Disinformation and Manipulation: The Gaza Stage in the British Press

The stance of the Western media in various conflicts, particularly in the Middle East, from theU.S. invasion of Iraq to the present, is a phenomenon that warrants in-depth discussion. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Western media outlets have faced increasing criticism for broadcasting in a manner that legitimizes interventionist government policies. More than twenty years later, the same model of manipulation and one-sided information strategyappears to be resurfacing, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Moreover, through this distorted journalistic language, one side of the conflict is of ten absolved under the pretext of “self-defense,” while the Palestinian side is criminalized or reduced to simplistic narratives such as a “terrorist threat.” Just as in the U.S., in the U.K., too, major media outlets—including the BBC, Sky News, and The Times—are increasingly criticized for reinforcing Israel’s rhetoric in alignment with government foreign policy, thereby obstructing the public’s ability to perceive the realities as they are.

The Western Media’s Demonizing Language from Iraq to Gaza

The widespread and unquestioned dissemination of the “weapons of mass destruction” argument—put forth by the U.S. government before the 2003 Iraq invasion—by major media outlets was, in fact, a historical turning point in today’s media crisis. Subsequentin vestigations revealed that these claims were baseless, leading organizations such as TheNew York Times and the BBC relayed the political discourse of the time without applying a critical filter. The Iraq experience serves as strong evidence that the Western media of ten supports official government policies under the guise of “national security,” raising serious ethical concerns about journalistic integrity.

A similar pattern has been observed in the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza since October 2023. While Israel’s strict blockade on Gaza has drawn criticism for amounting to collective punishment—an act that should be scrutinized under international law—theWestern media predominantly reports based on Israeli government statements. According to numerous reports, United Nations experts and international human rights organizations warn that actions in Gaza may amount to “ethnic cleansing” or even “genocide.” However, the sewarnings are either rendered invisible in leading media outlets or are distorted and downplayed with phrases such as “Hamas claim.”

Furthermore, data shared by Palestinian journalists on the ground is either ignored or discredited with disclaimers such as “sources controlled by Hamas.” This approach bears a striking resemblance to the “one-sided reporting policy” that Western media adopted during the Iraq invasion.

The U.K.’s Pro-Israel Policy and Military Espionage Activities

An analysis of the United Kingdom’s foreign policy confirms that the London administrationh as maintained close cooperation with Israel in multiple instances. According to report spublished by Declassified UK—based on leaked intelligence information—the British RoyalAir Force has conducted various surveillance flights near Gaza, and the intelligence gatheredis likely being shared with the Israeli military. Concerns have been raised that these flights, particularly intensified on prisoner exchange days, may be assisting Israel in identifying militant positions or determining which targets to strike during ceasefire negotiations.

These concerns are further reinforced by flight records of spy planes departing from theBritish-owned Akrotiri base in Cyprus. Although British officials claim that “these flights are solely for gathering intelligence related to hostage rescue operations,” data analyzed byDeclassified UK indicates that unmanned aerial vehicles and reconnaissance aircraft have conducted flights over Gaza that coincide precisely with hostage release days. This suggests that such operations may be in violation of ceasefire agreements and raises serious concern samong civil society organizations and human rights activists that the British government is, in reality, engaged in intelligence-gathering activities in favor of Israel.

The U.K.’s Preference for War Over Peace in Ukraine

Similarly, the United Kingdom’s tendency to prolong conflicts rather than facilitate peace negotiations has also been evident in the case of Ukraine. Shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, peace talks mediated by Türkiye in the spring of 2022 appeared to have been disrupted due to overt or covert pressure from Western states. Notably, during a surprise visit to Kyiv, then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson reportedly encouraged the Ukrainian leadership to “keep fighting” rather than seek “reconciliation with Russia.” This stance not only intensified the regional conflict but also contributed to greater global instability.

Both right-leaning and self-proclaimed “liberal” British media outlets have framed the U.K.’s military aid to Ukraine in grand, heroic terms while portraying negotiations as a “sign of weakness.” According to investigations by Declassified UK, British intelligence services have systematically worked for years to strengthen Ukraine’s anti-Russian military capacity and prepare it for a potential conflict. This background has been cited as one of the factors preventing Kyiv from engaging in peace talks, while the British media has further reinforced the pro-war narrative by undermining and discrediting any diplomatic alternatives that could end the conflict.

Examples of Pro-Israel Bias in British Media

In alignment with the U.K.’s policies in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, major media organizations generally adopt a broadcasting policy that not only endorses but evenstrengthens the official government stance. When examining coverage of Gaza, testimonies from journalists and editors at The Times, The Guardian, BBC, and Sky News indicate thatIsraeli-sourced information is often reported without verification.

In exclusive interviews conducted by Declassified UK, six journalists from BBC, Sky, ITN, The Guardian, and The Times revealed that internal editorial oversight mechanisms oftenwork to soften or downplay reports unfavorable to Israel.

For example, a journalist from The Guardian stated that within the newsroom, phrases like“Hamas-run health ministry” are systematically used, and casualty figures resulting fromIsraeli attacks are framed with disclaimers such as “reported by Hamas-affiliated sources.”However, organizations such as Amnesty International and the United Nations have confirmed that data provided by the Palestinian Ministry of Health is largely reliable andverifiable. In fact, these organizations suggest that the actual death toll may be significantly higher than the official figures released to the public.

At BBC, the claim of being an “independent public broadcaster” appears to ring hollow, according to testimonies from field reporters. It has been alleged that BBC management deliberately avoids airing expert or eyewitness accounts that describe Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocide” or quickly interrupts such statements when they are made. Additionally, headlines are often structured in passive language—for example, instead of stating “Israel bombed Gaza,” reports frequently read “Explosion in Gaza, casualties reported”—whic hobscures responsibility for the attacks. Furthermore, while Israeli guests are rarely subjected to tough questioning, Palestinian guests are frequently interrupted, undermining BBC’s claim of maintaining “equal distance” from both sides.

According to a journalist working at Sky News, statements from the Israeli military are largely accepted as “true” without scrutiny. Meanwhile, information or visual material soriginating from Palestinian sources are almost always met with skepticism and accompanied by disclaimers such as “awaiting confirmation from the Israeli army.” Moreover, reports suggest that in-studio discussions where experts attempt to present strong arguments againstIsrael are often disrupted, and journalists or editors who persist in such critiques risk beinglabeled as “difficult” or “problematic.” These allegations, based on insider accounts, highlight a systematic editorial bias favoring Israel.

Conclusion

From Iraq to Gaza—and even in the Ukraine war—the Western media has consistently chosen to align its coverage with the broader political interests of both Western governments and theWestern bloc. The same tactics used during the Iraq invasion—spreading public fear andjustifying military intervention—are now being deployed to legitimize Israel’s actions in Gaza and frame the Palestinian issue within the narrative of “counterterrorism.”

In the case of the United Kingdom, the government’s increasing military and intelligence cooperation with Israel mirrors its obstructionist stance toward peace negotiations in Ukraine, and this pattern is reflected in media coverage as well.

Even journalists within BBC, Sky News, The Times, and The Guardian—media outlet sconsidered “mainstream” or “institutional”—have acknowledged the serious ethical and humanitarian concerns arising from the pro-Israel bias within their newsrooms. These concerns include the neglect of the human suffering experienced by Palestinians, the incomplete or distorted presentation of Israel’s violations of international law, the uncritical transmission of Israeli government statements, and the systematic labeling of Palestinian sources as “unreliable.”

All these findings call into question the Western media’s claims of “objectivity” and“independence,” particularly in the case of the U.K. The media plays a crucial role in shaping public awareness, and when it surrenders this role to the narratives of those in power, it not only obstructs the peaceful resolution of conflicts but also undermines the fundamental democratic right to accurate information. The persistence of this one-sided editorial stance—unchanged since the Iraq invasion—even in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, highlights deep-seated structural issues within Western media institutions.

The responsibility of the British media is especially significant, as the U.K. is home to someof the world’s most established press institutions. However, instead of upholding journalistic integrity, these outlets have largely aligned themselves with political interests and the defense industry’s agenda.

Ultimately, both the U.K.’s foreign policy choices—favoring war over peace in the cases of Israel and Ukraine—and the pro-Israel bias of its major media organizations raise serious concerns about democratic principles and human rights. This situation not only fuels the escalation of conflicts but also infringes on the public’s right to fact-based information, there by obstructing pathways to peaceful solutions.