Media Review, Media Bias: War and Language

Media Review, Media Bias: War and Language

    Sunday, July 19, 2026   No comments

How Arab State Media Narrate Conflict and Risk Their Own Survival

In the theater of modern warfare, language is a weapon of geopolitical alignment. Since the Arab Spring of 2011, state-controlled and state-aligned media across the Arab world have increasingly functioned as extensions of foreign policy. By carefully curating their lexicons, these outlets signal bias, legitimize certain military actions, and delegitimize others. Today, as the region grapples with the fallout of the US and Israeli war on Iran, the selective outrage embedded in Gulf media narratives is not only distorting reality but also planting the seeds of domestic instability.

The blueprint for this linguistic weaponization was clearly established during the Yemen conflict and the subsequent 2017 Gulf diplomatic crisis. When the Saudi-led coalition intervened in Yemen, a stark divergence in media framing emerged. Saudi-aligned outlets consistently employed highly charged, valorizing terminology: Saudi casualties were exclusively referred to as "شهداء" (martyrs), while Yemeni casualties were described as "أشخاص قُتلوا على يد القوات السعودية العادلة" (persons killed by the righteous Saudi forces).

In contrast, Aljazeera, based in Qatar, adopted a more neutral, journalistic lexicon, consistently using the word "قتلى" (killed) for casualties on all sides. This seemingly minor semantic difference carried immense political weight. It challenged the moral absolutism of the Saudi narrative. The threat this posed to Riyadh’s geopolitical project was so profound that, in 2017, Saudi Arabia and its allies issued a list of demands to Qatar to end the blockade, prominently featuring the immediate and permanent shutdown of Al Jazeera. That demand, as history has shown, went nowhere, but it established a lasting precedent: in the eyes of certain Arab states, neutral language is an act of political defiance.

This pattern has reached a dangerous apex in the current US and Israeli war on Iran, a campaign executed and supported by US troops stationed in Gulf States and Jordan. A review of recent headlines from Saudi-aligned and Gulf-centric media outlets, such as Asharq Al-Awsat, reveals a meticulously crafted narrative of selective outrage.

When reporting on Iranian military actions, these outlets deploy a lexicon of moral condemnation. Recent headlines from July 2026 describe Iranian actions as:

• "العدوان الإيراني الآثم" (The sinful Iranian aggression)
• "اعتداءات إيرانية جديدة" (New Iranian assaults)
• "نهج عدواني ممنهج" (A systematic hostile approach)
• "اعتداءاتها الجوية الإيرانية الغادرة" (Treacherous Iranian air assaults)

These phrases are designed to frame Iran as a rogue actor violating international law and threatening Arab sovereignty. However, when these same media outlets report on US and Israeli military actions against Iranian territory, the vocabulary shifts dramatically. US and Israeli bombardments are routinely sanitized as "غارات" (strikes) or "هجمات" (attacks). The word "عدوان" (aggression) is conspicuously absent.

This linguistic sanitization serves a clear political purpose: to normalize the presence of US military forces in the region and to frame the US-Israeli campaign as a legitimate, defensive, or corrective measure, rather than what international legal experts have identified it to be.

The Gulf media narrative stands in direct contradiction to the consensus of the international legal community. The war on Iran has been widely documented as lacking proper legal authority and factual justification.

In March 2026, UN Human Rights experts issued a stark press release, explicitly denouncing the US and Israeli military assaults on Iran and Lebanon as "flagrant violations of international law" and unequivocally labeling them an "act of aggression." The experts warned that the unprovoked attacks, carried out while negotiations were ongoing, constitute a dangerous precedent of impunity.

Furthermore, a landmark letter published by Just Security, signed by over 100 prominent US-based international law experts and professors, condemned the US role in the conflict. The letter detailed how the initiation of the campaign was a "clear violation of the United Nations Charter" (jus ad bellum), as it lacked Security Council authorization and was not an act of self-defense against an imminent threat. The experts also raised alarms over jus in bello violations, citing strikes on civilian infrastructure, including schools and energy facilities, and condemned dangerous rhetoric from US officials dismissing the rules of engagement as "stupid."

While UN experts and legal scholars universally apply the term "aggression" to the US-Israeli campaign, Gulf state media remain silent on this legal reality, choosing instead to act as a linguistic shield for their powerful allies.

The Domestic Boomerang: When Populations Stop Listening

This deliberate cognitive dissonance carries severe domestic risks. The Arab landscape has changed dramatically since 2011. Populations are no longer captive audiences to state-controlled media. With widespread access to satellite television, social media, and independent digital journalism, citizens can easily compare the hyperbolic condemnation of Iran with the sanitized coverage of US actions.

This selective outrage is eroding the credibility of state institutions. Nowhere is this more acute than in Jordan. The Hashemite Kingdom has found itself in a precarious position, hosting US troops and participating in air defense efforts against Iranian projectiles, such as the recent rocket attacks on the Muwaffaq al-Salti airbase. While the Jordanian government frames its actions as defensive sovereignty, a significant majority of the Jordanian public views this blind support for a foreign-led military campaign as fundamentally misaligned with national interests.

By aligning its media narrative and military posture with a war that is widely perceived as illegal and unjust, the Jordanian government is risking severe domestic backlash. The potential for public uprising is no longer a fringe theory; it is a tangible consequence of a populace that feels its government is sacrificing its well-being for geopolitical patrons who do not reciprocate the loyalty.

The Ultimate Strategic Blunder

Language matters, especially during times of war. Words shape perception, and perception dictates political legitimacy. The Gulf states and Jordan, by weaponizing language to show selective outrage, are engaging in a dangerous gamble. They risk losing what is left of their standing among their own people, who are increasingly adept at seeing through the propaganda.

There is a profound, tragic irony at the heart of this conflict. The US and Israeli war on Iran was explicitly designed, in part, to foment regime change in Tehran. Yet, by acting as complicit enablers—both militarily and linguistically—the supporting Arab states are exposing their own populations to the radicalizing effects of war, economic strain, and perceived national humiliation.

When the outcome of this war is not regime change in Iran as now stated by even those who started the war, but rather the destabilization, weakening, or even the fall of regimes in the Gulf and Jordan, it will stand as the biggest strategic blunder in modern Middle Eastern history. The supporters of this war may find that the linguistic and political tools they used to target their adversaries have ultimately written the epitaph of their own rule.

  

US Strikes on Iran’s Water Plants and Bridges and International Law

US Strikes on Iran’s Water Plants and Bridges and International Law

    Friday, July 17, 2026   No comments

As thesecond part of the United States war on Iran enters its seventh consecutive day of strikes, the nature of the targets has shifted dramatically. Recent U.S. military actions have reportedly hit bridges, rail lines, power grids, and drinking water facilities in southern Iran near the Strait of Hormuz. With a previously declared cease-fire agreement now collapsed, this escalation raises profound and urgent questions about compliance with international humanitarian law.

The reported destruction of a drinking-water facility serving thousands of civilians is not merely a tactical escalation; it is a potential violation of the foundational rules of armed conflict. Under international law, the conduct of hostilities is governed by three core principles: distinction, proportionality, and precaution.

First, the principle of distinction requires parties to a conflict to distinguish at all times between civilian objects and military objectives. While bridges and power facilities can sometimes be considered "dual-use" infrastructure, water treatment and distribution plants are presumptively civilian objects. For a dual-use object to become a legitimate military target, it must make an effective contribution to military action, and its destruction must offer a definite military advantage. The burden of proof rests on the attacking force to demonstrate this, not on the defending state to prove the object’s civilian nature.

Second, and more critically, international law explicitly protects objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. Article 54 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibits attacking, destroying, or rendering useless objects such as drinking water installations and supplies. Although the United States is not a party to Additional Protocol I, this specific prohibition is widely recognized as a norm of customary international law, binding on all states regardless of treaty ratification. The destruction of a water facility on Iran’s southern coast, which reports indicate could impact tens of thousands of civilians, directly tests this absolute red line.

Third, the principle of proportionality prohibits attacks where the expected incidental harm to civilians would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Even if the U.S. military argues that a bridge or a water plant supports Iranian logistical movements, the long-term humanitarian consequences of depriving a civilian population of clean water must be factored into the proportionality calculation. The collapse of water infrastructure often leads to secondary public health crises, which compounds the civilian harm far beyond the initial blast radius.

The U.S. military’s recent statements have made no specific mention of civilian infrastructure, focusing instead on the broader operational campaign. However, silence on the matter does not equate to legal compliance. In modern warfare, the normalization of striking dual-use or civilian infrastructure sets a dangerous precedent. If major military powers freely interpret "military advantage" to encompass the degradation of a nation’s basic life-sustaining systems, the entire framework of the laws of war risks unraveling.

Furthermore, Iran’s reported attempts to strike similar targets in U.S.-allied Gulf countries hosting American bases compound the regional danger. This tit-for-tat escalation against infrastructure threatens to drag neighboring civilian populations into the crossfire, further multiplying the violations of international humanitarian law across the Middle East.

As the strikes stretch into a second week, the international community, including legal advisors within the Pentagon and allied nations, must urgently scrutinize the target selection process. Transparency regarding the military justification for hitting water plants and bridges is not just a matter of public relations; it is a legal obligation.

War, even when deemed necessary by a state, is not a legal vacuum. The destruction of a drinking-water facility is a stark reminder that the laws of armed conflict were designed precisely for the fog of war, to preserve a baseline of humanity. If the U.S. and Iran continue to treat civilian infrastructure as legitimate battlegrounds, the ultimate casualty will be the international legal order itself.

Norman Finkelstein: Israel is facing an existential crisis and South Africa offers a model for a one-state

Norman Finkelstein: Israel is facing an existential crisis and South Africa offers a model for a one-state

    Sunday, March 31, 2024   No comments

The American Jewish historian, Norman Finkelstein, argues that “Israel” is facing an existential crisis for the first time since its establishment, and suggests that South Africa offers a model for a one-state solution for one people of different backgrounds.

The American Jewish thinker and historian who opposes the Israeli occupation policy, Norman Finkelstein, said that “Israel” has obstructed all political solutions in its war on the Gaza Strip. In a symposium held with students at Princeton University, Finkelstein said: “At the current stage at least, we have reached the end of any kind of diplomacy to resolve the conflict,” adding that “talk about a two-state solution seems absolutely ridiculous, and there is no diplomatic solution.” appears in the horizon".

 He pointed out that "Israel is determined to impose a military victory and will not back down from that goal."  Finkelstein explained, “On the other hand, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah said it explicitly, that he will not accept a military defeat for Hamas, and that this will not happen,” adding that “these two goals are not reconcilable, either victorious or defeated.”

Finkelstein believed that "at the level of the Arab and Islamic worlds, a conclusion has been reached that living with Israel is impossible," adding that according to the Arab and Islamic worlds, it is "moronic and must go. For this reason, there is no political solution on the horizon in the short term."

 He pointed out that "Israel is facing, for the first time in its history, a crisis of existence and legitimacy," pointing out that "its main opponent in this regard is South Africa, the country that is confronting it at the International Court of Justice and presenting itself as a model for a one-state solution for one people."

 As for the United States, “the American Democratic Party is facing a crisis with its broad popular base that objects to Israel’s crimes, and the party’s leadership can no longer ignore that base,” according to Finkelstein.

 He continued by saying: "I was shocked and astonished by US Senator Chuck Schumer's speech last week. Senator Schumer has always been fanatical about Israel, and he was the one who called for the economic strangling of Gaza."

 The American writer pointed out that “Senator Schumer, along with New Jersey Senator Menendez, were at the forefront of those opposing the deal with Iran,” explaining that “he served as the official spokesman for the Israeli government in our country.”

 He considered that "Schumer's statements critical of Israel are beyond expectations."

Finkelstein's talk and comments were published on YouTube.

It must be noted that the two-state solution is promoted as the only solution, which is now becoming very hard to realize, when other examples from around the world point to other alternatives. One of these examples mentioned here is the South Africa example. For years the apartheid regime created systems that dehumanized the people of South Africa. The oppression was built in part on the false idea that Africans are incapable of building and running a democracy. All that was proved wrong: Africans overthrew the racist regime but did not purge South Africa of white people. The preserved South Africa as one country for all.

Other examples of single-state solutions to conflict zones are in the Middle East region and they were in part promoted and engineered by Western governments and their regional allies. The Lebanese example is just on the other side of the border: After 15 years of civil war, Christians and Muslims settled to live, still in tension, but in peace, thanks to a power-sharing system that allows Christians, Shia Muslims, and Sunni Muslims to create a calibrated power sharing system to preserve the national unity of Lebanon.

After the US invaded Iraq, the constitution and institutions that were produced under the authority of the occupying forces of the United States, produced a power sharing structure that allows the Kurdish people, the Sunni Muslims, and the Shia majority to live in relative peace. It is worth noting that the current president, then a senator, Biden, promoted the idea of breaking up Iraq—a tri-state solution if you will.

If the South African, Lebanese, and Iraq models of a single-state solution whereby different peoples, separated by religion or ethnicity, can coexist and govern through power sharing structures, why would a single-state solution that would allow Jews, Christians, and Muslims to live in peace through some sort of power-sharing formular be impractical? And how would a two-state solution solve the problem of the non-Jews, nearly 30% of the population who are Christian and Muslim, who would end up in Israel under any border configuration, should the two state-solution come into existence?

As the world community is forced to address this 75-year old conflict, there is much to be learned not only from the moral force that compelled South Africa to stand against genocide, but to offer a practical example of many peoples in one nation living in relative peace despite the cruelty of the past.

Media review: The Gaza war creates a new Islamic front and threatens American influence--Foreign Affairs

Media review: The Gaza war creates a new Islamic front and threatens American influence--Foreign Affairs

    Saturday, February 10, 2024   No comments

The American magazine Foreign Affairs published a long article dealing with the impact of the Gaza war on the Islamic and Arab worlds, saying that this war created a new Islamic front that may be the greatest challenge facing America.

The article, written by Toby Matthiesen, a senior lecturer in global religious studies at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom, explained that the Gaza war is no longer limited to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and Israel.

He pointed out the extension of this war and the participation of the so-called “Axis of Resistance” that includes Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen in it, and it has gone beyond that until it has now become, 4 months after its beginning, a strong unifying force for Sunnis and Shiites and has awakened a comprehensive Islamic front that includes the Sunni Arab masses, who are opposed by a majority. Overwhelming, Arab normalization.

The article added that for the United States and its partners, this development constitutes a strategic challenge that goes far beyond confronting the Iraqi factions and the Houthis with targeted strikes. By bringing together a region long divided, the war in Gaza threatens to further undermine American influence and, in the long term, could make many American military missions untenable.

He said that this new rapprochement also raises major obstacles to any US-led efforts to impose a top-down peace agreement that excludes Palestinian Islamists.

The writer reported that Arab opinion polls and social media show great Arab support for the Hamas movement and its strategy of armed resistance, and a significant decline in support for the United States and the regimes closely associated with it.

The same opinion polls now show, according to the article, that an overwhelming percentage of the population - more than 90% - opposes establishing relations with Israel, adding that the Arab Opinion Index for last January, a survey conducted in Doha that included 16 Arab countries, shows agreement. More than 3 quarters of respondents said their views of the United States had become more negative since the war began.

Matthiesen advised the pro-Western Arab countries to seek to bridge the widening gap between their policies and the sympathy of their citizens, saying that after years of neglect, these masses will urgently press for a just solution to the Palestinian issue, which threatens to spark a new wave of Arab uprisings.

He stressed that it is increasingly clear that it will be impossible for Washington to stop the regional escalation unless it is able to secure a ceasefire in Gaza, end the occupation, and finally establish a viable Palestinian state, adding that in the absence of concrete, credible steps in this direction, the pressure will continue. Popular influence on governments in the region.

Matthiesen concluded his article by emphasizing that without a just and broad solution to the Palestinian issue, the Middle East will never achieve lasting peace or the kind of political and economic cooperation that many have long dreamed of, indicating that the alternative is an endless cycle of violence, the decline of Western influence, and the integration of the region. In a way that is completely different from what the West wants, and even fundamentally hostile to it.

US intelligence was informed of the Ukrainian plan to bomb Nord Stream.. It was carried out by Ukrainian military divers working directly under the command of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces

US intelligence was informed of the Ukrainian plan to bomb Nord Stream.. It was carried out by Ukrainian military divers working directly under the command of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces

    Tuesday, June 06, 2023   No comments

The Washington Post reported today, Tuesday, that three months before the Nord Stream pipeline bombing, "Nord Stream", the administration of US President Joe Biden learned from a close ally that the Ukrainian military had planned the secret attack.

The newspaper quoted US intelligence information suspected of being leaked earlier this year by a computer expert who holds a job in the Air National Guard and has access to many highly classified materials.

"The Kiev authorities developed the plan after a reconnaissance operation carried out by a small team of divers who reported directly to the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Navy," it added.

The leaked documents indicated that an unnamed European intelligence agency had informed the CIA in June 2022, four months after the Russian military operation in Ukraine, that Ukrainian military divers working directly under the command of the country's commander-in-chief were planning the attack.

And the newspaper continued: “European intelligence reports were shared on the Discord chat platform, which were allegedly by US Air National Guard soldier, Jack Teixeira, and the Washington Post obtained a copy from one of his online friends.”

And she confirmed that the intelligence reports were based on information from a Ukrainian element, adding that the CIA shared the report with Germany and other European countries last June.

Specific details included numbers of operatives and attack methods, according to The Washington Post. This means that for about a year, the Western allies had a basis to suspect Kiev of sabotage. This assessment is further reinforced in recent months "when German investigators uncovered evidence that the bombing bore clear similarities to what the European service said Ukraine was planning."

A few days ago, the German newspaper "Der Spiegel" confirmed that there is new evidence in the investigation indicating Ukraine's involvement in sabotage operations targeting the two "Nord Stream" gas pipelines.

The newspaper reported that the metadata of e-mail messages, which were sent during the charter of the boat, indicated the involvement of Ukraine, pointing to the finding in the yacht of traces of the explosive “HMX” substance, which is very widespread in the west as in the previous block in the east.

Numerous underwater explosions ruptured the newly built Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines connecting Russia and Germany across the Baltic Sea on September 26, 2022.

The explosions occurred in the economic regions of Sweden and Denmark. Both countries say the bombings were deliberate, but have not yet determined who was responsible. The two countries, as well as Germany, are investigating the incident.

Washington and NATO described the incident as an "act of sabotage", while Moscow blamed the West. Neither side provided evidence of the perpetrator of the attacks.

    In related news, the attacks inside Russia and the attack on the dam might be the next crises the West will be forced to manage. 

Just like the Nord Stream explosion, Ukrainian officials denied responsibility and blamed Russia. However, for the incursions inside Russian territories, the armed group was shown to have used Western provided weapons. Western countries said that they provided these weapons on the conditions that are not used to carry out attacks inside Russia. Ukrainian officials have denied any connections. However, if it turns out that Ukraine is involved, the West will have a problem of credibility no matter how one looks at it. Either they are not insisting to Ukrainians on these conditions and don't care; or Ukrainian officials agree to the terms and violate them. In either case, NATO nation-states and Western supporters of the government in Kiev will have to decide how to manage these problems of credibility and loss of control over supplied weapons.

Russian leaders seem to take it one step at the time. The Russian Foreign Ministry summoned the Belgian ambassador to Moscow.

“On June 6, Belgian Ambassador to Moscow M. Michilsen was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry, who was strongly protested in connection with the revealed facts of the use of Belgian-made weapons by sabotage groups that carried out terrorist attacks on the territory of the Belgorod Region on May 22,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

The Sheikh of Al-Azhar calls for a dialogue with Shiite Muslim scholars

The Sheikh of Al-Azhar calls for a dialogue with Shiite Muslim scholars

    Friday, November 04, 2022   No comments

Today, Friday, Al-Azhar Sheikh Imam Ahmed Al-Tayeb appealed to Shia Muslim scholars to hold an Islamic-Islamic dialogue in order to renounce "sectarian strife," at a time when several countries in the region and the world are experiencing tensions over a sectarian background.

In a speech delivered at the conclusion of the Bahrain Forum for Dialogue "East and West for Human Coexistence", in the presence of Pope Francis at the Royal Palace of Sakhir, Al-Tayeb appealed to "Islamic scholars in the whole world, regardless of their sects, sects and schools, to hasten to hold a serious Islamic-Islamic dialogue." In order to establish unity, rapprochement and acquaintance, the causes of discord, strife and sectarian conflict in particular are rejected.

The Imam of Al-Azhar said: “This invitation, as I address it to our fellow Shiite Muslims, I am ready, along with the senior scholars of Al-Azhar and the Council of Muslim Elders, to hold such a meeting with open hearts and outstretched hands to sit together at one table.”

The Imam of Al-Azhar set the meeting’s goal by “overcoming the page of the past and promoting Islamic affairs and the unity of Islamic positions,” suggesting that its decisions “provide an end to mutual hate speech, methods of provocation and infidelity, and the need to overcome historical and contemporary conflicts with all their problems and bad sediments.”

Al-Tayyib stressed that “it is forbidden for Muslims to listen to the calls of discord and discord, and to beware of falling into the trap of tampering with the stability of countries, exploiting religion by stirring up national and sectarian strife, interfering in the affairs of states, undermining their sovereignty or usurping their lands.”

The Sheikh of Al-Azhar calls for an end to the war in Ukraine

In a separate context, the sheikh of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif called for an end to the war in Ukraine for the sake of world peace and stability, saying: “I add my voice to the voice of benevolent people who call for peace and an end to the Russian-Ukrainian war, and to spare the blood of innocents who have no elegance or utterance in this tragedy, And raising the banner of peace instead of the banner of victory, and sitting in the circle of dialogue and negotiations.”

Al-Tayeb also called for "stopping the fighting going on in various parts of the world by rebuilding bridges of dialogue, understanding and trust, in order to restore peace in a world riddled with wounds, so that the alternative is not more suffering for poor peoples, and more dire consequences for the East and West."