The Gaza ceasefire: How have papers covered the agreement?

On the 15th of January 2025, a ceasefire deal in Gaza was announced after months of negotiations led by the US, Qatar and Egypt. It promised an end to 15 months of fighting, the return of 73 Israeli hostages and hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, as well as the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. But as with any moment of the Israel/Palestine conflict throughout the past century or so, most sources all seem to say a slightly different thing. Some argue that Western media reports with an anti-Israel bias; others say that Western media takes a pro-Israel stance with a systematic bias against the Palestinian perspective. When everyone is sending mixed signals and modern media is so filled with misinformation, making sense of the new ceasefire becomes all the more difficult.

The depiction of the hostages is a key facet in analysing how papers differently cover the ceasefire. After October 7, Israeli citizens looked towards the return of their hostages, sporting yellow ribbons and setting up Hostages Square in Tel Aviv. Citizens have expressed their discontent with their government at their neglect of the Israeli hostages since 2023, blaming Netanyahu and his cabinet for pursuing the war or “revenge” rather than the hostages’ return. Still, the extent to which the Israeli government keeps to their side of the ceasefire deal is reported as being dependent on the hostages’ treatment – with different papers reporting different stories. Al Jazeera maintains that Israel breached the terms of the ceasefire first, whereas The Times writes that Israel is doing so because Hamas breached it first – it’s a convoluted image. The importance of the hostages cannot be understated in the media, as they are often referred to by name. Of the approximate 250 hostages, some of them have achieved a celebrity-like status, like Shani Louk, whose body was one of the first to be identified in the circulating footage after October 7th. A study by The New Arab (March 2024) revealed that Louk alone featured in more of The Sun’s emotive headlines than all of their headlines conveying Palestinian victimhood.

Attention-grabbing headlines like The Sun’s look to invoke anger at threats to the ceasefire deal’s success

A similar study showed that of the UK’s left-leaning newspapers, The Guardian, The Independent, and The Mirror, two out of three featured more Israeli case studies than Palestinian. Across the three, there was an approximate 58/42 split, with overall more Israeli case studies, primarily focused on the hostages and their families. For instance, The Guardian published an article titled “Israeli hostage only discovered fiancee had survived 7 October after his release”. Case studies like these appeal to the empathy of the reader as they humanise the hostages and their families, giving perspective beyond facts and figures. However, The Sun, being a tabloid paper, tries to appeal more strongly to emotions such as anger, titling an article: “SO DEPRAVED: Hamas’ SICKENING excuse for returning mystery body instead of Bibas mum…as US warns terrorists face ‘total annihilation’”. Publishing the hostages’ personal return stories amid the ceasefire deal helps to portray it as hopeful, whereas attention-grabbing headlines like The Sun’s look to invoke anger at threats to the ceasefire deal’s success, which it pins on Hamas. But this personal aspect reveals a bias in reporting about the ceasefire.

An article by The Guardian published on the same date as the one about Israeli hostage Ziv Abud and his fiancee was titled “Hamas hands over six hostages but Israel suspends release of 600 Palestinians”. This is very telling as to the difference between the coverage of the Israeli and Palestinian perspective. Just in terms of quantity – it is far easier to delve into six stories as compared to 600. During the planned first stage of the ceasefire, 33 hostages were to be released compared to 1,900 Palestinian prisoners. The difference in number here makes it seem harder to investigate the Palestinian individual, especially when many (but not all) of the hostages have friends or family publicly advocating for their returns, and their nation has rallied around them in support. The Palestinian equivalent is typically not granted the same voice, made anonymous by choice reporting.

When both Israeli and Arabic papers are accusing the Western media of bias, it can make it very difficult for readers to know where to get their news from

When newspapers do delve into individual case studies using emotive language, The New Arab and Novara Media point out that it is often in a passive voice. Looking at The Independent’s recent headlines, this trend continues. “Hamas releases three hostages from Gaza”, “Four female Israeli soldiers released by Hamas under Gaza ceasefire” are two headlines which feature under topic: ceasefire. So do “Buses carrying freed Palestinians” and “Palestinian prisoners released under Hamas-Israel ceasefire deal”. The majority of the headlines tell us that Palestinians are released and Palestinians return, and on the other hand, Hamas releases. We can then see a disparity between the presentation of active versus passive roles in the ceasefire, not holding Israel accountable in its role detaining hundreds of Palestinians.

Furthermore, when the ceasefire deal has come under threat, which it has done multiple times since its announcement, papers headline differently, highlighting and muting certain narratives. For example, the BBC headlined an article which described Netanyahu’s delay in returning 600 Palestinian prisoners, “Gaza ceasefire once again in doubt as first phase nears end” and an Independent headline describes ceasefire negotiations as “fragile and furious” with the ceasefire being mysteriously “pushed to brink of collapse” in the same headline. Again, the use of passive voice does not hold Netanyahu accountable, whereas Al Jazeera reports the same instance with an active voice: “Israel halts release of Palestinian prisoners in breach of ceasefire deal”. Leadership’s actions make the deal unstable, so the use of passive voice in describing the refusal to comply with the terms of the ceasefire, and words like “doubt” and “fragile”, make it seem as though a breakdown in the deal is inevitable, which it does not need to be.

When both Israeli and Arabic papers are accusing the Western media of bias, it can make it very difficult for readers to know where to get their news from. Many of these headlines are attached to articles that present more balanced ideas than they initially seem to, but in an era of headline-skimming and social media (and paywalls – making the rest of the article inaccessible), attention-grabbing headlines can be dangerous. When Western media anonymises the Palestinian voice and doesn’t hold the Israeli government accountable, it risks enforcing the general fallacy that war in the Middle East is unstoppable, inevitable, and almost natural. Newspapers need to address their biases or else a clear image of the ceasefire will never form.