Shock, sympathy, antipathy – why narrative sours on Israel

When Israel bombed Iranian sites in the early hours of Friday, 13 June, the international media coverage was, for a brief moment, sympathetic. Against the backdrop of Iran’s drone and missile attacks a week earlier and its longstanding threats to wipe Israel off the map, there was understanding.

But the moment didn’t last. As headlines quickly shifted focus from Israel’s perceived right to defend itself to fears of regional escalation and mounting Iranian deaths, one couldn’t help but feel a sense of déjà vu.

Rewind to 7 October 2023, when Hamas unleashed an unprecedented, massive attack on southern Israel. The world looked on in horror as more than 1 200 Israelis were slaughtered. Entire families were killed, children kidnapped, women raped, and communities erased.

There was shock. There was sympathy. But, once again, that window of solidarity closed abruptly. Within a day or two, as Israel began bombing Gaza in response, the narrative flipped. Gone were the front-page stories about Israeli civilians. In their place: major headlines highlighting Palestinian suffering, rising casualty numbers, and the destruction of Gaza.

What links these two cases – Gaza and Iran – is the brevity of global support for Israel. The pattern is now familiar. Coverage in outlets like The New York Times, BBC, and Al Jazeera turns quickly.

Several overlapping reasons help to explain this shift.

First, news outlets naturally gravitate towards content that is most likely to grab attention, often at the expense of balanced or deeper explanation. What’s more, Palestinian and Iranian casualty numbers were higher, especially from strikes in densely populated civilian areas. Gaza images, in particular, always feed the narrative. A bloodied child, a collapsed building, a wailing parent – these are emotionally resonant and visually striking.

Second, Israel is seen, fairly or not, as a regional superpower. It has a professional army, advanced technology, and a functioning government. Palestinians are stateless. Iran is portrayed as isolated and under siege. The imbalance in military capability and diplomatic power matters. Because Israel is viewed by much of the world as part of the West – wealthy, stable, and strong – it is held to a different moral standard. It is expected to exercise restraint, act with precision, and to adhere to liberal democratic norms in a region where few others do. And because of that, it is often judged more harshly when things go wrong. The nuance of who struck first is lost in the noise.

There is an asymmetry that defines the Israel-Gaza conflict. Israel’s advanced military and statehood are contrasted with Palestinian statelessness and visible civilian toll, resulting in a moral imbalance. This framing is deep-rooted in media traditions, and has evolved over decades. It persists regardless of the circumstances of a particular conflict.

A similar dynamic applied to Iran. Many media initially acknowledged Israel’s strike as a restrained response to Tehran’s ongoing pursuit of nuclear capabilities beyond what is acceptable to the international community. But that frame eroded quickly.

Third, narrative framing plays a powerful role. Global audiences, and by extension, editors and journalists, have become accustomed to the idea of Palestinians as perennial victims. The storylines are already well-formed: Israel is powerful; the Palestinians are suffering. Every new round of conflict is slotted into this template. In Gaza, the same headlines recur with each war, the same images are reused, and the same moral arguments are repackaged. The conversation is already primed to flip.

In a state-to-state conflict like Iran, Israel is seen more as a rational actor within the framework of global diplomacy and strategic defence. This framing initially benefits Israel, but can turn quickly if escalation risks grow.

Meanwhile, visual imagery in Gaza makes Israel’s actions highly emotive and relatable to global audiences, especially when images of children and rubble circulate. In contrast, the abstract framing of Iran – nuclear sites, policy decisions – distances audiences from immediate emotional reaction. For Israel, this means its response to Gaza must include a strong humanitarian communication layer, while with Iran, its geopolitical messaging must pre-empt concerns about destabilisation and international norms.

None of this is to argue that the media is consciously anti-Israel. But it is to suggest that the media landscape is structured in a way that tends to amplify certain narratives over others. Israel’s challenge isn’t just on the battlefield or in the diplomatic arena, it’s also in the newsroom, where perception becomes reality and headlines shape history.

• Paula Slier is an international journalist, media trainer, and public speaker. She founded Newshound Media International and Newshound Academy, and has reported from conflict zones for more than 30 years. She currently hosts the afternoon show on ChaiFM radio.