This article was originally written in Arabic and translated into English using AI tools, followed by editorial revisions to ensure clarity and accuracy 

Once again, Western media framed civilians within the context of "collateral damage" while covering Israeli attacks on Syria. The language of international law was absent, and the tragedy of civilians affected by military strikes was completely obscured, while justifications and cover for the occupation prevailed under the banner of "maintaining national security."

The biased coverage by Western media of the events in Syria was no different from the genocidal war in Gaza. It revealed the extent of adhering to the Israeli narrative, which is regularly presented as an indisputable fact. As Israeli strikes on Syria escalated and the Israeli army infiltrated Syrian territory, media framing methods evolved with an almost complete disregard for civilian casualties, humanitarian losses, and violations of international law. This article will address the biased coverage that deliberately obscures the risks to civilians in Syria as a result of the Israeli bombing of Syrian army military sites through random examples from CNN and the New York Times.

CNN: Military Success or Forgotten Tragedy?

In a recent report titled “Military Power,” CNN covered the Israeli strikes on Syria, describing them as the largest in decades. The title and style of the report reflect an attempt to highlight Israeli “military achievements” while missing any details related to human losses or material damage to civilians.

The report details the execution of 480 strikes in two days, targeting more than 350 sites, including airports, military bases, and defence facilities. However, instead of raising fundamental questions about the impact of these strikes on the population or presenting the legal context for these operations, the focus is on the accuracy of the targeting. In contrast, the voices of civilians are absent, and the extent of the material and moral damage that has been inflicted on the Syrians and will be inflicted on them for decades is not mentioned. 

Then comes the reference to the destruction of the Syrian Navy, to present this as a “military success” without considering what this action means in terms of the complete disruption of the system of a sovereign state, with the absence of critical questions about the rights of Syrians to defend themselves or the impact that these strikes could have on their societies. 

The report details the execution of 480 strikes in two days, targeting more than 350 sites, including airports, military bases, and defence facilities. However, instead of raising fundamental questions about the impact of these strikes on the population or presenting the legal context for these operations, the focus is on the accuracy of the targeting. In contrast, the voice of civilians is silenced, and the extent of the material and moral damage that has been inflicted on Syrians and will be inflicted on them for decades is not mentioned.

The language of the report simplifies military violations by constantly repeating phrases such as “removing the risk of weapons falling into the hands of extremists,” paving the way for legitimising operations and avoiding any mention of violations of international law.

New York Times: Justification and Concealment

In the same way, the New York Times report highlights the Israeli narrative. The report presents the bombing operations as aiming to "prevent extremist groups from controlling weapons." It highlights Israel as a protector of stability, while the tragedy of civilians and the loss of property of the Syrian people are absent. The report also focuses on the identity of the power controlling the political and military reality in Syria, considering that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is classified as a terrorist group, to legitimise the Israeli attack on military facilities and its occupation of Syrian lands in clear violation of international agreements.

With scattered reports (1) (2) (3) indicating the presence of civilian victims and injuries in repeated attacks or as a result of direct assault on civilians demanding the departure of the occupation from their lands, and with the absence of final statistics on the victims, this raises professional and ethical questions about the significance of omitting the number of civilian deaths resulting from this attack or the absence of mention of the civilian losses resulting from it or even the absence of statements about the importance of the weapons that were destroyed, which are the right of the Syrian people.

● Numbers as a means of justifying violence     

The report indicates that Israel has carried out 450 airstrikes since the fall of the Syrian government, targeting dozens of warehouses and military bases. However, we find no figures on civilian casualties or even estimates of infrastructure losses except in a timid manner at the beginning, given that no statistics show the extent of the loss suffered by the Syrian people.

● Lawless legal framework   

The report indicates that Israeli forces have occupied areas in Mount Hermon and parts of the Syrian border. It presents these steps as “temporary,” ignoring the fact that the occupation is a flagrant violation of international law. The report does not raise questions about the rights of Syrians to their lands or the legality of the Israeli presence in the occupied Syrian areas.

● Hiding Syrian suffering    

As in the CNN report, the voices of Syrian civilians are absent in the New York Times report. There are no details about the families who lost their homes or the children who were killed in their homes. The humanitarian crisis is reduced to mere marginal damage, while the Israeli side is given ample space to justify its operations.

● Manipulating Numbers: A Narrative Tool

In both coverages, numbers are used to highlight Israel’s military power but without linking them to a humanitarian context; when it is mentioned that Israel carried out “480 strikes in two days” or targeted “350 sites,” these numbers appear as technical statistics, ignoring the fact that each number represents a potential humanitarian tragedy.

As in the CNN report, the voices of Syrian civilians are absent in the New York Times report. There are no details about families who lost their homes or children who were killed in their homes. The humanitarian crisis is reduced to marginal damage, while the Israeli side is given ample space to justify its operations.

The Western media here not only ignores the humanitarian dimensions but also uses numbers as a tool to distract from the tragedy. Focusing on the precision of operations and the scale of military achievement marginalises civilian casualties, who are considered “unnecessary details” within the grand narrative of Israeli military success.

The Victim in Western Media

CNN and New York Times reports paint a one-sided picture of the victim; Israel is portrayed as a party seeking to protect itself from “terrorist threats,” while Syrian civilians are absent from the narrative. There are no human stories to highlight the extent of the pain and suffering and no statistics to show the impact of the strikes on hospitals, schools, or homes. Western media not only appears biased but also appears to be complicit in justifying this aggression. When strikes are presented as necessary steps to protect borders and when numbers are used to highlight military achievements, the media becomes a tool for the dominant powers.

Western media not only appears biased but also appears to be complicit in justifying this aggression. When strikes are presented as necessary steps to protect borders, and when numbers are used to highlight military achievements, the media becomes a tool for the dominant powers.

The New York Times and CNN report show mutual assurances that Netanyahu will not enter Damascus but will destroy weapons and military power worth billions of dollars, that the Syrians have the right to protect "Israeli civilians" from those he called "extremists," and that he is the great sponsor of preserving the world by destroying chemical weapons and intercontinental missiles in Syria while talking about the fact that Sharaa, the commander of the military operations of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, will not enter into a war with Israel to give the articles a dimension that suggests that the strikes carried out by the entity's army will not have future consequences for regional security.

Western media coverage shows a clear bias towards the Israeli narrative; the aggression is justified and portrayed as a preventive measure, while the humanitarian and legal aspects of the events are ignored. We do not find professional tendencies to highlight the stories of the affected civilians, and fundamental issues such as violations of international law, environmental losses (5), or the rights of Syrians to their lands are not discussed. Thus, the Western media abandons its role in reporting in favour of formulating the narrative of the dominant powers.

References  

1. Al Jazeera (2024, November 5). Syria condemns deadly Israel air strikes on civilian sites near Damascus. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/5/syria-condemns-deadly-israel-air-strikes-on-civilian-sites-near-damascus 

2. Al Jazeera (2024, March 29). More than 30 killed in Israeli strikes on Syria’s Aleppo: Reports. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/29/more-than-30-killed-in-israeli-strikes-on-syrias-aleppo-reports 

3. Al Jazeera (2024, December 20). Israeli forces fire at Syrian protesters in Deraa, wounding one. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/20/israeli-forces-fire-at-syrian-protesters-in-deraa-wounding-one 

4. Dunia Al-Watan (2024, December 18). Netanyahu inspects the security situation at Mount Hermon Peak and confirms the continued presence of Israel. Retrieved from https://www.alwatanvoice.com 

5. (blinxnow. (2024)). Aerial footage shows shocking scenes from Latakia port, where Israeli raids left sunken ships and massive destruction [video]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DDpc4-Ao5LA