Between Security and Humanity: British Newspaper Coverage of the Gaza War, 2023–2024

BETWEEN SECURITY AND HUMANITY: BRITISH NEWSPAPER COVERAGE OF THE GAZA WAR, 2023–2024 Diana Dikhanbayeva Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment for the Master of Arts degree in Communication Copyright 2025 University of Westminster 20620569 Abstract This dissertation examines the discursive strategies employed by three leading British newspapers – The Guardian, The Telegraph, and The Sun – in their reporting on Hamas and the wider Israel-Palestine conflict between October 2023 and March 2024. Drawing on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), media framing theory, securitisation theory, and the concept of necropolitics, the study maps how legitimacy, victimhood, and blame were constructed and stratified within mainstream news narratives. A selected corpus of 75 articles forms the empirical basis, enabling the identification of recurrent linguistic and thematic features across both broadsheet and tabloid traditions. The analysis finds that British coverage largely prioritised Israeli security imperatives and framed Hamas as an unequivocal terrorist actor, while Palestinian suffering was often depersonalised and relegated to the margins. Although differences in editorial line and publication type shaped the presentation of events, several discursive strategies, such as selective grievability, dehumanisation, and asymmetrical sourcing, were evident across outlets. The findings suggest that British newspaper reporting not only reflected but also reinforced prevailing political discourses, shaping public understandings of legitimacy, violence, and victimhood during the Gaza War. These outcomes advance scholarly understanding of media agency in conflict reporting and highlight the ethical stakes of narrative framing in wartime contexts. Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................v Abbreviations...........................................................................................................................vi 1.Introduction...........................................................................................................................1 1.1. Background..........................................................................................................................1 1.2. Relevance of Research.........................................................................................................1 1.3. Research Aims and Questions.............................................................................................1 1.4. Structure of the Dissertation...............................................................................................2 2.Literature Review..................................................................................................................3 2.1. Western Media Coverage of Conflicts and War Situations.................................................3 2.2. British Media Coverage of the Israel–Palestine Conflict (Pre-2023) ................................4 2.3. British Media Coverage of Hamas and the Gaza War (Oct 2023 – Mar 2024) .................5 2.4. Alternative and Critical Narratives in British Media.........................................................7 3.Methodology...........................................................................................................................9 3.1. Methodological Approach...................................................................................................9 3.2. Data Selection and Sampling..............................................................................................9 3.3. Coding and Analytical Grid..............................................................................................10 3.4. Data Analysis Procedure...................................................................................................11 3.5. Limitations.........................................................................................................................11 3.6. Ethical Considerations......................................................................................................12 3.7. Researcher’s Positionality.................................................................................................13 4.Theoretical Framework......................................................................................................14 4.1. Framing Theory.................................................................................................................14 4.2. Securitisation Theory.........................................................................................................14 4.3. Necropolitics......................................................................................................................15 5. Findings and Analysis........................................................................................................17 5.1. The Guardian.....................................................................................................................17 5.2. The Telegraph....................................................................................................................18 5.3. The Sun..............................................................................................................................20 6. Discussion............................................................................................................................22 6.1. Overview of Each Newspaper’s Coverage........................................................................22 6.2. Securitisation and Threat Construction............................................................................22 6.3. Humanitarianism and International Law Frames............................................................23 6.4. Grievability and Necropolitics: Whose Lives Are Counted?.............................................24 6.5. Dehumanisation and Demonisation..................................................................................25 6.6. Inclusion and Exclusion of Voices.....................................................................................26 6.7. Editorial Orientations and the Evolution of Media Discourse.........................................26 7. Conclusion...........................................................................................................................30 Appendices..............................................................................................................................31 Bibliography............................................................................................................................60 Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the faculty of the School of Media and Communications at the University of Westminster for providing an inspiring academic environment. Special thanks go to my dissertation supervisor, Dr Dimitris Boucas, for his invaluable guidance, constructive feedback, and unwavering support throughout this research process. His expertise and patience have been essential in bringing this work to completion. I wish to extend my gratitude to Professor Tarik Sabry, whose inspiring words and passionate approach to scholarship encouraged me to continue my academic journey. His influence has been pivotal in shaping my commitment to academic pursuits. I am also deeply thankful to my personal tutor, Professor Maria Michalis, for her consistent encouragement, thoughtful guidance, and mentorship throughout my studies. Her support has been instrumental in my academic development. My deepest appreciation goes to my mother, grandmother, and grandfather, who instilled in me a love of learning and education that has shaped my path. Their unwavering support and belief in the power of knowledge have been the foundation of my achievements. Finally, I would like to thank the Chevening Scholarship Programme for granting me the opportunity to pursue my studies in the United Kingdom, an experience that has been transformative both academically and personally. Abbreviations BBC – British Broadcasting Corporation CDA – Critical Discourse Analysis FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation ICC – International Criminal Court ISIS – Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ITV – Independent Television (UK broadcaster) PM – Prime Minister TV – Television UK – United Kingdom UN – United Nations US – United States 1. Introduction 1.1. Background Media coverage plays a pivotal role in shaping public interpretations of international conflicts, influencing levels of empathy, perceptions of legitimacy, and the scope of policy responses. Reporting on the protracted Israel-Palestine conflict has long been marked by contestation, particularly within the British press, where coverage has often displayed a discernible bias in favour of Israel. Such bias constrains the articulation of Palestinian agency and manifests in uneven terminological choices, most notably, the selective application of the term “terrorism” to acts of violence. These asymmetries in representation carry significant ethical and social implications, as they both distort public discourse and help define the parameters within which policy is formulated. The confrontation between Israel and Hamas escalated sharply in October 2023, when Hamas launched an unprecedented assault on Israeli territory, prompting intense global media scrutiny. This dissertation examines the portrayal of Hamas and the evolving hostilities in the British press through a critical discourse analysis of three outlets: The Guardian, The Telegraph, and The Sun. 1.2. Relevance of Research The present enquiry is relevant to ongoing debates concerning media framing and the construction of legitimacy during cross-border conflicts. The temporal focus, from 1 October 2023 to 31 March 2024, encompasses decisive moments, ranging from the immediate narrative escalation to the prolonged humanitarian fallout, thereby capturing the dynamic evolution of framing tactics in response to shifting activities on the ground and growing international pressure. Such understanding is indispensable given the media’s capacity to condition public opinion, legitimise policy initiatives, and orient the responses of states and international organisations. Moreover, this inquiry engages substantively with ongoing discussions regarding ethical journalism, bias in conflict reporting, and the media’s authority to delineate victimhood and legitimacy. By situating these dynamics within the British print press, the dissertation advances both scholarly and practical conversations about the influence exercised by media institutions in shaping representations of conflict. 1.3. Research Aims and Questions This dissertation explores how British newspapers reported on Hamas and the Israel-Palestine conflict between October 2023 and March 2024. The main question of the study is: How has British print media represented Hamas and the Israel-Palestine conflict in its coverage between October 2023 and March 2024? Supporting sub-questions: Q1: How are Hamas and the 2023-24 conflict portrayed in the language and narratives used in British newspapers? Q2: What recurring themes or frames (e.g. “terrorism,” “self-defence,” “humanitarian crisis”) structure media coverage? Q3: How do these discourses reflect broader ideological or securitisation narratives? The questions above deliberately centre on how framing, terminology, and representation are structured within news discourse, shifting analytical focus away from the events themselves. By foregrounding these discursive elements, the study aims to reveal how British print media shapes public understandings of legitimacy, experiences of violence, and the construction of victimhood during the Gaza War. 1.4. Structure of the Dissertation The dissertation consists of seven chapters. Following the introduction (Chapter 1), Chapter 2 presents a literature review surveying prior scholarship on framing, conflict reporting, and the specific biases that have shaped representations of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Chapter 3 outlines the theoretical foundations of the study, integrating the contributions of CDA, framing theory, securitisation theory, and necropolitics. Chapter 4 sets out the methodological framework, detailing the sampling procedures, analytical methods, and study limitations. Chapter 5 presents the empirical findings, offering a comparative analysis of how each newspaper represented Hamas and the broader conflict through lexical choices, thematic framings, and editorial positioning. Chapter 6 situates these findings within the wider academic discourse, assessing their implications for public understanding and the authority of the media. Finally, Chapter 7 summarises the principal conclusions, highlights the study’s contributions, and proposes directions for future research. 2. Literature Review The chapter draws on academic literature and credible reports to explore key topics. It first analyses general media coverage of conflicts, focusing on British media’s portrayal of wars and violent actors. It then examines the literature on the British media’s portrayal of the IsraelPalestine conflict up to 2023, revealing underlying trends and biases. After that, it analyses the UK media’s portrayal of Hamas and the Gaza War from October 2023 to March 2024, using contemporary expert analyses. The chapter closes with a review of British media’s dissenting and critical coverage, citing alternative voices and debates regarding terminology and balance. 2.1. Western Media Coverage of Conflicts and War Situations The academic literature shows that news media can shape public perception of warfare and political violence across the globe. In particular, British newspapers have long been recognised as powerful agenda-setters whose framing choices, especially the use of labels such as “terrorist” or “resistance fighter”, have a significant impact on how conflicts and actors are understood (Bhatia, 2005; Entman, 1993). A consistent finding across research is that British and wider Western media tend to apply these terms selectively, according to political context and existing alliances. Non-state groups opposing the West are often branded as terrorists. In contrast, similar violence perpetrated by allies or Western militaries is described in neutral or even euphemistic terms (Kumar, 2015; The New Humanitarian, 2023). The phrase “one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” highlights the contestable and subjective nature of such narratives (Bhatia, 2005). For instance, British media coverage of the war in Ukraine continuously regarded Ukrainian fighters as “defenders” or “resistance”, thereby legitimising violence against an occupying power (The New Humanitarian, 2023). However, as several authors remark, armed Palestinian groups confronting Israeli occupation do not receive similar terminology; instead, they are typically labelled as “terrorists” (The New Humanitarian, 2023; Philo and Berry, 2011). Linguistic choices are not trivial as they can shape empathy and moral judgment. Research in “peace journalism” notes that mainstream reporting in the UK often adopts a “war journalism” approach: coverage is event-driven, elite-focused, and dichotomous, with little context for root causes (Galtung, 2002; Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005). This is evident in the reporting of civilian casualties – the emotionally loaded terms like “massacre”, “atrocity”, or “slaughter” are the default framework when framing Western or allied victims, whereas passive framing dominates the narrative for non-Western contexts (Butler, 2009; The New Humanitarian, 2023). For example, the phrase “Israelis were killed” is commonly used, while “Palestinians died” is often employed in a way that removes agency and downplays questions of responsibility (The New Humanitarian, 2023). Research on the British media system reveals a predominant reliance on official governmental and military views (Philo and Berry, 2011). “Indexing” tends to stifle critical or dissenting voices, resulting in news stories that reflect the confines of mainstream political discourse (Herman and Chomsky, 1988). The BBC, for instance, avoids the term “terrorist” unless quoted. 3. Methodology 3.1. Methodological Approach The analysis adopts a qualitative approach, grounded in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as its governing conceptual and methodological framework (Fairclough, 1995; Richardson, 2007; van Dijk, 1998). CDA is regarded for its capacity to expose the often-overlooked intersections of language, power, and ideology in media texts. In examining state violence, particularly within the Israel-Palestine conflict, CDA enables a layered interrogation of lexical choices, grammatical structures, framing strategies, and source selection. These choices collectively confer legitimacy on some actors, marginalise others, and shape public understanding of complex, conflictual events (Wodak and Meyer, 2016; Philo and Berry, 2011). The research is situated within Fairclough’s three-dimensional framework for CDA, which analyses discourse on three interrelated levels: 1. Textual analysis examines lexical choices, agency construction through active/passive voice, identity terminology (e.g., “terrorist,” “militant,” “victim”), and the use of evaluative or emotive language. 2. Discursive practice focuses on the life cycle of the articles, considering the identities of quoted sources, the genre of the piece (e.g., news report, editorial), and how these factors shape meaning and reception. 3. Social practice places the discourse within broader institutional, political, and societal contexts, interrogating how themes such as national security, counter-terrorism, historical memory, and international law inform British media coverage (Fairclough, 2013). This framework is further enriched by van Dijk’s (1998) socio-cognitive model and Wodak’s Discourse-Historical Approach (2001), which introduce additional analytical categories including actor nomination, predicate attribution, and structures of argumentative justification. The integration of these approaches yields a methodologically robust framework for analysing newspaper texts. The study also incorporates media framing theory (Entman, 1993), which clarifies how news texts select and organise information to construct particular realities, as well as securitisation theory (Buzan et al., 1998; Balzacq et al., 2016), which explores how media framing of threats can legitimise extraordinary policy responses. Together, these frameworks illuminate how the press circulates enduring frames, constructs dominant narratives, and embeds them within broader ideological formations, thereby enabling a nuanced and critical analysis of discourse. 3.2. Data Selection and Sampling A purposive sample of 75 articles was drawn from three prominent British newspapers: The Guardian (centre-left broadsheet), The Telegraph (centre-right broadsheet), and The Sun (tabloid/populist), each representing a distinct editorial tradition and readership (Philo and Berry, 2011; Richardson, 2007). The selection captures a spectrum of ideological perspectives and rhetorical styles, enabling both cross-sectional and comparative analysis. A coherent and transparent sampling procedure was applied: 1. The coverage period, October 2023 to March 2024, was deliberately chosen to capture the immediate aftermath of the 7 October attacks and the subsequent evolution of media narratives. 2. Database searches used keywords such as “Hamas,” “Gaza,” “Israel,” “October 7,” “war,” “hostages,” and “airstrikes.” Inclusion criteria mandated (a) publication within the defined timeframe; (b) a primary focus on Hamas or the Israel-Palestine conflict; and (c) authorship by a staff journalist, excluding brief reports and syndicated wire content. 3. From each outlet, 25 articles were selected, ensuring a balanced distribution of formats (news reports, features, and editorials) and coverage of key thematic episodes in the conflict. Each article was catalogued in a comprehensive summary table (see Appendix 1), detailing title, date, length, section, synopsis, key thematic frames, and rationale for inclusion. This level of documentation ensures transparency, facilitates triangulation, and supports systematic comparison of textual content and editorial positioning across outlets. With 75 articles, the dataset is sufficiently large to allow for thematic saturation, detailed textual analysis, and meaningful comparative insights over time and across publications (Silverman, 2020). While not statistically representative of the entire British print media landscape, the sample is purposefully curated to be information-rich, capturing dominant and recurring discursive patterns relevant to the study’s main questions (Philo and Berry, 2011; Richardson, 2007). 3.3. Coding and Analytical Grid At the core of the analysis lies a custom coding and analytical grid, designed to operationalise categories from CDA and guide the interpretation of each article (see Appendix 2). Drawing on foundational work in critical media studies (Philo & Berry, 2011; van Dijk, 1998; Entman, 1993), the grid integrates both predefined and emergent codes, including: 1. Actor Portrayal Terminological choices used to describe individuals and groups (e.g., “terrorists,” “fighters,” “civilians”), including the use of scare quotes or euphemistic language, signal how actors are categorised and positioned within the narrative. 2. Key Terms and Labels Evaluative vocabulary applied to actors (e.g., “barbaric,” “innocent,” “aggressive”) reveals underlying biases. The choice of syntactic structures determines whether actors are rendered accountable or indistinctive (e.g., “Hamas killed civilians” vs “Civilians died in Gaza”). This shows how judgement is assigned and how agency is constructed. 3. Agency and Voice Identifying whose voices are foregrounded, Israeli officials, Palestinian civilians, humanitarian actors, and whose perspectives are marginalised or omitted altogether. 4. Frame Recognising recurrent thematic filters such as securitisation, humanitarian crisis, resistance, legitimacy, self-defence, and the ethics of warfare, along with subtler discursive patterns that shape the narrative. 5. Emotive and Rhetorical Language The use of figurative language, emotionally charged claims, evaluative statements, and rhetorical techniques that either inflame or dampen audience sentiment. Systematic coding proceeded iteratively: initial deductive categories, derived from theoretical frameworks and prior literature, were refined through inductive engagement with the data. Coding decisions were documented within the analytical grid and cross-referenced with the article summary table, enabling intertextual comparison and supporting robust, evidence-based conclusions. 3.4. Data Analysis Procedure The analysis advanced through three interlinked phases: 1. Close Reading and Coding A methodical, line-by-line reading of each article was conducted, with relevant themes and categories marked according to the analytical grid. This process surfaced recurring linguistic patterns, framing techniques, and inconsistencies in source attribution, facilitating the trace of emergent discursive regularities and exceptions. 2. Comparative and Thematic Analysis Coded data were then subjected to intraand inter-publication comparison. This facilitated the identification of convergent and divergent portrayals, shifts in topical emphasis, as well as underlying rhetorical strategies. Mapping these patterns was essential for understanding how different editorial orientations recontextualised similar events and actors. 3. Reflexivity and Validation A reflexive stance was maintained throughout the process. All coding and interpretative decisions were evaluated against existing scholarship, and regular feedback was sought from the academic supervisor to mitigate researcher bias and strengthen the credibility of the findings (Silverman, 2020). Throughout the analysis, illustrative extracts, paraphrased segments, and grouped thematic clusters were well-documented, ensuring that all claims were grounded in textual evidence. Deviant and contradictory cases were also preserved to avoid analytical oversimplification and to present a balanced depiction of the discursive landscape within the sample. 3.5. Limitations All methodological designs are subject to limitations, and this research is no exception. Even a carefully constructed framework must contend with potential blind spots and biases. First, subjectivity is inherent to Critical Discourse Analysis. The interpretive nature of CDA means that the researcher’s prior experiences, assumptions, and positionalities inevitably influence analytical decisions (Richardson 2007). While efforts were made to enhance rigour through transparent procedures, systematic coding, and ongoing supervisory feedback, some level of subjectivity is unavoidable. Second, the study’s findings are case-specific and may not be generalisable to all British media or other periods of conflict. The analysis is limited to four major newspapers and a six-month timeframe (October 2023-March 2024), which, while broad for a qualitative study, cannot account for all perspectives, media types, or future developments (Silverman, 2020). Similarly, the exclusive focus on print media does not capture the dynamics of television, radio, or social media coverage, which may differ in framing and impact. Third, although a relatively large sample of 75 articles was analysed, the purposive sampling means the results reflect information-rich and prominent cases rather than a statistically representative cross-section of all coverage (Silverman, 2020). Some relevant perspectives, such as those in regional or alternative outlets, may be underrepresented. Recognising these limitations enhances the transparency and methodological integrity of the study. Despite its constraints, the research offers a critical lens through which to examine how British newspapers constructed narratives around Hamas and the broader Israel-Palestine conflict. 3.6. Ethical Considerations Although this study relies exclusively on newspaper archives and does not involve any human participants, ethical considerations remained an essential component of the research design. The Israel-Palestine conflict is a highly sensitive and polarising subject, and careless treatment risks reinforcing rather than critically examining prevailing narratives. Any language deemed inflammatory or dehumanising was included solely in the context of quotation and excluded from the researcher’s own narrative framing (Philo and Berry, 2011). References to violence, grief, and competing political actors were presented in a neutral and measured tone to ensure that analysis, rather than provocation, remained the primary objective. The study also deliberately separated its critique of media discourse from any judgement of identifiable individuals or communities. This distinction helped preserve analytical distance and avoided moralising interpretations, focusing instead on recurring patterns of portrayal (Richardson 2007). Transparency in sourcing and methodological openness were maintained throughout. All primary and secondary sources were systematically logged, and the inherent limitations and subjectivities of qualitative research were acknowledged (Silverman 2020). Ultimately, the study seeks to contribute meaningfully to academic literature and shape public discourse on how media depict conflict, with a commitment to accuracy, responsibility, and respect for the subjects involved (Richardson 2007). 3.7. Researcher’s Positionality In qualitative study, the researcher’s positionality plays a critical role in shaping both the design and interpretation of the study (Silverman 2020). The author of this dissertation is a UK-based postgraduate student in media and communication, with an academic interest in conflict coverage and media bias. While the researcher holds no personal or political affiliation with either side of the Israel-Palestine conflict, it is acknowledged that all forms of interpretive analysis are shaped, consciously or otherwise, by one’s background, values, and experiences (Richardson, 2007). By explicitly acknowledging these influences, the study invites readers to critically assess the interpretive lens through which the findings are presented. Such reflexive transparency is intended to enhance the study’s credibility, in line with the epistemological stance of Critical Discourse Analysis, which rejects the ideal of complete neutrality and instead foregrounds positional awareness as a strength (Richardson 2007; Silverman 2020). 3.8. Conclusion This chapter has outlined the research questions and methodological framework guiding this dissertation. Using Critical Discourse Analysis, the study applies a structured, multi-level approach to British print media coverage of Hamas and the Israel-Palestine conflict. A purposive sample of 75 articles from three major UK newspapers enables comparative analysis of discursive patterns and editorial emphases. Ethical considerations, study limitations, and researcher positionality have also been addressed to ensure research transparency. The next chapter sets out the theoretical foundations before presenting the empirical findings. 4. Theoretical Framework This chapter outlines the conceptual and theoretical foundations that underpin the analysis, focusing on how British newspapers construct public discourse around war, violence, and the legitimacy of military action. While the study is rooted in CDA, the interpretive emphasis is placed on media framing theory, securitisation theory, and necropolitics. 4.1. Framing Theory Framing theory, introduced by Goffman (1974) and later adapted for media studies by Entman (1993), holds that journalists construct narratives by selectively emphasising certain aspects of reality while marginalising others. This process shapes public perception by directing attention, assigning responsibility, and promoting specific courses of action (Entman, 1993). In the context of armed conflict, recurrent frames are often identifiable. For example, the “terrorism” frame foregrounds threat and culpability, whereas the “humanitarian crisis” frame highlights civilian suffering and appeals for empathy (Entman, 1993; Philo and Berry, 2011). Journalists construct these frames through lexical choices, headline construction, source selection and positioning, and the strategic inclusion or omission of contextual information (Butler, 2009). The portrayal of Hamas’s attacks as “Israel’s 9/11” invokes a familiar security narrative likely to resonate with pre-existing audience beliefs (Shehadi et al., 2024). Unlike agenda-setting, which concerns what issues are brought to public attention, framing focuses on how those issues are presented or interpreted (McCombs and Shaw, 1972; Entman, 2007). During the 2023 Gaza War, British newspapers mobilised competing frames: some prioritised Israeli military security and sovereignty, while others highlighted civilian suffering and breaches of international law (Hanif, 2024; Talaat et al., 2024). These framing choices shape how readers interpret both events and actors. The dissertation applies framing theory to identify and analyse dominant interpretive structures within British print media. It explores how journalists and editors confer legitimacy upon particular claims and actors, thereby influencing audience perceptions of the conflict (Entman, 1993; Philo and Berry, 2011). 4.2. Securitisation Theory Securitisation theory examines how certain issues are discursively constructed as security threats requiring exceptional measures beyond the scope of normal political procedures (Wæver, 1995; Buzan et al., 1998). At its core lies the idea that security is performative: when an authoritative actor labels a phenomenon as an existential threat, this speech act legitimises responses that would otherwise fall outside established or legal norms. The securitising actor, typically a political or institutional authority, deploys strategic narratives to portray a situation, group, or event as posing immediate danger to valued referent objects, such as the state, public order, or national identity (Buzan et al., 1998). This logic is evident in portrayals of Hamas as an “existential threat to Israel” or in its alignment with ISIS. If the audience accepts this framing, it authorises a range of extraordinary measures, from military action to emergency legislation, that are shielded from standard political contestation. For this dissertation, securitisation theory provides a productive analytical lens through which to examine the construction of threat and the discursive mechanisms that confer legitimacy on exceptional responses. Integrated with CDA, it enables a systematic interrogation of how public narratives around the conflict are constructed, revealing whether media discourse merely mirrors official rhetoric or introduces alternative framings that disrupt the dominant securitising logic (Buzan et al., 1998). 4.3. Necropolitics Necropolitics, first articulated by Mbembe (2003), enlarges the inquiry into media representation to ethical and philosophical dimensions by interrogating the power to proclaim the worth of lives and the permissibility of their abandonment. It thus supplements Foucault’s biopolitical framework, articulating the capacity to will death as decisively as the capacity to cultivate life (Mbembe, 2003). In situations of armed conflict and military governance, Israel and Palestine being a primary case, necropolitics reveals how governmental and military sovereignty designates entire populations as vulnerable or, more plainly, as disposable. The media’s representational strategies are not ancillary; they elevate some fatalities to the order of public significance while diminishing or anonymising others (Butler, 2009). Butler’s concept of “ungrievable lives” surfaces alongside this inquiry, signalling how certain groups, often cast as antagonists or intruders, are rendered immune to the full acknowledgement of death as a human irremediable loss within collective memory and justice discourse (Butler, 2009). This framework directs analytical attention to tropes that strip subjects of human specificity: the recurrent invocation of the term “militant” in the absence of identificatory detail, or the neutralising qualifier “collateral damage” applied to civilian fatalities, both of which work to displace moral accountability. Simultaneously, narratives that cast mass death as an unavoidable sacrifice for security function to sanctify the primal ethical equivalence of one group’s survival against the expendability of another. Incorporating necropolitical thought expands the methodological palette, compelling a scrutiny that outstrips the identification of frames or threats and engages the latent value hierarchies orienting audience judgment regarding war, violence, and the constitution of legitimacy (Mbembe, 2003; Butler, 2009). 4.4. Conclusion The research adopts an integrated framework combining CDA, framing theory, securitisation theory, and necropolitics. CDA provides the core methodological basis, enabling examination of texts at the micro (linguistic), meso (discursive practice), and macro (sociopolitical) levels (Fairclough, 1995). Framing theory enables the categorisation of dominant narratives, such as “terrorism” and “humanitarian crisis” (Entman, 1993). Securitisation theory further explains how existential threats are constructed and legitimised through language (Buzan et al., 1998; Wæver, 1995), while necropolitics interrogates the ethical implications and the differential valuation of human life in war media coverage (Mbembe, 2003; Butler, 2009). Together, they allow for a multi-layered analysis of British press reporting on Hamas and the Gaza War, moving fluidly between linguistic detail (CDA), narrative construction (framing), political performance (securitisation), and moral representation (necropolitics). 5. Findings and Analysis This chapter critically examines the discursive constructions, narrative strategies, and framing practices employed by three prominent British newspapers – The Guardian, The Telegraph, and The Sun – in their coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict from October 2023 to March 2024. Drawing on CDA, framing theory, and other relevant scholars and papers (van Dijk, 1998; Fairclough, 1995; Wodak, 2015; Entman, 1993; Buzan et al., 1998; Butler, 2009; Mbembe, 2003), this analysis identifies how each outlet constructed legitimacy, blame, victimhood, and humanitarianism in the context of the conflict using language and representation. Each of the newspapers, liberal (The Guardian), conservative (The Telegraph), and populist/tabloid (The Sun), exhibited distinct editorial identities that shaped both the thematic selection and event interpretation. The chapter discusses the evolution of these discourses throughout the conflict while considering the implications of media representation, public perception, and power relations. 5.1. The Guardian The Guardian’s initial coverage foregrounded the shock of Hamas’s attack on October 7, 2023, adopting a securitised and “war on terror” frame that legitimised Israeli retaliation (Buzan et al., 1998). Headlines such as “Israel and Hamas at war after surprise attacks from Gaza Strip” (October 7, 2023) established a macrostructure of conflict and causally linked hostilities to Hamas’s actions, normalising Israeli emergency measures (McKernan, 2023). The reporting amplified Israeli leaders’ rhetoric: for instance, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s declaration, “We are in a war and we will win it,” was presented as a classic securitising speech act, defining the crisis as existential and urgent (McKernan, 2023). The reporting constructed an ideological binary, with Hamas labelled as “militant group,” “fighters,” and “terrorist organisation,” while Israeli actions were described with institutional legitimacy (“responded,” “mobilised”), thereby reinforcing a legitimacy gap (van Dijk, 1998; Wodak, 2015). Early articles frequently dehumanised Hamas as barbaric “butchers” while individualising Israeli victims as innocent, reflecting van Dijk’s assertion that out-group violence is emphasised and in-group suffering humanised (McKernan, 2023). The visual discourse further reinforced these frames: images of Israeli cities ablaze and civilians under attack were foregrounded. At the same time, Palestinian casualties were reported as aggregate “collateral damage” in “retaliatory Israeli airstrikes” (McKernan, 2023). Thus, Palestinian suffering was rendered less “grievable” (Butler, 2009), supporting a hierarchy of visibility and empathy. The narrative privileged Israeli security concerns and moral legitimacy in the initial weeks of reporting. Nevertheless, The Guardian’s initial coverage of the conflict predominantly adopted a securitisation and victim-centric frame. Sherwood’s (2023) article, “How the Hamas attack on the Supernova festival in Israel unfolded,” relied heavily on survivor testimonies, relatives’ accounts, and emergency responders to construct a highly emotionally charged narrative. The language foregrounded Israeli innocence and the horror of the assault, employing phrases such as “unprovoked attack on civilians” and reinforcing a terror-oriented frame. In contrast, Palestinian casualties were mentioned only briefly and statistically, implicitly establishing a hierarchy of grievability (Butler, 2009). As the conflict escalated, The Guardian’s framing shifted toward the humanitarian crisis and the proportionality of Israel’s response. Carroll’s (2023) report, "Dozens killed after Israeli airstrikes on Gaza refugee camp," signalled a discursive turn, presenting Israeli military justifications alongside Palestinian accusations of a “heinous massacre” and collective punishment. It reflected growing international concern, citing “mounting international alarm” and describing conditions in Gaza as “catastrophic.” By incorporating statements from international organisations, UN officials, and human rights groups, the report situated the events within broader debates on international law and ethical accountability. This approach aligns with Wodak’s (2001) discourse-historical method and Fairclough’s (1995) notion of intertextuality, embedding multiple perspectives and expanding the discursive field beyond national or securitised framings. This shift is also visible in headlines, which increasingly foregrounded the scale of civilian suffering (“More than 900 dead in Gaza since Saturday as shelling hits school, hospitals and homes”, October 10, 2023) (Michaelson, 2023). Palestinian civilian voices and international criticism were legitimised alongside continued Israeli justifications, reflecting an evolving “ideological square” (van Dijk, 1998). The Guardian gradually shifted from a securitisationled narrative, instead foregrounding humanitarian and legal issues. It was marked by language highlighting “escalating civilian casualties” and “dire humanitarian conditions,” as well as emotionally resonant accounts of entire families killed and “no safe place” in Gaza (Carroll, 2023; Michaelson, 2023). By late 2023 and early 2024, The Guardian’s discourse had become increasingly integrated with humanitarian law and legal accountability. The live blog “US risks’ complicity in war crimes’” (December 9, 2023) and similar reports foregrounded accusations against both Israel and its allies, presenting a contest between state security narratives and human-rights perspectives (Ratcliffe et al., 2023). Reporting on international diplomatic pressure, the use of terms such as “war crimes,” “siege,” and “collective punishment,” and the explicit naming of Palestinian victims signalled a significant reframing. This shift enabled the inclusion of multiple voices and perspectives, humanitarian, legal, and international, alongside state security justifications. Consequently, the conflict was reframed not solely as a security issue, but as a broader normative debate (Fairclough, 1995). As of March 2024, legal discourse had become central to The Guardian’s reporting (“Starvation in Gaza likely key to UK legal advice on war crimes,” March 30, 2024) (Graham-Harrison, 2024), which accused Israel of strategic war crimes and analysed the conflict through the lens of international ethics and law. Thus, The Guardian’s editorial voice shifted from rationalising Israel’s security concerns to foregrounding humanitarian and legal critiques. CDA (van Dijk, 1998; Wodak, 2015; Fairclough, 1995), as well as media framing theory (Entman, 1993), illustrated how The Guardian constructed and adjusted a narrative that responded to changing events, on-theground dynamics, and public and institutional sentiment, reflecting evolving discourse throughout the conflict. 5.2. The Telegraph The Telegraph’s coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict was characterised by a strongly securitised and militaristic discourse, consistently aligning with the official Israeli narrative, particularly in the early stages. The paper’s immediate response to the October 7 attack, as reflected in headlines such as “Hamas terrorists butcher civilians as stunned Israel suffers ‘9/11’ moment” (Rothwell and Vasilyeva, 2023), framed the events as an absolute atrocity, drawing explicit analogies with Western traumas such as the 9/11 attacks. This invocation of global terror tropes not only universalised Israeli victimhood but also positioned the conflict The Sun offered the least engagement with the humanitarian frame, particularly regarding Palestinian suffering. Where present, its humanitarian focus centred almost exclusively on Israeli victims and hostages, whose accounts were laden with emotive detail and personalisation. The framing of reports on humanitarian pauses or aid convoy transits focused on the need to release hostages rather than acknowledging the need to relieve civilian suffering. Criticism of Israel was minimised; the suffering of Gazan civilians was dismissed as Hamas propaganda. Therefore, humanitarianism did not function for The Sun as an independent frame that could challenge the security narrative; instead, it acted as a mechanism for perpetuating the innocence-versus-villainy dichotomy that characterised the tabloid’s editorial line. To sum up, The Guardian became the foremost advocate of the frames of humanitarianism and international law, placing civilian protection and legal responsibility at the core of its storyline as the conflict progressed. The Telegraph partly acknowledged and wrote about humanitarian concerns but always filtered them through concepts of security and state legitimacy, relegating them to a secondary position. Humanitarianism was mainly ignored or dismissed by The Sun if it clashed with preferred moral binaries. These differences reflect not only journalistic priorities, but also the ideological fault lines shaping British media coverage of war and crisis. 6.4. Grievability and Necropolitics: Whose Lives Are Counted? A central ethical and discursive fault line in British press coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict concerned the question of grievability, namely, whose lives were rendered mournable and whose deaths were backgrounded or anonymised (Butler, 2009). Closely associated with this is the necropolitical dimension defined by Mbembe (2003), where socio-political frameworks delineate which populations are rendered killable or erased from the public sphere. All three newspapers exhibited marked asymmetries in constructing grievable life, though with varying degrees of reflexivity and hierarchy. The Guardian distinguished itself by progressively increasing its coverage of Palestinian civilian suffering, particularly as the conflict’s toll on human life became apparent. While initial reporting mirrored much of the British press in foregrounding Israeli casualties, both individualised and contextualised, later reporting shifted to feature comprehensive accounts of Gaza’s destruction, including testimonies from aid workers and families, as well as statements from international agencies. Most notably, The Guardian acknowledged the scale of loss on both sides. It also engaged with the unequal recognition of loss by highlighting these disparities and publishing opinion pieces informed by Butler’s critique of grievability (Butler, 2009). While limited in scope, this editorial self-reflection signalled a willingness to interrogate its own representational imbalances and invited readers to consider the moral implications of such coverage. The Telegraph maintained a pronounced hierarchy of grievability throughout the period under review. The deaths of Israelis, mainly from Hamas’s initial attacks, received detailed coverage with emotional language and intense, sustained narrative focus, including civilian victims. By contrast, the deaths of Palestinians, particularly those caused by Israeli military operations, were typically reported as abstract metrics. When Palestinian suffering received more attention, it was framed either as regrettable but necessary or as the fallout of Hamas policies, such as the use of “human shields.” This structuring of grievability, whereby Israeli loss was rendered viscerally and Palestinian suffering only abstractly, reinforced both the legitimacy of Israeli military conduct and the broader security framing of the conflict. The Sun represented the most extreme iteration of grievability asymmetry. Israeli and Western victims were consistently individualised and humanised through personal stories, photographs, and emotive appeals to readers. Conversely, Palestinian victims were rarely humanised; their deaths were rendered as numerical appendages to reports on Israeli military action or omitted entirely except when necessary to contextualise a specific narrative (e.g., during hostage exchanges). The Sun’s approach went further, actively devaluing and at times dehumanising Palestinian life, collapsing civilian suffering into a homogenised enemy image. By consistently foregrounding the victimhood of “our side” and obscuring or demeaning the losses of the “other”, The Sun constructed a stark moral universe in which only certain lives were deemed worthy of public mourning (Richardson and Stanyer, 2011). All three newspapers exhibited a distinct disparity regarding the narrative valuation of mortality, where Israeli lives received disproportionately greater attention and ethical significance than Palestinian lives. The Guardian, initially complicit in this imbalance, later demonstrated more reflexivity, seeking to represent Gazan suffering and address the politics of grievability. The Telegraph maintained a restrained but rigid hierarchy, while The Sun instituted a near-total erasure of Palestinian loss. Such patterns raise serious ethical concerns because the media largely shaped public empathy, marginalised humanitarian critique, and normalised civilian suffering through selective framing of whose lives count. 6.5. Dehumanisation and Demonisation The use of dehumanising language and the demonisation of adversaries were another salient discursive practice observed across the British press. Dehumanisation functions to justify violence by framing the enemy as subhuman, whereas demonisation positions them as an existential danger to a moral social order (Khosravinik, 2015). While reporting the news, The Guardian avoided the use of dehumanising terms such as “terrorist” or “barbaric” and instead quoted Israeli officials or survivors of violence. While the absolute violence of Hamas was condemned, the newspaper also highlighted the dangers of adopting dehumanising rhetoric, warning against the corrosive impact such language has on hopes for resolution and mutual recognition. As such, The Guardian demonstrated greater selfawareness. The Telegraph, while maintaining a formal register, employed hardline terminology that contributed to the demonisation of Hamas. Fighters were described as “terrorists,” and terms like “slaughter” or “butchery” were commonplace, with frequent analogies to historical villains such as ISIS and Nazis. Even when these phrases were quoted, the surrounding context made it difficult to portray the Palestinian side empathetically. In coverage of the conflict’s later stages, Palestinians in Gaza were often depicted as passive victims of Hamas or as part of a faceless, suffering mass, erasing agency and reinforcing a simplified moral binary. The Sun embraced dehumanising and demonising tropes to the greatest extent, deploying an arsenal of pejoratives like “monsters”, “inhuman”, “savages” and consistently collapsing the distinction between Hamas fighters and the wider Palestinian population. Notably, The Sun extended this logic to domestic actors, branding pro-Palestinian protesters in the UK as “traitorous” or complicit with “evil”. This construction of the conflict as a battle of civilisation against inhumanity, both at home and abroad, left almost no space for alternative readings or empathetic engagement. The discourse of dehumanisation and demonisation was widespread and consistent but differed in tone and levels of self-awareness. The Guardian practised restraint and reflexivity, while The Telegraph employed dehumanisation in a broadsheet style. The Sun engaged in rhetorical overindulgence, contributing to the rigid consolidation of in-group/out-group divisions. These linguistic practices had the same effect: denying the possibility of mutual recognition, legitimising extreme violence in international and domestic contexts, and deepening polarisation. 6.6. Inclusion and Exclusion of Voices The question of who can shape narratives within media offers a different prism of divergence for the three newspapers. The scope of coverage that includes multiple voices played a critical role in defining the framing of the conflict and the legitimacy of claims. The Guardian stood out with its pluralistic inclusion of voices. Its coverage often included Israeli and Palestinian officials, international organisations, NGOs, and advocacy groups. More notably, The Guardian did not exclude ordinary Palestinians, Gaza’s medical staff, humanitarian workers, and critics of both Hamas and Israeli policy. This approach gave rise to a dialogic, polyphonic narrative structure that enabled the representation of conflict, contestation, and debate (Philo, 2012). The Telegraph implemented a selective inclusion of voices, prioritising official and establishment figures. The dominant speakers in the narrative included Israeli officials, Western political leaders, and military experts, while Palestinian civilians’ voices were largely omitted and instead represented through mediated summaries. International humanitarian figures sometimes featured, but their contributions were framed as mere background information or countered by Israeli responses. The net effect was to narrow the narrative space to those aligned with state or expert authority, consistent with The Telegraph’s conservative editorial ethos. The Sun provided a highly filtered selection of voices, amplifying only those that reinforced its pro-Israel, pro-military, and emotive stance. Foregrounded were Israeli leaders and victims, while Western political endorsement of Israeli policies was heavily emphasised. Palestinian voices, especially those expressing civilian pain or demanding restraint, were nearly entirely absent. Domestic dissidents and pro-Palestinian protesters were cast in a negative light, and their presence served to uphold the paper’s moral bias. Inclusion and exclusion of voices not only reflected but also actively reinforced the ideological priorities of each outlet. The Guardian employed a multi-vocal approach, facilitating complexity and empathy; in contrast, The Telegraph and The Sun favoured sympathetic and supportive sources and excluded dissenting or adversarial perspectives. The outcome was the creation of strikingly different communicative universes for each newspaper’s audience, resulting in diverse understandings within the public sphere and shaping the possibility of policy contestation. 6.7. Editorial Orientations and the Evolution of Media Discourse The ideological frameworks guiding each newspaper fundamentally shaped the British press’s approach to the Israel-Gaza conflict between October 2023 and March 2024. Each publication’s editorial line determined the frames and narratives that were constructed. Drawing on Fairclough’s (1995) three-dimensional model – text, discursive practice, and social practice – these differences become especially clear. The Guardian, focused on liberal internationalism, aligned with an emphasis on human rights, international law, and the humanitarian toll of warfare. At the level of discursive practice (Fairclough, 1995), this came through in the paper’s shift from initial securitisation and event-centred headlines to coverage that increasingly foregrounded humanitarian consequences and legal debates. For example, while The Guardian acknowledged Israeli suffering in the early days of the conflict, by the end of October, headline coverage was devoted to the UN’s warnings regarding a “humanitarian catastrophe” and legal discourses of “collective punishment” were prominently featured. The Guardian consistently presented a range of voices, including those of humanitarian workers, Palestinian family members, and human rights advocates, thereby pluralising the national narrative and exemplifying discursive practice pluralism (Fairclough, 1995). As previously noted, The Guardian also engaged in reflexive self-criticism, publishing several opinion pieces that addressed the anonymisation of Palestinian deaths in British media and challenged dominant frameworks of grievability (Butler, 2009). In contrast, The Telegraph maintained a strong securitised narrative throughout the examined period. At the level of discursive practice, it closely aligned with Israeli and broader Western perspectives (Fairclough, 1995), consistently portraying Hamas as an “existential threat” and framing Israeli military actions as acts of legitimate national defence. Like The Guardian, The Telegraph initially emphasised the shock and urgency of the October 7 attacks. However, unlike The Guardian, it did not question the legitimacy of Israel’s subsequent military action. Instead, its focus shifted toward strategic, military, and geopolitical concerns, a discursive practice that reinforced securitisation and excluded alternative interpretations. Although humanitarian suffering in Gaza was occasionally acknowledged, it was frequently framed as an inevitable consequence of Hamas’s tactics. Coverage of Israeli airstrikes routinely included statements from Israeli officials characterising civilian casualties as tragic but unavoidable, rhetoric that further entrenched the security-first rationale. While dissenting or humanitarian perspectives were occasionally included, they remained subordinate to the dominant frame and were not allowed to challenge or reconfigure the overarching narrative. The Sun employed the most divisive and populist angle, using its tabloid platform to reduce the conflict to a simple moral binary: Israelis were victims and Hamas were “monsters.” Their coverage relied heavily on derogatory, dehumanising terms like “savages” and “bloodthirsty terrorists,” and, at the level of discursive practice, systematically excluded Palestinian civilians from having a voice or offering a counter-narrative (Fairclough, 1995). The Sun’s reporting on UK domestic events, particularly the vilification of pro-Palestinian protesters, extended the securitisation frame into the British context, reinforcing in-group/out-group boundaries (Van Dijk, 1998). This represents a clear example of the interaction between discursive and social practices in constructing and policing national identity. During the temporary ceasefire and hostage exchanges in November, The Sun highlighted the emotional reunions of Israeli families while portraying aid to Gaza as a transactional necessity rather than a humanitarian imperative. This framing cast humanitarian assistance as conditional, reinforcing the primacy of the security narrative and constraining the space for genuine empathy or cross-group solidarity. Fairclough’s model underscores the importance of temporal dynamics, revealing how the editorial logic of each outlet evolved in response to unfolding events. Following the October 7 attacks, all three newspapers initially adopted a highly securitised, event-driven narrative that foregrounded Israeli trauma and legitimised the military response. However, divergence soon emerged. The Guardian gradually incorporated humanitarian and legal discourses, particularly as international concern mounted and mass protests in London drew hundreds of thousands calling for a ceasefire. Its coverage both reflected and shaped wider societal debates, illustrating the media’s dual role as observer and participant in contesting the legitimacy of war (Fairclough, 1995). While The Telegraph acknowledged such developments, it largely retained a narrative centred on strategic patience and the imperative of defeating Hamas. Engagement with the ethics of military conduct remained limited and sporadic, even as the conflict became protracted. In contrast, The Sun sustained the intensity of its initial securitised narrative, remaining largely unresponsive to the rising civilian death toll in Gaza and to growing domestic and international calls for de-escalation. Its coverage further reinforced polarisation within the UK, portraying anti-war protesters as disloyal or traitorous, an example of how social practice functions to entrench exclusionary national identities (Fairclough, 1995). The process of internationalisation, shaped by global legal frameworks and international diplomacy, further amplified the importance of these factors. The Guardian covered the conflict with a focus on global humanitarian norms and legal controversies, providing comprehensive coverage of United Nations’ resolutions, the International Criminal Court, and critiques by global civil society – thus connecting textual reporting with wider social practices (Fairclough, 1995). The Telegraph approached internationalisation as a form of Western statecraft, emphasising US-UK diplomatic efforts, the risk of regional escalation, and the preservation of geopolitical alliances. In contrast, The Sun invoked international dimensions primarily to reinforce its core binaries, often linking the conflict to threats from Iran and amplifying fears of domestic extremism. These approaches further illustrate how discursive and social practices interact to shape distinct narrative logics, particularly in the construction of populist and securitised framings. Debates concerning ceasefire and peace advocacy revealed the most pronounced editorial divisions. The Guardian not only covered anti-war demonstrations but also advocated for a humanitarian ceasefire, citing the striking levels of civilian suffering and the potential for further radicalisation. The Telegraph, along with official lines from US and UK capitals, branded calls for a quick ceasefire as strategically myopic and beneficial to Hamas. Meanwhile, The Sun dismissed advocacy for peace as a sign of lacking patriotism or as an act of treachery. Within these outlets, the presence or absence of dissenting voices illustrate the limits of identifiable public discourse set by editorial ideology. Ultimately, the domestic political consequences of the conflict were filtered through each outlet’s narrative concerns. The Guardian viewed dissent and resignations from Labour as sympathetic toward pro-Palestinian voices. In contrast, The Telegraph and The Sun cited such divisions as manifestations of leftist radicalism or failure of appropriate leadership. Throughout the press, unconditional condemnation of terror and antisemitism was uniform. However, supplemental coverage of protests and “community tensions” worked to challenge or reinforce dominant frames. 6.8. Conclusion The analysis shows that British newspaper reporting on the Israel-Gaza war was shaped by both underlying editorial ideologies and the imperatives of media logic. An initial phase of consensus, framing the conflict primarily through a security lens, was followed by divergent emphases on humanitarian concern, ethical evaluation, and party-political alignments, producing distinct discursive environments for each outlet’s audience. These dynamics are best understood through Fairclough’s three-dimensional analytical model, which examines: the textual level (observable linguistic choices and visual elements), discursive practice (the production and circulation of narratives, the inclusion or exclusion of voices, and genre conventions), and social practice (the wider socio-political context, including protest movements, policy debates, and the negotiation of national identity). Together, these processes shaped public understandings of violence and victimhood and defined the boundaries within which empathy, dissent, and political discourse could be articulated in British media coverage of the conflict. 7. Conclusion The study of UK newspaper reporting during the 2023-24 Israel-Gaza conflict underscores the decisive influence of editorial ideology and institutional priorities. All three outlets initially adopted a security-centred narrative in the immediate aftermath of the 7 October 2023 attacks, framing Israeli actions as counter-terrorist imperatives. However, divergence soon followed. The Guardian progressively foregrounded humanitarian and legal dimensions, focusing on civilian casualties and invoking international legal norms. The Telegraph largely sustained alignment with government policy, reinforcing narratives of self-defence and strategic necessity while keeping humanitarian considerations peripheral. The Sun presented the conflict in emotive and partisan terms, consistently demonising Hamas and minimising Palestinian perspectives through a binary moral framework. These contrasting narratives determined the selection of subjects and voices given prominence, thereby shaping audience perceptions, assessments of legitimacy, and collective debates about responsibility and justice. Framing proved central to influencing both public empathy and the nature of national discourse, with tangible implications for social cohesion and policy debate in the UK. This dissertation makes both empirical and conceptual contributions. Empirically, it offers a detailed account of British media practices during a major geopolitical crisis, extending the work of Philo and Berry (2011) and Sirhan (2021). The analysis identifies not only persistent asymmetries in empathy and agency but also moments of editorial reflexivity, most evident in The Guardian, suggesting that coverage can potentially adapt in response to external critique. Conceptually, the integration of necropolitical analysis demonstrates how journalistic language and framing reinforce hierarchies of valued lives, expanding the understanding of media bias beyond political alignment to encompass the visibility and recognition of suffering. The study has limitations. Its focus on British print media restricts the applicability of findings to other formats, such as digital platforms or international outlets. The qualitative nature of CDA, while methodologically rigorous, inevitably introduces interpretative subjectivity. In addition, the six-month temporal scope, covering the conflict’s peak, may not capture longerterm discursive trajectories. Future research could extend the scope to include broadcast, digital, and social media, as well as comparative analyses across national contexts. Audience reception studies would add further depth, clarifying how media constructions shape public understanding and mobilisation in relation to conflict. Finally, longitudinal designs could trace the evolution of framing and discourse over time, offering a richer account of the media’s changing role in shaping collective interpretations of international crises. Appendices Appendix 1 Summary Table Appendix 2 Coding and Analytical Grid Bibliography Abed, E., Rothwell, J. and Shamalakh, S. (2023) ‘How Israel’s invasion of Gaza risks radicalising a new generation of Palestinians’, The Telegraph, 8 December. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/12/08/Israel-invasion-Gaza-risks-radicalisingnew-generation-Palestinians/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Allhusen, O. (2024) ‘“Gaza’s Bin Laden” Yahya Sinwar is FILMED fleeing in terror tunnel as Israel vows to catch brute “dead or alive”’, The Sun, 14 February. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/25924256/yahya-sinwar-fleeing-terror-tunnel/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Alasmar, M. (2024) ‘This Ramadan in Gaza, there will be no dates to break the fast’, The Telegraph, 15 March. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-andsecurity/this-ramadan-gaza-there-will-be-no-dates-to-break-the-fast/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Baker, J. (2023) ‘Being PAID £8k to snatch hostages and selfies with child captives… Hamas brutes’ unimaginable terror in their own words’, The Sun, 24 October. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24509172/hamas-terrorists-admit-unimaginable-terrorinterrogation/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Balzacq, T., Léonard, S. and Ruzicka, J. (2016) ‘“Securitization” revisited: Theory and cases’, International Relations, 30(4), pp. 494–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117815596590. Barnes, J., Vasilyeva, N., Samaan, M. and Parker, F. (2023) ‘Gaza’s Egypt border was finally opened – but it could be short-lived’, The Telegraph, 1 November. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/11/01/rafah-crossing-gaza-israel-egypthamas-border-opened/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). BBC News (2023) ‘Why the BBC doesn’t call Hamas a “terrorist” group’, 13 October. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67080363 (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Bhatia, M.V. (2005) ‘Fighting words: naming terrorists, bandits, rebels and other violent actors’, Third World Quarterly, 26(1), pp. 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/0143659042000322874. Boffey, D. and Jones, S. (2023) ‘Israel’s darkest day: the 24 hours of terror that shook the country’, The Guardian, 13 October. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/13/israel-darkest-day-24-hours-of-terrorhamas-gaza (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Borger, J. (2023) ‘South Africa launches case at UN court accusing Israel of genocide’, The Guardian, 29 December. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/29/south-africa-accuses-israel-of-committinggenocide-in-gaza (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Bowman, V. (2023) ‘Israel orders 1.1 million Palestinians to evacuate from northern Gaza as ground assault looms’, The Telegraph, 13 October. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/13/israel-orders-palestinians-evacuatenorth-gaza-attack/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Braddick, I. (2023) ‘First Israeli hostages set to be freed in HOURS as four-day ceasefire begins after nearly 50 days of fighting’, The Sun, 24 November. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24840146/israeli-hostages-freed-today-ceasefire-begins/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Buzan, B., Wæver, O. and de Wilde, J. (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Butler, J. (2009) Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? London/New York: Verso. Caabu (2023) ‘Media statements & resources on Gaza 2023–’. Council for Arab-British Understanding. Available at: https://caabu.org (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Carroll, R. (2023) ‘Dozens killed after Israeli airstrikes on Gaza refugee camp’, The Guardian, 31 October. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/dozens-killedafter-israeli-airstrikes-on-gaza-refugee-camp (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Cheeseman, A. (2023) ‘Israel kills Hamas leader Bilal al Kedra who masterminded kibbutz Nirim and Nir Oz attacks’, The Telegraph, 15 October. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/15/idf-kills-hamas-leader-bilal-al-kedrakibbutz-nir-oz-gaza/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Cleave, I. (2023) ‘Shani Louk “tortured and beheaded” by Hamas in “unfathomable horror”, claims Israel after skull fragment of German found’, The Sun, 30 October. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24567529/shani-louk-dead-mum-update-hamas/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Cleave, I. (2024) ‘Israel confirms it’s FLOODING Hamas terror tunnels with sea water to flush out Gaza fighters & destroy underground HQs’, The Sun, 30 January. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/25610543/israel-flooding-hamas-terror-tunnels/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Coughlin, C. (2023) ‘Israel is winning. It won’t give up the fight now’, The Telegraph, 22 November. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/22/israel-is-winning-itwont-give-up-the-fight-now/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Davis, K. (2023) ‘Inside Hamas’ 311-mile tunnel labyrinth dubbed the “Gaza Metro” where terrorists are cowering “with Israeli hostages”’, The Sun, 16 October. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24415866/hamas-tunnel-labyrinth-israeli-hostages/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Davis, K. (2023) ‘Israel storms Hamas stronghold in 10-hour gun battle & destroy 130 tunnels as terrorists “losing control of north Gaza”’, The Sun, 9 November. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24679201/israel-hamas-stronghold-destroy-tunnels/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Dhillon, N. (2024) ‘Israel “offers to release 800 Palestinian prisoners” including 100 murderers in deal with Hamas to release 40 hostages’, The Sun, 25 March. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26897565/israel-offers-release-palestinian-prisoners/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Diver, T. and Farmer, B. (2023) ‘Hamas greatest terror threat to the West since Islamic State, warns FBI director’, The Telegraph, 31 October. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/31/hamas-israel-terror-attacks-west-is-fbi/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Doughty, E. (2023) ‘Hostile aircraft did not soar into Israel from Lebanon as fears of “second front” opening in war ruled out’, The Sun, 11 October. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24368773/hostile-aircraft-air-force-israel-hezbollah-lebanon/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Doughty, E. and Ross, D. (2023) ‘Twisted Hamas fighters “playing recordings of Israeli kids screaming ‘save me, save me’ to lure troops into booby traps”’, The Sun, 19 December. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/25102629/twisted-hamas-israel-fighters-israelikids-lure-booby-traps/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Elliott, C. (2016) ‘Accusations of bias in coverage of the Israel–Palestine conflict’, The Guardian, 22 February. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/22/accusations-of-bias-in-coverageof-the-israel-palestine-conflict (Accessed: 15 August 2025). English, G. (2024) ‘Israel on high alert for “revenge attacks” as Iran blames them for bombing that killed 100 & Hezbollah vows “punishment”’, The Sun, 4 January. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/25245331/israel-high-alert-revenge-attacks-iran-hezbollah/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Entman, R.M. (1993) ‘Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm’, Journal of Communication, 43(4), pp. 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x. Entman, R.M. (2007) ‘Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power’, Journal of Communication, 57(1), pp. 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x. Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London/New York: Longman. Fairclough, N. (2013) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. 2nd edn. London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315834368. Farmer, B. (2023) ‘Rishi Sunak says Britain wants Israel “to win”’, The Telegraph, 19 October. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/19/rishi-sunak-britain-israelto-win-war-netanyahu-hamas-gaza/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Farmer, B. and Vasilyeva, N. (2023) ‘How Israel targets the “Gaza Metro” of Hamas tunnels hiding terrorists’, The Telegraph, 13 October. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/13/israel-target-gaza-metro-hamas-tunnelshiding-terrorists/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Ferguson, K. (2023) ‘Iranian banks accused of funnelling millions of pounds to Hamas are operating in the heart of London’, The Sun, 21 October. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24481783/iranian-banks-accused-funding-hamas-stilloperating-london/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Freedman, D. (2014) The Contradictions of Media Power. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Galtung, J. (2002) ‘Peace Journalism – A challenge’, in Kempf, W. and Luostarinen, H. (eds) Journalism and the New World Order, Vol. 2: Studying War and the Media. Gothenburg: Nordicom, pp. 259–272. Available at: https://nordicom.gu.se (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Graham-Harrison, E. (2024) ‘Starvation in Gaza likely key to UK legal advice on war crimes’, The Guardian, 30 March. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/30/scale-of-suffering-in-gaza-will-makeaccusations-of-war-crimes-harder-to-deny (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Hamblin, A. and Zagon, C. (2023) ‘Supernova Music Festival: At least 260 dead in Israel after Hamas terrorist attack’, The Telegraph, 9 October. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/09/israel-desert-festival-massacre-hamas/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Hanif, M. (2024) ‘How UK media covered the Gaza war’, Middle East Eye, 12 January. Available at: https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-media-gaza-war-coverage (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Harb, Z. (2024) ‘What went wrong with the British media coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza?’, Al Jazeera Opinions, 6 March. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/3/6/what-went-wrong-with-the-british-mediacoverage-of-the-gaza-war (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Hausdorff, A. (2024) ‘The International Court of Justice has been weaponised against the Jewish state’, The Telegraph, 7 January. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/07/international-court-of-justice-weaponisedagainst-jewish/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Hooper, S. and Goodwin, H. (2023) ‘Chilling last message from missing Brit Jake Marlowe after Hamas gunmen “kill 260” and send hundreds fleeing at festival’, The Sun, 8 October. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24328778/last-message-missing-brit-israelgaza-hamas-festival-music/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Hussey, T. and Holloway, H. (2023) ‘Israel’s war in Gaza is “do or die”, says PM Benjamin Netanyahu after vow to “cut head off the snake” of Iran’, The Sun, 22 October. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24483420/israel-attack-iran-hezbollah-gaza-latest-news/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Hussey, T. (2024) ‘Israeli student “alive” 100 days after she was seen begging “don’t kill me” as Hamas snatched her from music festival’, The Sun, 14 January. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/25359568/noa-argamani-nova-festival-hamas-hostage-video/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Jackson, R. (2005) Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526114844. KhosraviNik, M. (2015) ‘Discourse, identity and legitimacy: Self and other in representations of Iran’s nuclear programme’, Critical Discourse Studies, 12(3), pp. 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2015.1013476. Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (2001) Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold. Kraterou, A. (2023) ‘Hamas commander Jehad Mheisen killed along with his family as Israel blows up his house in assassination blitz’, The Sun, 19 October. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24454091/hamas-commander-jehad-mheisen-killed-family/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Lynch, J. and McGoldrick, A. (2005) Peace Journalism. Stroud: Hawthorn Press. Mbembe, A. (2003) ‘Necropolitics’, Public Culture, 15(1), pp. 11–40. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-15-1-11. McCombs, M.E. and Ghanem, S.I. (2001) ‘The convergence of agenda setting and framing’, in Reese, S.D., Gandy, O.H. and Grant, A.E. (eds) Framing Public Life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67–81. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410605689-10. McCombs, M.E. and Shaw, D.L. (1972) ‘The agenda-setting function of mass media’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), pp. 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990. McKernan, B. (2023) ‘Israel and Hamas at war after surprise attacks from Gaza Strip’, The Guardian, 7 October. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/07/hamaslaunches-surprise-attack-on-israel-as-palestinian-gunmen-reported-in-south (Accessed: 15 August 2025). McKernan, B. and Carroll, R. (2023) ‘Anguish of Gaza residents as phones return to life with news of those lost’, The Guardian, 29 October. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/29/anguish-of-gaza-residents-as-phones-returnto-life-with-news-of-those-lost (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Menon, R. (2023) ‘Killing civilians is indefensible, whether done by Hamas or Israel’, The Guardian (Comment), 12 October. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/12/israel-hamas-war-gaza-civiliandeaths (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Michaelson, R. (2023) ‘More than 900 dead in Gaza since Saturday as shelling hits school, hospitals and homes’, The Guardian, 10 October. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/830-dead-in-gaza-since-saturday-asshelling-hits-school-hospitals-and-homes (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Nanu, M. (2024) ‘Israel discovers tunnel “wide enough for Hamas leader to drive his car down”’, The Telegraph (live blog), 17 January. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/17/israel-hamas-war-latest-news-updatesaid-day-103-live/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Oliphant, R. (2023a) ‘Israel pounds Gaza with one of the heaviest ever missile assaults ahead of ground invasion’, The Telegraph, 9 October. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/09/israel-announce-siege-gaza-yoavgallant-human-animals/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Oliphant, R. (2023b) ‘Hamas slaughtered babies and children in Kfar Aza kibbutz massacre’, The Telegraph, 10 October. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/worldnews/2023/10/10/babies-killed-hamas-attacks-kibbutz-israel/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Observer editorial board, The (2023) ‘The Observer view on antisemitism and Islamophobia: there is never any excuse’, The Observer, 29 October. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/29/observer-view-on-risingantisemitism-and-islamophobia (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Parker, N. (2023) ‘Israel could lose hundreds of troops in bloodbath battle through boobytrapped maze of tunnels when they storm Gaza’, The Sun, 16 October. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24423614/israel-troops-hamas-trapped-tunnels-maze-gaza/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Parker, N. and Hamilton, M. (2023) ‘How evil Hamas commanders “are training boy soldiers to battle Israeli forces preparing to storm Gaza”’, The Sun, 15 October. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24412032/hamas-commanders-training-boy-soldiers-battleisraeli-forces-gaza/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Parker, N. and Kaniuk, R. (2023) ‘Ten charity workers among hundreds held by Hamas terrorists – with nine volunteers murdered by savages’, The Sun, 24 October. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24513354/ten-charity-workers-hamas-terrorists-volunteersmurdered/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Parker, N. and Southgate, E. (2023) ‘I’d do anything to free my mum and brother, says distraught relative of Brits dragged away by Hamas monsters’, The Sun, 21 October. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24482192/brit-hostages-hamas-relative-do-anything/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Philo, G. (1990) Seeing and Believing: The Influence of Television. London: Routledge. Philo, G. and Berry, M. (2004) Bad News from Israel. London: Pluto Press. Philo, G. and Berry, M. (2011) More Bad News from Israel. London: Pluto Press. Available at: https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745329789/more-bad-news-from-israel/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Ratcliffe, R., Chao-Fong, L., Luscombe, R., Ambrose, T., Rawlinson, K., Grierson, J. and Ahmad, R. (2023) ‘US risks “complicity in war crimes”, says Human Rights Watch – as it happened’, The Guardian (live blog), 9 December (updated). Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/dec/08/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-gazapalestine-idf-civilians-blinken (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Richardson, J.E. (2007) Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-20953-9. Richardson, J.E. and Stanyer, J. (2011) ‘Reader opinion in the digital age: Tabloid and broadsheet newspaper websites and the exercise of political voice’, Journalism, 12(8), pp. 983– 1003. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911415974. Riley-Smith, B. (2023) ‘Family of British-Israeli girls caught in Hamas attack describe their heartbreak’, The Telegraph, 17 October. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world- news/2023/10/17/british-israeli-girls-family-hamas-israel-gaza-attack-beeri/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Rogers, J. and Hooper, S. (2023) ‘Netanyahu vows to reduce Gaza to “rubble” as he blitzes Hamas in revenge for terror bloodbath dubbed “Israel’s 9/11”’, The Sun, 8 October. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24294941/death-thousands-rockets-fired-israel/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Rothwell, J. (2023) ‘Israeli intelligence wrongly concluded Hamas would not launch a full invasion’, The Telegraph, 8 October. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/worldnews/2023/10/08/israeli-intelligence-failure-hamas-not-attack/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Rothwell, J. and Shamalakh, S. (2023) ‘From swift incursion to global war: six scenarios for the endgame of Israel’s invasion of Gaza’, The Telegraph, 16 October. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/16/six-scenarios-endgame-israel-invasiongaza/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Rothwell, J. and Vasilyeva, N. (2023) ‘Hamas terrorists butcher civilians as stunned Israel suffers “9/11 moment”’, The Telegraph, 7 October. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/07/israel-palestine-war-hamas-terroristsgaza-hostages/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Sebouai, L. (2024) ‘Children “starting to die from malnutrition” in northern Gaza as food crisis worsens’, The Telegraph, 22 February. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/globalhealth/terror-and-security/gaza-malnutrition-israel-war-famine-children/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Sebouai, L. and Cullinan, M. (2024) ‘Rising hunger in Gaza “turning children into skeletons”’, The Telegraph, 8 January. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/scienceand-disease/children-skeletons-rising-hunger-gaza-famine/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Shehadi, S., Choukeir, C. and Talaat, N. (2024) ‘In numbers: How UK right-wing media’s proIsrael Gaza war coverage dehumanises Palestinians’, The New Arab, 22 March. Available at: https://www.newarab.com/analysis/numbers-uk-medias-pro-israel-bias-gaza-war-coverage (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Sherwood, H. (2023) ‘How the Hamas attack on the Supernova festival in Israel unfolded’, The Guardian, 9 October. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/09/how-thehamas-attack-on-the-supernova-festival-in-israel-unfolded (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Shupak, G. (2018) The Wrong Story: Palestine, Israel, and the Media. London/New York: OR Books. Available at: https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/the-wrong-story (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Silverman, D. (2020) Qualitative Research. 5th edn. London: SAGE. Sirhan, N.R. (2021) Reporting Palestine–Israel in British Newspapers: An Analysis of British Newspapers. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03017072-1. Southgate, E. (2023) ‘Hundreds join peaceful rally outside UK Qatari embassy to plead for return of over 200 Israeli hostages taken by Hamas’, The Sun, 29 October. Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24566547/rally-london-israeli-hostages-hamas/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Sullivan, H., Chao-Fong, L., Bayer, L., Belam, M. and Doherty, B. (2023) ‘Israel-Gaza war live: Netanyahu says Israel’s siege “just getting started” – as it happened’, The Guardian, 10 October. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/09/israel-hamaswar-live-updates-news-worst-day-israeli-history-idf-fighting-grinds-on-gaza-conflictsupernova (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Taub, B. (2023) ‘Hamas, not Israel, is perpetrating “collective punishment” in Gaza’, The Telegraph, 4 November. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/04/hamasnot-israel-perpetrating-collective-punishment-in-gaza/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Talaat, N., Choukeir, C. and Shehadi, S. (2024) ‘We ran the numbers: Here’s how Britain’s “progressive” newspapers have covered Gaza’, Novara Media, 1 August. Available at: https://novaramedia.com/2024/08/01/we-ran-the-numbers-heres-how-britains-progressivenewspapers-have-covered-gaza/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025). The New Humanitarian (2022) ‘Whose suffering counts? A discussion looking at crisis coverage beyond Ukraine’, 8 April. Available at: https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2022/04/08/event-crisis-coverage-beyondUkraine (Accessed: 15 August 2025). The New Humanitarian (2023) ‘Media coverage of Israel and Gaza is rife with deadly double standards’, 23 October. Available at: https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/editorial/2023/10/23/media-coverage-israel-and-gazadouble-standards (Accessed: 15 August 2025). van Dijk, T.A. (1998) Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: SAGE. Wæver, O. (1995) ‘Securitization and desecuritization’, in Lipschutz, R.D. (ed.) On Security. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 46–86. Weaver, D.H. (2007) ‘Thoughts on agenda setting, framing, and priming’, Journalism Studies, 8(4), pp. 380–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700701273619. Wintour, P. (2023) ‘Israel-Gaza war: UN general assembly calls for “immediate, durable humanitarian truce”’, The Guardian, 27 October. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/27/israel-gaza-war-un-general-assembly-callimmediate-durable-humanitarian-truce (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Wintour, P. (2023) ‘Entire population of Gaza becoming “dehumanised”, says UN commissioner’, The Guardian, 30 October. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/entire-population-of-gaza-becomingdehumanised-says-un-commissioner (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Wintour, P. (2023) ‘UK government challenged over ICC inquiry into Israel’s conduct’, The Guardian, 12 November. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/nov/12/ukgovernment-challenged-over-icc-inquiry-into-israels-conduct (Accessed: 15 August 2025). Wodak, R. (2001) ‘The Discourse-Historical Approach’, in Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE, pp. 63–94.