By Alaa’a Ashkar and Madeline Rowe*
Advances in media change perceptions of warfare. In this modern era of media, the recent events between Israel and Palestine reveal even more reliance on technological advancements and social media coverage than the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, which was dubbed as the “world’s first TikTok war.” In both conflicts, the discourse on the conflict and even the coverage itself now takes place on social media platforms shared by “super-empowered individuals.”
Modern Media
Last year an Inkstick article explored modern social media’s usage in the Russo-Ukrainian War, focusing on how modern platforms have become an instrument of propaganda. But as the authors pointed out, this phenomenon precedes social media technology. Ukrainian information activists took inspiration from prior examples, such as when Civil Rights actors used television to publicize a horrific image of a disfigured Emmett Till to ignite the Civil Rights movement.
Or a more similar example, the Vietnam War’s negative portrayal within American media played a vital role in influencing eventual U.S. withdrawal from the region. Over the course of that conflict, the percentage of U.S. citizens who owned a television increased from 9 percent to 93, and millions of Americans encountered uncensored coverage, for the first time, of the brutality in Vietnam, fueling a strong antiwar movement among Americans.
Today we see something different—information shared directly by conflict actors. This of course can add to the one-sided picture major media outlets often provide, and now, social media’s real-time information is used as a sort of weapon itself. Or it can simply be a sort of reality check for global audiences.
One can wonder how the existence of social media can alter the course of a conflict. For example, The New York Times published false claims about weapons residing in Iraq, preceding and ultimately helping to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The New York Times now admits it repeated unverified claims in its coverage of Iraq and failed in its mission. In light of how today’s conflicts play out, this begs the question: if social media were active then the way it is now, would the Iraqi invasion have proceeded the same way? If Americans had seen more of what their government was doing overseas, would there have been more public opposition?
Everybody is a Journalist: The Empowerment of Individuals
If these ideas are applied to the Israel-Palestine conflict, a number of considerations come into view. After Hamas’ attack on October 7, 2023, the status quo in Gaza changed as Israel launched a full-scale invasion of Gaza to exterminate Hamas. The attack, invasion, and resulting war accompanied Israel officials’ perspectives on how to handle the matter—which have often matched definitions of genocide. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant articulated an intention to deprive Palestinians of basic necessities (a war crime): he intended to allow “No electricity, no food, no water, no gas—it’s all closed.” A few days later, Dan Gillerman, chairman of Blackstone Israel, called Palestinian people “inhuman animals.” Dr. Raz Segal, a Holocaust Studies Professor at Stockton University, wrote in The Jewish Currents that Israeli officials’ articulated intents and their actions constitute a “textbook case of genocide…with the intent to destroy…a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”
Israel has placed emphasis on portraying their media’s narratives in American media coverage of the conflict. Jodie Ginsberg, the chief executive of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), explains that Israel’s government silences foreign news organizations deemed a security risk to Israel. Only a few journalists are allowed into Gaza, and they are accompanied by Israeli military, which escorts them and reviews the footage they collect. This control over media coverage is enforced by the Supreme Court of Israel. Israel employs government collaboration with influencers and young social media users and has for almost a decade: the Israeli Strategic Affairs Ministry spent 1.6 million shekels (430,489.41 USD) on a contract with The Multidisciplinary Center for Leadership and Project Initiation which trains Israeli youth how to conduct themselves on social media to represent Israel the way it wants to be represented. For years Israel has, through social media and mainstream media, propagated that an anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian stance is antisemitic and argued for Israel’s existence.
Because of such context, Palestinians suffer isolation of their history and stories, which has taken place through this long-standing information monopoly. Examples of this media isolation can be seen through academic research supporting the notion of pro-Israeli bias and an emphasis on the Israeli perspective in coverage and sentiment. Currently, the latter bias still pervades. The Intercept’s analysis of media coverage from the first six weeks of Israel’s assault on Gaza shows the word “slaughter” used 60 times to describe Israeli deaths compared to only once when referring to a Palestinian death. The word “massacre” was used 125 times versus two; and the word “horrific” 36 times compared to four. In another analysis done, the author commented how “dehumanization is baked into the ideological cake of cable news.” Such passive, biased coverage and carving of the political context created a bubble that remained unpoppable.
However, social media platforms became a place where individuals are now empowered to face off with potent messaging against powerful state actors. It provides a way to break through the monopoly of mainstream discourse on this conflict, which is heavily restricted, admonished, and even censored on large news platforms. Netizens play on an ideological playground, engaging in tug-of-war, between the individual and the state and pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli perspectives.
Thus, the rhetoric in this chapter of the conflict has differed drastically from prior episodes. Daily images and videos of Palestinian casualties and atrocities flood social media users’ feeds, sparking an interest among netizens who searched for Palestinian content. A few popular channels that emerged were Eye on Palestine, Quds News Network, and Middle East Eye. These popular outlets featured hundreds of photos and videos of the carnage from Gaza. This explosive engagement due to current widespread use of social media and easy accessibility of such atrocities created an environment of digital globalization for pro-Palestine sympathy and support.
In turn, translations, historical context, and pro-Palestine efforts of other nations’ citizens—content that would not otherwise surface—is shared on these accounts.
The responsibility to disseminate an alternative narrative on Gaza became a collaborative effort between Gazans on the ground and netizens from all over the world. Gazan physicians such Ghassan Abu Sitta, Yousef Alsweisi, Mustafa Elmasri, and Dr. Ebraheem have become journalists by necessity. They share their experiences of working inside of Gazan hospitals under constant bombardment and display the gravity of the severe medical crisis through the nakedly tragic stories of their patients, their desperate need for medical supplies, and the difficulties they themselves experience as they tend to the thousands of casualties.
Furthermore, Gazan journalists have also arisen in their own right. Filmmaker Bisan Owda gained traction on Instagram posting about the horrors Gazans immediately following the invasion last October. She begins her videos by saying “[i]t’s Bisan from Gaza and I’m still alive.” Her work in Gaza and collaboration series with AJ+ recently earned her the prestigious Peabody Award. Another example is photojournalist Motaz Aziza, who became popular through his photos and daily reporting on his Instagram stories and posts and has recently won the Freedom Prize.
Additionally, Al Jazeera Gaza Bureau chief and journalist Wael Al-Dahdouh captured the world’s attention when he reported on the killing of his own wife, two children, and grandson in October and resumed reporting the next day. Two months later, he was injured and his cameraman killed from an Israeli missile drone strike. A month later, his oldest son Hamza and another journalist were killed in an Israeli missile strike.
There are many others on this list of individuals highlighting the reality on the ground in Gaza. Their content has been consumed by audiences globally, garnering attention to the seemingly unending crisis. These journalists’ accounts, along those of regular Gazans, provide an accurate portrayal of the horrendous circumstances in Gaza, adding to the often incomplete depictions by mainstream media outlets.
The Aftermath of Social Media
The world continues to bear witness to the ongoing genocide in Gaza. It is indeed a new moment in history when the world can rely on individual, independent documentation of atrocities so large in magnitude. Through social media, people around the world can clearly see what the crimes are, hear real-time updates, and interact with Gazans via social media platforms.
Social media not only provides a direct broadcast of atrocities, but it also lets people observe each other’s anger around the world. It has empowered laypeople to coordinate, take to the streets in protest, build encampment protests on universities, initiate petitions and fundraisers, disrupt politicians, stop arms factories, and revive the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign (which has ultimately affected the profits of corporations like Starbucks and McDonald’s).
Social media has also proven to be an effective tool in monumental legal precedents. In South Africa’s eighty-four page filing before the International Court of Justice, it leaned on content from social media platforms as evidence that Palestinians in the West Bank were arrested for posting about Gaza, and posts by Israeli soldiers as evidence as evidence of war crimes. South Africa cited posts from X and Instagram among their sources, all of which contributed to the court’s historic advisory opinion in July of 2024.
The social media content about this issue thus challenged the Western world’s common characterization of the decades long conflict between Israel and Palestine. Palestinians need not rely on others to portray their situation any longer, as they can now be taken seriously with their direct, firsthand, accounts of their dreams, desires for a simple life, crushed in the violence of the war. There are new social and political consequences, challenging the world’s conscience and fueling ongoing rapid historical change.
Yet the future remains murky. Will this be the beginning of yet another round in this historically vicious cycle, wherein Gazans have no choice other than to rise out of their ashes and rebuild their homes and lives under occupation? Are we seeing social media play a determining role in ending the war, or are these individuals just more voices in an ineffectual cacophony? The answer is uncertain, but one thing is sure: the way wartime news is shared has shifted irreversibly, falling into the hands of everyday citizens in a way it never has before.
Humanity will have to decide whether this shift will just be a small blip in history or if it will it be enough to permanently alter the adversity of Palestinians and rewrite a just, long-lasting solution for the region.
*Madeline Rowe is a Research Assistant for the DiploLab at Seton Hall University. She is studying Diplomacy and International Relations and Religion
