was created with support from Iran and sought to expel Israeli forces from Lebanese territory.” The article also examined the current destruction in southern Lebanon, featuring video evidence of damage inflicted upon the solar panels in the Christian village of Debel, where, previously, a soldier had been reported damaging a statue of Jesus.
“In a statement to NBC News, the Israeli army expressed that the damage to the solar panels was not in line with its values and that disciplinary actions had been taken.”
Here’s hoping corporate journalists may eventually gain the courage to challenge Israel on more consequential issues.
