Journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed during an Israeli raid in Jenin, a Palestinian refugee camp, on May 11, 2022. She was a well-known journalist across the Arab world.  According to Al Jazeera, where Shireen was employed, she had been reporting about “Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories” for over two decades.  Following the event, opposing narratives were presented in international and domestic media. Both used the event as a tool to further political agendas within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Al Jazeera, an international news source based in Qatar, claims that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) intentionally shot Abu Akleh, even though she was identified as a reporter. Further, Al Jazeera argues that her death is part of a larger context of Israel targeting journalists and a continuation of war crimes committed by Israel.  Following the event, Israel has asked for a joint investigation, but the Palestinian president has said he does not trust Israel in the matter.  Al Jazeera claims that Israeli soldiers targeted Abu Akleh because she was investigating Israel’s crimes and exposing Israel’s apartheid policies.  For this reason, they conclude that Israel cannot be trusted with an investigation on the matter.

Unlike Al Jazeera, Israeli domestic media has focused on the inability to find the truth of who killed Abu Akleh and has been unwilling to assign blame to Israel. The Times of Israel is considered a top source of Israeli news by the Jewish Federation.  An article on their site claims that the Palestinians’ unwillingness to present the bullet that killed Abu Akleh suggests that Palestinians are hiding something.  Israeli media repetitively published articles arguing that the truth will not be discovered without an investigation. An article on N12, posted on May 13th , said that Israel may no longer trust a bullet handed over by the Palestinians as it may now be contaminated. This means that a conclusive result for who is to blame may no longer be viable.

Shatha Hanaysha, a Palestinian journalist present at Abu Akleh’s death, posted about the incident on Instagram. In her post, she wrote that “the [assassins] of Shireen Abu Akleh are the soldiers of occupation” and that she will never stop “[telling] the truth.”  Hanaysha conclusively blames Israel for the killing of Abu Akleh. Some may consider her claims legitimate because she witnessed the event first-hand.

On Israeli social media accounts, not much attention was placed on the event except for a few posts by the IDF and several influencers. The IDF Chief of Staff posted a video on Twitter in which he suggested that Palestinians fire carelessly while Israelis fire in a calculated manner. He used this comparison to suggest that there is a likelihood that a Palestinian carelessly shot and killed Abu Akleh.  This mirrors the narrative presented in domestic media. The comments on the post were mixed. Many said they stand with Israel, while others criticized the post and called for the Liberation of Palestine.

The contrasting messages between different social media posts are similar to the contrast seen between international and Israeli media. Blame placed on Israel dominated social media in a similar fashion to the way the story was presented on international news source Al Jazeera.

Shireen Abu Akleh’s death is an example of how powerful groups aim to use the media to maintain hegemony. Hegemony refers to power and legitimacy. Through hegemony, powerful groups have the ability to get what they want when interacting with others. In this scenario, the Israelis and Palestinians are both fighting to create and maintain their hegemony within the wider Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Both Israelis and Palestinians framed the event to fit their own narrative. Framing refers to the way information is presented in the media. It is important to pay attention to what information is shown, and sometimes even more important to notice what information is concealed. For example, in international media, the event was framed within the larger Israeli-Palestinian context. Articles on Al Jazeera called this event an example of Israel’s apartheid state, while little information was given about the reasoning for Abu Akleh being in Jenin. The way the event was portrayed on the different media outlets showcases how the same situation can be framed differently in order to create opposing meanings.

Meaning refers to one thing pointing to another. The Israelis are creating meanings about the event which they hope will help maintain their hegemony. They are attempting to show that Palestinians’ unwillingness to cooperate in an investigation means that they are hiding something.  This is done through framing. Rather than focusing on Abu Akleh’s death, they are focusing on the lack of an investigation. This is because they believe this information will help them maintain their hegemony, while the event itself will not.

Abu Akleh’s death has been called a tragedy by both domestic and international media. However, it seems that both Israelis and Palestinians are attempting to use this event as a means to maintain their hegemony and further their goals within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Through framing each group is able to create and circulate different meanings. By comparing the way stories are presented on different media sites and platforms we can see how a variety of stories can be created from the same event. This may help us to understand and bridge our differences with others.