Back in my hometown of Columbia, Missouri, I had a very diverse friend group. Some of my friends were Arabic, and we would frequently discuss religion, culture, and other differing aspects of our lives. It was almost always lighthearted. No one came away from any conversation feeling heated or being angry at one another. One day, they started talking about the Israel-Hamas War. I had heard about it on the news, especially since Hamas began the war on October 7th, 2023, yet I was very uneducated on the details. I could tell there was a different tension in the air about the topic. As I listened, there were so many charged words thrown out that I was shocked by the things they were saying. Such strong feelings had to be warranted for a reason. I was confused because I had such a lack of understanding. Why hadn’t I been informed about anything regarding the war? I shrugged it off and went on with my day. America wasn’t involved in the war, so it didn’t matter that much. That is where I was wrong.
A few months later, I hopped on my phone, opened Instagram, and saw a brand-new message from one of my good friends. Hossain had sent me an Instagram reel. This wasn’t out of the ordinary, but the cover caught my attention. I could see a blurred-out, red and brown image that said “Sensitive Content, this video contains content that some people may find upsetting.” I clicked past the warning and began viewing the video. I was immediately appalled by what I was watching. Bodies were scattered across the dirt, dismembered and bloody. I quickly closed my phone and wondered why Hossain had sent me that video. I reopened my phone to see his message alongside the video. “Remember our conversation in AP Bio? THIS is what I was talking about.” I went to do more research. Videos and videos of injured men, women, and children were popping up on my feed. I wanted to know why these horrible things were happening and the background of the whole War.
Understanding America’s Longstanding Connection with Israel
Understanding America’s involvement with Israel requires examining both the historical aspects and the strategic interests of the United States. According to the U.S. Embassy in Israel, “The United States and Israel’s economic relations is currently centered around technology, with aircraft, machinery, diamonds, optic and medical instruments and agricultural products being the main sectors of American-Israeli trade” (Wikipedia Contributors). Since President Harry S. Truman formally recognized the State of Israel in 1948, the U.S. has provided them with military aid. However, this partnership has also placed America in a bad light with other Middle Eastern nations. According to Political Science professor George Lenczowski, after the Six-Day War, “the United States emerged as the most distrusted, if not actually hated, country in the Middle East” (Wikipedia Contributors). Even with these tensions, the American-Israeli alliance has remained a key aspect of American foreign policy. These differing factors raise questions about how this enduring relationship influences the U.S. media and public perception of the Israel–Hamas conflict.
How Media Language Shapes Perception of the Israel–Hamas War
We know and understand America’s deep ties with Israel, but is the media coverage of the Israel-Hamas War influenced by this? In the Al Jazeera article, “Western Coverage of Israel’s War on Gaza,” they argue that Western news outlets consistently shape the conflict to fit their “pro-Israel bias,” often leading to a portrayal of Israel’s actions as defensive and lessening the severity of Palestinian suffering (Nashed). It can be difficult to receive news from both sides, when 5x more Palestinian journalists have been murdered than Israeli journalists (Nashed). BBC has been seen describing Hamas’s attacks on Israel with words such as “massacre,” “slaughter,” and “atrocities,” when those words are not being reused for Israel’s attacks on Gaza (Nashed). Even with just the initial conflict, over 8,000 Palestinians were killed compared to the 1,400 Israelis (Nashed). The United Nations has even said that the Palestinians in Gaza are facing the risk of genocide. But is this “Israeli-bias” true, or is it just a complex topic that is being mistakenly misrepresented?
The Wall Street Journal article by Alexandra Bruell tells a different story. She acknowledges the complexity of covering such a volatile and polarizing conflict, but she blames errors in the media more than the chaos of war, rather than a pre-existing bias (Bruell). Washington Post International Editor Douglas Jehl said, “We take steps to remind our reporters that the first reports in a war are often wrong, and we need to take a pause to make sure we’re not jumping to conclusions” (Bruell). In the heat of battle, and the competition of journalism, misinformation can be quickly and easily pumped out to the public, with little to no fact-checking. Journalists competing to hit the headlines first can also influence journalists to get out an article before any review has been completed. Jehl also said that misinformation can be spread more easily today than ever before with the rise of social media and artificial intelligence (Bruell). Immediate information can lead to premature conclusions. Journalists’ lack of access to verifying facts, propaganda, and restriction of access are also inhibiting the validity of information. While bias definitely can play a part in the media coverage of the war, other factors such as the evolving news and the pace at which reporting occurs today need to be a factor that is remembered and considered.
War Crimes Committed: How is America Presenting the Questionable Actions of Both Sides?
The organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) tracked violations of international humanitarian law by both Palestinians and Israelis. In HRW’s July 17th, 2024, report on the October 7th attacks, HRW stated that “Palestinian armed groups committed numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity,” including taking hostages, wrongful imprisonment, and summary killings (Human Rights Watch, “October 7 Crimes against Humanity”). The report also said that the attack was “designed to kill civilians and take as many hostages with them” (Human Rights Watch, “October 7 Crimes against Humanity).
On the other end, HRW’s November 14th, 2024, report on Gaza found that Israelis “have caused massive, deliberate forced displacement of Palestinian civilians… and are responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity” (Human Rights Watch, “Israel’s Crimes against Humanity in Gaza”). The report explained how authorities are forcing people to evacuate and are destroying civilian infrastructure. HRW says it seems to be part of “a widespread and systematic attack on a civilian population” (Human Rights Watch, “Israel’s Crimes against Humanity in Gaza”). The HRW reports emphasize that both sides have committed acts that break international law. Coverage of these reports in the U.S. media highlights different aspects. HRW states that the October 7th attacks by Palestinian groups involved direct targeting of civilians, while Israeli actions in Gaza have resulted in enforcing the vacating and destruction of civilian areas. The reports themselves emphasize the gravity of each of their actions, stating that both groups violate laws and constitute crimes against humanity.
Seeing videos and images of these disgusting things online has been deeply unsettling. The sheer level of violence and human suffering documented by both HRW reports and shown in the media makes the war feel so real. Seeing these videos as they happen has really affected me and makes me want to be able to fully comprehend the conflict and how the media is playing its role.
Does the Media Influence the Public’s Opinion or Reflect it?
While trying to find out whether the American media influences public opinion or reflects it, two sources highlighted the differences between the public’s view of the war as well as the news outlet’s presentation of the conflict. Research from the Pew Research Center found that 57% of U.S. adults have at least some sympathy for both Israelis and Palestinians (Nadeem). The same survey showed significant changes across generations. 31% of U.S. adults say their sympathy lies completely or mostly with Israelis, where only 16% said the same for Palestinians (Nadeem).
An article titled “American Media’s Framing of the Israel-Hamas War” provides an in-depth analysis of 335 different news articles published between October 2023 and March 2024. They reported that different outlets often frame the war through opposing lenses (Park and Oliullah). For example, Fox News emphasized the “security threat” framing, downplaying Israel’s actions as self-defense, while The New York Times emphasizes a “humanitarian crisis” framing, focused on Palestinians suffering (Park and Oliullah).
The Pew Research Center data showed that public opinions about the conflict are not uniform or strongly biased towards one side, they vary greatly by age, religion, and political affiliation (Nadeem). Younger adults are less likely than older adults to say Israel has valid reasons for fighting, as well as being more hesitant (Nadeem). The media-framing study proposes that news outlets are not uniform in their messaging and that the different framings that audiences encounter differ depending on the source. The study says that framing “may take a bidirectional nature, where media influence[s] public opinion while simultaneously adapting to audience perceptions” (Nadeem).
These findings suggest that neither the media or public opinion act alone. The different frames discussed in news outlets and the diverse patterns of sympathy and opinion shown in the polls points towards both options being impactful. One idea examined in both sources is that media may shape how conflicts are presented, but at the same time, factors such as age, ideology, and prior biases shape the outlets people might gravitate toward. By recognizing this, it is easier to understand how American historical context and outlet-audience dynamics interact to influence the public view of the Israel–Hamas war.
Many people may also search for news and information that aligns with their beliefs and ideologies. I have seen this idea of “confirmation bias” in my own life. Seeing my Muslim friends consuming the same media consistently has radicalized their views. Anything that opposes their own they immediately dismiss. This can lead to having skewed views on relevant topics in the world today. By doing this research, I have learned that taking in news from all different angles allows you to have a more complex and comprehensive understanding in almost any circumstance.
Social Media and the Impact on New Generations
Social media has become one of the most powerful tools in shaping how younger people understand the world. “A Case Study of the Gaza-Israel Conflict” explains that platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and X now are main news sources for Gen Z. The study shows that consistent exposure to emotionally charged posts often strengthens what users already believe (Abbas). Algorithms also tend to show people content that aligns with their pre-existing views, which stops people from seeing disagreement, and amplifying their own beliefs. The article also describes social media as “a digital battleground of identity,” where getting attention and clicks can matter more than actual accuracy (Abbas). Just as the news in Gaza is a race to get the first story out, social media can be extremely similar. The first headline will draw the most attention, leading to more publicity and revenue.
Andrea Castelnuovo, the author of, “The Psychological Toll of Graphic Content in the Israel-Palestine Conflict” looks at what happens emotionally when people constantly see these disturbing images and videos online. The article states that the constant spread of violent videos and photos can lead to “vicarious trauma,” especially for young people who use social media daily (Castelnuovo). Mental health experts explain that seeing so much unfiltered violence can lead to anxiety and desensitization (Castelnuovo). Over time, this can numb the mind and the ability to register empathy, making it difficult to process what’s real or how to respond to it.
A third source, “How Meta Brings in Millions Off Political Violence,” brings to light how major companies profit from war. It claims that posts about war and political violence bring in larger audiences, which increases advertising revenue (Lecher). The article argues that “Meta benefits financially from the very instability and polarization its platforms amplify” (Lecher). This shows how financial incentives can shape what kind of content spreads the fastest.
Social media can do more than just share information—it can shape emotion, perspectives, and even the news people see. For younger people, the Israel–Hamas conflict is often shown through trending videos, posts, and algorithms made to make money. This environment makes it harder to separate information from being influenced, leaving many young people both scarred and more overwhelmed than before. I know that seeing violent and graphic content online has shaped the way I view the conflict. Once I watch one video, my algorithm is then filled with it, constantly slamming my brain with horrible images. I have felt less of a reaction now once I see these videos, and it makes me sad. I understand the weight these videos hold, but the sheer amount that exists has caused people like me to become desensitized.
Conclusion
In today’s world, information comes flying at us at a faster speed than ever before. With new advancements in technology and the internet, news is at our fingertips constantly. Content spreading instantly can lead to incorrect accusations and beliefs. We have to be wary of what we consume and how, so we can keep an omniscient angle on the Israel-Hamas War. The coverage of the war can be blown out of proportion by the media. Whether it is intentional or not is something we aren’t able to decipher, but if we take our time, search sources carefully, and attempt to remain unbiased, we can more fully comprehend the situation. Social media can be a devastating place to be. The mental toll it can take on anyone—not just the younger generation—can be detrimental. No one is safe from falling into the trap of an “echo chamber” algorithm. They view and consume media that confirms their biases, and little to no refuting occurs in their feed. I want to encourage everyone to view both sides. After extensive research I have learned that many aspects influence the public’s view of the Israel-Hamas War. There is no explicit answer. Each person’s interpretation is different, and so much can determine that. The most important thing is to respect all beliefs, no matter how they align with our own.
Works Cited
Abbas, Syed. “View of the Influence of Social Media Platforms on Public Opinion: A Case Study of the Gaza-Israel Conflict.” Insights-Journal.com, 2025, insights-journal.com/index.php/insights/article/view/6/7.
Bruell, Alexandra. “Confusion over Gaza Hospital Blast Shows Challenge for Journalists Covering Israel-Hamas Conflict.”, The Wall Street Journal, 19 Oct. 2023, www.wsj.com/business/media/confusion-over-gaza-hospital-blast-shows-challenge-for-journalists-covering-israel-hamas-conflict-238922b9. Accessed 25 Oct. 2025.
Castelnuovo, Andrea. “The Psychological Toll of Graphic Content in the Israel-Palestine Conflict – ECPS.” ECPS, 29 July 2025, www.populismstudies.org/the-psychological-toll-of-graphic-content-in-the-israelpalestine-conflict/? Accessed 4 Nov. 2025.
Human Rights Watch. “Israel’s Crimes against Humanity in Gaza.” Human Rights Watch, 14 Nov. 2024, www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/14/israels-crimes-against-humanity-gaza.
—. “October 7 Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes by Hamas-Led Groups | Human Rights Watch.” Human Rights Watch, 17 July 2024, www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/17/october-7-crimes-against-humanity-war-crimes-h amas-led-groups.
Lecher, Colin. “How Meta Brings in Millions off Political Violence.” Kqed.org, KQED, 6 Oct. 2024, www.kqed.org/news/12008143/how-meta-brings-in-millions-off-political-violence. Accessed 4 Nov. 2025.
Nadeem, Reem. “How Americans View the Israel-Hamas Conflict 2 Years into the War.” Pew Research Center, 3 Oct. 2025, www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/10/03/how-americans-view-the-israel-hamasconflict-2-years-into-the-war/.
Nashed, Mat. “Western Coverage of Israel’s War on Gaza – Bias or Unprofessionalism?”Al Jazeera, 29 Oct. 2023, www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/29/western-coverage-of-israels-war-on-gaza-bi as-or-unprofessionalism.
Park, Chang, and Md Oliullah. “View of Framing Conflict: American Media’s Framing of the Israel-Hamas War.” Lifescienceglobal.com, 2025, lifescienceglobal.com/pms/index.php/IJMC/article/view/10595/5383. Accessed 4 Nov. 2025.
Wikipedia Contributors. “Israel–United States Relations.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 23 May 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations.