🔥 5 Things the Media Won’t Tell You About the Israel-Hamas Conflict

By Mackenzie Lodimus

Introduction: Why Truth Matters More Than Ever

The Israel-Hamas conflict is one of the most emotionally charged and politically divisive issues in the world. Every few years, the headlines are filled with images of war: sirens in Tel Aviv, destruction in Gaza, protests in capitals, and opinion pieces filled with blame. But often, those headlines—and the stories behind them—fail to reflect the full complexity of what’s really happening on the ground.

Media coverage, especially from large international outlets, tends to simplify and sensationalize. It focuses on body counts, dramatic visuals, and one-sided narratives that reduce a decades-old geopolitical struggle into a morality play with a clear hero and villain. However, upon closer examination, we discover a conflict deeply rooted in history, ideology, territorial disputes, and profound human tragedy on both sides.

This blog post is an invitation to pause, reconsider, and re-educate ourselves.

We will explore five critical truths that are often omitted or misrepresented in mainstream media. These aren’t conspiracy theories or partisan takes—they’re documented realities that, when ignored, skew the public's understanding and feed polarization.

Let’s begin by going back—not to 2023, but over 100 years—because that’s where this story really starts.

1. The Conflict Didn’t Start in 2023 — Or Even in 1948

A Century of Conflict Overshadowed by Headlines

Turn on the news, and you might think the Israel-Hamas conflict began last week, last month, or during the last missile strike. Most media coverage focuses narrowly on the latest round of violence, presenting it without essential context.

This lack of depth does a disservice not only to the truth, but to the people—Palestinian and Israeli—who live through the consequences.

The Roots: From Ottoman Rule to British Mandate

The land known today as Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza was part of the Ottoman Empire until its collapse after World War I. In 1917, the British issued the Balfour Declaration, expressing support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. At the time, Palestine had a mixed population of Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

Under British rule (1917–1948), both Jews and Arabs became increasingly nationalistic. Jewish immigration increased, particularly as persecution in Europe escalated. Arab leaders, meanwhile, opposed Jewish immigration and land purchases.

The tensions boiled over during:

The 1920–1936 Arab Revolts
The 1936–1939 Palestinian uprising
Terrorist attacks from both sides
Britain’s failure to resolve competing claims

By 1947, the United Nations proposed a partition plan: two states—one Jewish, one Arab. The Jewish leadership accepted. Arab leaders rejected the plan and launched a war.

1948: Birth of Israel—and the First War

On May 14, 1948, Israel declared independence. The very next day, five Arab nations invaded. The war ended with an armistice in 1949, and hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs became refugees—many displaced, some fled voluntarily, and some were expelled.

At the same time, 850,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries, yet their plight is rarely mentioned in the media.

Gaza and the West Bank: A Forgotten History

From 1949 to 1967:

Egypt controlled Gaza
Jordan annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem

There was no call for a Palestinian state during those 18 years. That demand only gained momentum after the Six-Day War in 1967, when Israel captured these territories in response to coordinated Arab threats.

This period is vital to understanding why Israel holds the territories it does today—and why peace has remained elusive.

The Rise of Hamas: 1987 and Beyond

In 1987, during the First Intifada (uprising), Hamas emerged as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Unlike the secular PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), Hamas is an Islamist organization that refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. Hamas seized power in 2007 after a violent civil war with Fatah (the PA’s party). Since then, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets and dug dozens of terror tunnels into Israeli territory.

Yet most articles begin the timeline after an Israeli airstrike—ignoring Hamas’s provocations, Israel’s withdrawals, and the historical choices that brought both sides here.

Why the Media Leaves This Out

Many journalists aren’t historians. They work on tight deadlines, rely on local stringers, and aim to present “both sides” quickly. But a “both sides” framing without time, context, or historical facts leads to distortion.

You cannot understand the present without the past.

And unless the media acknowledges that this isn’t a 2023 story—it’s a 100-year struggle—the world will continue to misunderstand it.

2. Israel’s Right to Self-Defense Is Often Downplayed or Questioned

The Double Standard in Global Media

One of the most glaring omissions in international media coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict is the failure to present Israel’s military responses as acts of self-defense under international law. Instead, Israel’s retaliatory strikes are often portrayed as aggressive or disproportionate, while the initial attacks by Hamas are minimized, rationalized, or even ignored altogether.

This skewed framing not only shapes public perception but also affects global policy debates and diplomatic narratives. To understand why this is problematic, let’s unpack what self-defense actually means in legal, ethical, and historical contexts.

What International Law Actually Says

Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a nation has the right to defend itself against armed attacks. The article clearly states:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations…”

This means that when Hamas launches thousands of rockets at Israeli cities—including civilian areas—Israel has every legal right to respond militarily. This is not just an opinion. It is enshrined in international law.

Hamas, by contrast, violates multiple international laws:

Deliberately targeting civilians with rockets
Using human shields, embedding military assets in schools, hospitals, and residential buildings
Operating from densely populated areas, which maximizes civilian casualties

Yet media outlets often fail to provide this legal framework, instead reporting on Israel’s military actions without highlighting what provoked them.

No Other Country Is Held to This Standard

Imagine if a terrorist organization launched:

5,000 rockets at Washington, D.C.
A suicide bombing in central Paris
Armed militants raiding homes in London's suburbs

Would anyone question those countries' right to retaliate?

In any other part of the world, the right to defend one’s civilians is not controversial. But when it comes to Israel, there is a tendency in many media circles to act as though restraint must be infinite—even when civilians are being killed or kidnapped.

This double standard fosters misinformation, breeds resentment, and emboldens terrorist groups who see moral ambiguity as a weapon.

Proportionality vs. Reality

The media often uses the term “disproportionate” without understanding what it means. In military ethics and international law, proportionality does not mean equal body counts. It means that a military response must be:

Aimed at stopping the threat
Not excessive about the direct military advantage anticipated

If Hamas hides weapons in a hospital and Israel targets that hospital after multiple warnings, that may still fall within a proportional response under the laws of armed conflict, especially if precautions were taken to minimize civilian casualties.

Yet, reports often skip this nuance. They compare death tolls without asking why those numbers differ.

Israel has advanced defense systems like Iron Dome, and it builds bomb shelters to protect its people. Hamas, on the other hand, builds tunnels for militants and uses civilians as cover. The disparity in casualties is a result of intent and preparation, not morality.

The Emotional Cost of Defensive War

It's important to remember: Israel’s actions are not without grief. Every war comes at a tragic cost. Many Israelis protest their government’s military decisions. There are ethical debates within Israel about civilian safety, proportionality, and peace.

But the media’s failure to acknowledge Israel’s legal and moral right to defend itself creates a distorted picture—one where a sovereign democracy is cast as the aggressor and a terrorist organization is portrayed as a resistance movement.

This inversion of truth undermines global norms and encourages further violence.

3. The Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza Is Not Solely Israel’s Responsibility

A Complex Picture Beyond the Headlines

Mainstream coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict frequently portrays Gaza as an "open-air prison," with Israel held solely responsible for the hardships faced by Palestinians living there. While Gaza’s humanitarian crisis is real and devastating, this narrative omits crucial context: Hamas’s control of Gaza, its systemic mismanagement, its prioritization of terror over welfare, and Egypt’s role in the blockade.

Without this context, public opinion is swayed by emotional imagery without understanding the true causes behind the suffering.

Who Governs Gaza?

Since 2007, Hamas has had full control of Gaza, after violently expelling the Palestinian Authority in a bloody coup. Since then, Hamas has:

Ruled with authoritarian force
Suppressed dissent and human rights
Prioritized armed resistance over economic development

Billions of dollars in foreign aid, including from the EU, Qatar, and the U.S., have flowed into Gaza. But much of it has not gone to education, health care, or jobs. Instead:

Funds have been funneled into building terror tunnels
Materials have been used to manufacture rockets
Leaders have built luxury compounds while ordinary Gazans live in poverty

This is not a failure of aid; it is a failure of leadership.

The Blockade: Israel and Egypt

Yes, Israel controls much of Gaza’s border—but not all of it. The Rafah crossing, which connects Gaza to Egypt, is also restricted. Yet the media rarely criticizes Egypt's role, even though:

Egypt also restricts movement in and out of Gaza
Egypt destroys tunnels used by Hamas for smuggling
Egypt views Hamas as a threat to regional security

Why is only Israel condemned, while Egypt’s similar policies are ignored?

The blockade was not imposed arbitrarily. It came after years of suicide bombings and rocket attacks, and aims to:

Prevent the smuggling of weapons
Limit Hamas’s ability to rearm

It is a defensive measure, not a tool of oppression. Nevertheless, the narrative often leaves Israel solely blamed for Gaza’s conditions, ignoring Hamas’s destructive choices and Egypt’s parallel policies.

The Tragic Cost of Militarization

Hamas’s strategy relies on embedding itself within civilian populations. Schools, mosques, hospitals, and even UN facilities are used to:

Store weapons
Fire rockets
Shield militants

This makes every Israeli strike a moral dilemma. When Israel warns residents before bombing a site, Hamas sometimes forces civilians to stay put or uses their deaths for propaganda purposes.

The media then shows the aftermath—injured children, destroyed buildings—without mentioning:

Those buildings housed weapons
That Israel gave prior warning
That Hamas deliberately chose the site

This manipulation of civilian suffering serves a dark purpose: to win the war of global opinion, even if it costs Palestinian lives.

Palestinian Voices Often Silenced

It’s important to recognize that many Palestinians in Gaza oppose Hamas but cannot speak freely. Speaking against Hamas can mean:

Arrest
Torture
Death

There is no free press in Gaza. Journalists are harassed, censored, or threatened. During recent conflicts, even foreign journalists admitted being warned not to photograph rocket launches near civilian buildings.

So when the media shows Gazans suffering, it is often curated through fear. The voices of those who would blame Hamas—those who want peace—are silenced.

Acknowledging Suffering Without Erasing Truth

Let’s be clear: The suffering of innocent civilians in Gaza is heartbreaking. Children, families, the elderly—they deserve peace, opportunity, and dignity.

But real compassion requires real understanding. Hamas is not a freedom movement. It is a radical regime that exploits suffering, thrives on chaos, and sacrifices its people to continue its war.

The media’s failure to acknowledge this contributes to the crisis rather than helping resolve it.

4. Media Bias and Selective Reporting Shape International Perception

A War Not Just on the Ground — But in the Headlines

The Israel-Hamas conflict is not just fought with rockets and missiles — it's fought with images, headlines, hashtags, and soundbites. In the 21st century, media portrayal is a battleground, and perception often matters as much as facts.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media — intentionally or not — contributes to a distorted view of the conflict that favors sensationalism over context and outrage over nuance.

Asymmetrical Sympathy: Who Gets to Be Human?

News coverage frequently presents Palestinian suffering in vivid emotional terms — dead children, crying mothers, destroyed buildings. These images are tragic and real. But what’s often missing is:

Context for the attack (Was it a Hamas weapons depot?)
Responsibility (Did Hamas fire rockets from this building?)
Israeli suffering with the same emotional weight

While Palestinian civilians are humanized, Israeli civilians often appear only as statistics:

“Ten Israelis dead” vs. “Gazan mother loses 3 children”
“Rockets land in Tel Aviv” vs. “Gaza neighborhood reduced to rubble”

This asymmetry suggests one side bleeds while the other merely responds. It erases the trauma of Israeli families living under rocket fire, the PTSD of children growing up in bomb shelters, and the grief of families who lost loved ones to terror attacks.

Language Matters: Loaded Terms and Passive Voice

Words shape how we think. Compare these headlines:

“Israel bombs Gaza.”
“Militants killed in Israeli airstrike.”
“Palestinians killed in Israeli strike.”

Now consider what's not said:

Who are the “militants”?
Where were the rockets fired from?
Was the building a military site?

Also note the passive voice used when Hamas acts:

“Rocket fired into Israel” (by whom?)
“Violence erupts after Israeli raid” (what triggered the raid?)

This language subtly frames Israel as the aggressor, even when it responds to attacks. It fosters the narrative that violence starts with Israel and that Palestinians are passive victims, never active agents or decision-makers in the conflict.

Photojournalism as Propaganda

Images are powerful — and easily manipulated. Hamas understands this. They invite journalists into ruins but forbid them from showing:

Rockets are being fired from neighborhoods
Tunnels hidden beneath schools
Civilians coerced to act as human shields

Western journalists in Gaza have admitted they self-censor, fearing Hamas retaliation. Meanwhile, images from Israel — such as Iron Dome interceptions or citizens in bomb shelters — rarely make front pages.

The result? A flood of heartbreaking photos from Gaza with little visual evidence of:

Hamas’s use of human shields
Hamas rocket launchers near hospitals
The impact of rockets on Israeli communities

Even when media outlets claim neutrality, what they choose to show — and what they omit — has immense influence.

Fact-Checking Fails and Viral Falsehoods

In the age of social media, speed often trumps accuracy. Viral posts spread misinformation long before facts catch up. Some examples include:

Misattributed videos (from Syria, Iraq, or years earlier) labeled as Israeli “atrocities”
Claims that Israel bombed a hospital when later evidence showed it was a failed Palestinian rocket attack
Misleading casualty reports from Hamas-controlled health ministries without independent verification

Mainstream outlets frequently amplify these claims, then quietly correct them days later, after the damage to Israel’s image is done.

In this climate, Israel is presumed guilty until proven innocent, while terrorist organizations like Hamas are given the benefit of the doubt.

The Double Standard: No Other Country Is Held to This Measure

Ask yourself: What would your country do if a neighboring regime fired thousands of rockets at your homes, built tunnels to kidnap your citizens, and declared its goal was your destruction?

Would you defend yourself? Of course.

Yet when Israel does so, the world accuses it of “disproportionate response,” war crimes, and apartheid.

No other democracy is asked to fight a war:

With zero civilian casualties
Against an enemy that hides behind its own people
While being condemned globally for protecting its citizens

This double standard is reinforced by selective reporting, one-sided sympathy, and a refusal to name terrorism for what it is.

5. The Global Narrative Undermines Peace and Empowers Extremism

When Peace Is Politicized

Every conflict has two sides, but peace requires both parties to acknowledge the other’s right to exist and seek coexistence over domination. Israel has repeatedly attempted this — from the Oslo Accords to the Gaza withdrawal — yet these steps were often met with more violence, not less.

Despite this, many global narratives portray Israel as the sole obstacle to peace, ignoring:

Hamas’s charter, which openly calls for Israel’s destruction
Decades of peace offers rejected by Palestinian leaders
Internal divisions among Palestinians, including Hamas vs. the Palestinian Authority

This oversimplified narrative emboldens extremism by treating Hamas as a freedom movement rather than a terrorist regime that suppresses its own people and prioritizes jihad over prosperity.

How the “Occupation” Narrative Oversimplifies

The term “occupation” is thrown around by activists and media alike, often with no understanding of:

The historical context of 1967 and the Six-Day War
The legal status of territories under international law
The fact that Gaza is not occupied — Israel withdrew fully in 2005

Yet the term is used as a catch-all condemnation, erasing the complexity of negotiations, security threats, and shared responsibility for failure.

The narrative suggests that removing Israel from these areas would bring peace, despite Gaza proving the opposite. After Israel’s withdrawal, Hamas took over, elections ceased, and rocket fire dramatically increased.

Misusing Human Rights Language

Organizations like the UN, Amnesty International, and others have accused Israel of “apartheid,” “genocide,” or “ethnic cleansing.” These terms are politically loaded, emotionally explosive, nd legally questionable.

Yet they are amplified by media and influencers without accountability.

Why does it matter?

These labels delegitimize Israel’s existence
They drown out the voices of moderation
They shift the goalposts from peace talks to total isolation

When false or exaggerated accusations are repeated enough, they become true in the public mind, no matter how flawed the evidence.

The Role of Social Media Echo Chambers

Social media is a powerful tool, but also a dangerous one. Algorithms favor rage, speed, and simplicity, the truth. During the Israel-Hamas conflicts:

Misinformation spreads faster than facts
Emotional images (even fake ones) go viral
Influencers with no expertise shape public opinion

And once you like or share a post, you’re fed more of the same. The result? Millions of users are trapped in echo chambers where:

Israel is always the villain
Hamas is a resistance movement
Complexity is drowned out by slogans and outrage

This radicalizes online audiences, especially young people, who are taught what to feel before they learn what to know.

What You Can Do: Choose Education Over Emotion

Here’s how readers can break the cycle of misinformation and contribute to peace:

Fact-check before sharing. Don’t amplify unverified claims or emotional manipulation.
Read from multiple sources — not just what confirms your views.
Listen to Israeli and Palestinian moderates, scholars, and peace advocates.
Challenge lazy narratives — whether they come from the media, friends, or politicians.
Support organizations that value coexistence, education, and truth.

Why It Matters

This conflict is not just about land or religion — it’s about truth, survival, and the right of both peoples to live in peace. But peace cannot be built on lies, half-truths, and propaganda.

The media’s job should be to inform, not inflame. But too often, it does the opposite — hiding Hamas’s atrocities, erasing Israeli trauma, and simplifying a deeply complex issue into a good vs. evil fantasy.

By understanding what the media won’t tell you, you are not just becoming more informed — you’re becoming more human. Because in the end, truth is the only foundation strong enough to build peace upon.