Abstract

Alongside the military confrontation that took place in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip in July and August 2014, a battle in the media sector was also underway. This study focuses on the agenda of Hamas during different stages of the psychological war between the two sides involved, namely itself and the Israeli government. By selecting texts and images from two Hamas-affiliated Arabic social media accounts respectively, the study applies grounded theory to inspect the themes of Hamas’s political marketing and tracks the evolution of the themes in terms of time and frequency by cross-referencing events on the timeline. It also explores how the themes interacted and co-evolved with local and international attitudes towards the Gaza Conflict.

 

Introduction

Military confrontation is hardly the only battlefield in modern war. More and more non-military players evolve into crucial forces in determining the end result of the game. As the channels multiply in the age of the Internet, complete information blockade becomes neither likely to be completely achieved nor justified. During a conflict, it is particularly important to select and transmit the right message at the best time: winning support and sympathy domestically and internationally, and weakening the other side.

The power of media in a mediated world has been discussed extensively since the 1990s: Refraction of media in international communication. (W.A. & H. Hachten 1992) media and foreign policy, (P.M. Taylor 1997) news as a “politics of illusion” in the changing information system, (Bennett 1996) etc. Political movements make their attempts on the new media platform for four main goals: Mobilizing supporters, having their messages featured in traditional media which can reach a wider audience, influencing public opinion getting sympathy from people, and making an impact on politics. (Wolfsfeld 2011, 17)

In the event of a conflict, the engaging parties are faced with the issues of legitimacy and reputation management. Benoit’s theory of image restoration offers a set of five communication strategies: Denial (simple denial or shift of blame), evasion of responsibility, reducing offensiveness of events (including attacking accuser and reimbursing victim), corrective action (plan to solve or prevent problem), and mortification (apology). These could be used individually or in combination to respond to a crisis. (1997) Coombs has a similar model of seven strategies: attacking the accuser, denial, excuse, justification, ingratiation, corrective action, and apology. (1999) Avraham proposes a new model: analysing the crisis and target audience, selecting the suitable media strategy, and delivering the campaign via several techniques and channels. (2004; 2013) In terms of delivering the message, whether it is by propaganda, psychological operations, or political marketing, the aim is essentially the same: “To achieve political goals by way of psychological persuasion.” (Schleifer, 2014)

The Gaza War of 2008-09 was covered intensively by the media. Both Israel and Hamas used numerous propaganda practices via multiple channels to appeal to their audience, to the extent that the fighting over cybersphere became “war 2.0.”[1]  Wartime news are often played out by the protagonist entities on the arenas of home front, opponent, and international level following three distinct types of “scripts”: Power, vulnerability, and disaster. (Blondheim & Shifman 2009) Hamas’s wartime psychological operations could be “characterized as completely emotional.” Israel’s excuses seemed feeble in front of pictures depicting the damage done to Palestinian civilians, which were archetypal in Hamas’s visual campaign in an asymmetric war. Hamas was also fruitful on their opponent’s arena in arousing guilt among enemy soldiers. (Zeitzoff 2009; Schleifer 2014)

The 2008 war also coincided with the rise of citizen journalism. Individual bloggers and social media became the most convenient news reporter, and started to feed traditional media with content. (Hamdy 2010) There has been considerable number of research following the emergence of this new trend, which analysed data on social media and video websites from various angles, ranging from identity presentation and biased media coverage, conflict dynamics, dissemination patterns, transparency, to visual propaganda. (Najjar 2010; Zeitzoff 2011; Heemsbergen & Lindgren 2014; Seo 2014)

This study aims to understand the image Hamas tried to present during the 50-day conflict in 2014, in which Hamas attempted to exhaust Israeli civilians psychologically, whereas Israel aimed to ravage Hamas’s military capabilities. (Eitan Shamir & Eado Hecht 2014) It also seeks to trace how the movement reacted to the emerging new incidents and the constantly-changing battlefield situation. By examining how one channel during a certain event can strategically spread information and guide public opinion via media distribution, the study assesses the impact of media in conflict.

The most important and thought-provoking outcome of this study is that it evaluates the weight of the political marketing battle alongside regular military confrontation. In the light of calls for outside attention and support, the approaches launched to gain sympathy provide an ideal repository for studying non-military measures in conflict situations. It may also help observers predict the next stage of similar situations, and provide party leaders with possible ways to seize the “moral high ground” and improve their public image when they are in a disadvantaged situation.

 

2014 Gaza Conflict：A Review

The Israeli-Gaza conflict of 2014 was a military operation launched by Israel on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip from July 8 to August 26. Three Israeli teenagers went missing on June 12[2], and were later found to have been abducted and murdered by Hamas members, though Hamas’s “official” involvement as an entity was in doubt. This marked the prelude to a conflict which saw 2324 lives lost,[3] tens of thousands wounded—an overwhelming majority of them Gazans[4]—the heaviest toll of Palestinian civilian casualties since 1967.

Based on strategic goals and the types of troops involved, the conflict could be broadly divided into four phases:

·              Phase zero: ferment and mobilization (June 12 - July 7)
Israel blamed Hamas for the abduction, and immediately launched a large-scale crackdown of “terrorist” infrastructure and personnel in the West Bank alleged to belong to Hamas.[5][6] It also conducted air strikes in the Gaza Strip. Hamas fought back by firing rockets from Gaza.[7] Moreover, the Israeli government had been deliberately withholding the information concerning the teenagers’ death until June 30,[8] deceiving the public to believe that they were still alive awaiting to be rescued.[9] This misconception led to massive shock and anti-Arab turmoil when the bodies were found. On July 2, (i.e. a day after the burial of the three Israeli teenagers murdered) a 16-year-old Palestinian, Mohammed Abu Khdeir,[10] was kidnapped and murdered by Israeli settlers[11] in East Jerusalem. This further triggered revenge from the Arab side. Multiple confrontations were taking place in numerous areas.

·              Phase one: Israeli air strikes (July 8 - July 16)
On July 8, the IDF announced an official military operation, shelling and launching air strikes on targets in the Gaza Strip, and Hamas continued to fight back with rockets. Egypt proposed a ceasefire on July 14, with the support of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, which was accepted by Israel but rejected by Hamas.

·              Phase two: ground forces involved (July 17 - August 2)
The IDF ground troops were deployed after a five-hour humanitarian ceasefire proposed by the UN, targeting specifically the tunnel system which connected Gaza across Israeli borders. On August 1, the two sides announced a ceasefire for 72 hours under the mediation of the UN and the US, but soon accused each other of violating the ceasefire agreement.

·              Phase three: the gradual withdrawal of the Israeli army to achieve ceasefire (August 3 - August 26)
On August 3, the IDF announced the completion of the destruction of most of the tunnels and withdrew most of its ground forces from the Gaza Strip. Peace talks were in place since then. They agreed on short temporary ceasefires while disputes were reported. A phased ceasefire agreement was reached on August 26, which marked the end of the conflict.

Both sides claimed to have won this war. Israel declared that Hamas was severely weakened, while Hamas celebrated “the victory of Gaza.”[12]

 

Research Design

Hamas operates a number of social media accounts in different languages. This study mainly focuses on two elements of posts: texts and images. Existing research results based on print media in the 2008-2009 crisis show that Israel’s message was more conveyed in written text, while the Palestinian civilian perspective was prominently featured by images. (Dobernig & Lobinger 2010)

Previous studies have made the assumption that Hamas devoted effort to damage Israel’s image in the event of the crisis. (Mozes-Sadeh & Avraham 2014) This study applies the grounded theory, which principally means generating theory to explain the interactions, rather than coming up with a hypothesis first then verifying it with a set of data. (Corbin & Strauss 2014; Charmaz 2014) Similar approaches have been used to analyse Twitter images posted by IDF and Al-Qassam Brigades during the 2012 Gaza conflict, where the author reached the conclusion that “resistance” and “unity” were highlighted the most on IDF’s part, while the largest proportion of Hamas’s posts fell into civilian causalities. (Seo 2014)

In this analysis, texts are drawn from the official Hamas Twitter account in Arabic “حركةحماس” (@hamasinfo), which generally reprinted news links with a brief summary. Another account, “غزةالآن” (@gazapl), serves as the object of image studies. It was extensively active during the conflict and published a large number of photographs, comics and statistical charts, using hashtags such as #غزة_تحت_القصف(Gaza under bombardment), #GazaUnderAttack or #غزة_تقاوم (Gaza resistance).

The period of study falls between the kidnapping on June 12 and August 27, the day after the ceasefire agreement. Media analysis covers the graphics both prior to and during the conflict.

Here, the researcher first codes the texts and pictures by all relevant themes inferred within the context, then organises the codes by merging similar or closely connected themes, defining one dominant theme per piece of data. The coding is subject to slight adjustment after cross-matching the two datasets of text and image. The group of pictures published in the same tweet usually share the same or similar theme, are therefore counted as one piece. Repeated tweets only count once. The researcher also counts the frequency of occurrence of different themes and their evolution through time.

 

Analysis

A. Coding

There are six notable themes featured throughout the posts. Every single entry of data falls under one of these themes: positive incentives, persecution and threat, war damage, military display, criticism and attack, and diplomatic activities.

The code “positive incentives” has four main manifestations. The determination of resistance is shown in official announcement, posters and T-shirts with resistance slogans, and comics. It also includes a number of texts that call for unity—sometimes these refer to the people of Gaza and the West Bank, sometimes they include the Hamas counterpart Fatah, and other Arab nations. A key theme that is highlighted later in the conflict is new hope or the wish to carry on living. Typical posts that fall into this category are usually associated with babies or children, depicting a young mother lifting her baby with debris in the background, or telling stories about a girl who survived the bombardment and carried on going to school, or couples getting married in the wreckage of their mansion. In addition, some posts show support from abroad, no matter if it is a poster in Belgium, or a parade in Aleppo. Victory celebrations emerge after the ceasefire agreement has been achieved.

“Persecution and threat” does not only refer to the persecution directly from the Israeli authority, but also the danger under which Palestinians lived. This may include residents arrested by Israeli police in Hebron, Palestinian houses set alight by settlers, Arab killed by Jewish settlers, and IDF air raid which cut through the quiet night.

“War damage” has three aspects: civilian casualties, property loss, and military casualties.

“Military display” contains weaponry demonstrations that show off either Hamas’s newly home-made weapons or militants in combat positions; and their attainments, namely Israeli facilities hit by rockets, explosions outside synagogues, seized IDF vehicles and captives.

As for “criticism and attack,” there are comments against Israel, in addition to accusations directed at international society in general, particularly against the United States for accepting the IDF massacres and negatively interfering in the peace talk. There is also a notable number of posts criticising other Arab countries – attacking them for betrayal of the just cause and their indifference to the sufferings of the Gazan people and complaints about the poor quality of food aid coming from Egypt. “Diplomatic activities” refer to diplomatic negotiations and interactions, official statements, and peace talks during the conflict.

B. Texts

Positive incentives	48	37.80%	Determination & unity	39	30.71%
			Support from abroad	3	2.36%
			Victory	6	4.72%
Persecution & threat	15	11.81%	Threat from the enemy	15	11.81%
War damage	5	3.94%	Military casualties	5	3.94%
Military display	12	9.45%	Weaponry display	7	5.51%
			Military attainments	5	3.94%
Criticism & attack	21	16.54%	Israel	19	14.96%
International society	2	1.57%
Diplomatic activities	26	20.47%	Diplomatic interaction	7	5.51%
Official statement	12	9.45%
			Peace talk	7	5.51%
			Sum	127	100.00%

Table 1 @hamasinfo

As shown in Table 1, amongst the 127 tweets posted by @hamasinfo between June 12 and Aug 27, the largest part (37.8%) was made up of positive incentives, calling for integrity and resistance.

This theme was seen continuously throughout the conflict, with some posts deliberately using the tag “Gaza Resistance” (#غزة_تقاوم) to mark their agenda. But the wording and focus gradually changed, particularly after certain events. In the early stage of the conflict, as small-scale confrontations were taking place in local areas, the posts mainly addressed the determination to fight. Hamas introduced the goal of the whole struggle on July 13, making clear their appeal and conditions. It called on followers not to give up resistance unless demands were fulfilled. Peace talks in early August slightly eased tension, but reinforced it in mid-August, stimulating more posts when the peace talks reached a deadlock. The posts insisted that their followers should not compromise. The ceasefire broke down during the evening of August 19. IDF attacked what was believed to be the dwelling place of Mohammad Deif, chief commander of Al-Qassam Brigades.[13] On August 21, Israel killed three Hamas senior commanders (Raed al Atar, Muhammad Abu Shamala and Mohammed Barhoum), which triggered strong indignation from Hamas. The movement fought back with more rockets, eager to show that its military capabilities were not undermined.

Claiming to be persecuted is one of the Resistance Movement's usual tactics, which took up 11.81% of the posts. In June, there were prevailing reports about Israeli forces arresting Palestinians in the West Bank, though there was not a single mention of the three Jewish teenagers who had been kidnapped. The month of July saw portraits of the “unbearable high pressure from Israel” justifying the struggle. In August, the focus turned to Israeli attacks against civilians and children, and forbidding Arabs from entering mosques. On August 23, IDF bombed a residential building believed to be used as Hamas headquarters and caused the building to collapse.[14] This incident also provoked international condemnation. Hamas strongly accused Israel of destroying civilian buildings and prosecuted Israel for war crimes.

Military casualties (3.94%) took the form of paying tribute to martyrs, mainly concerned with the three senior officers killed on August 21.

Military display took 9.45%. Weaponry demonstration was the main topic during early stages of the conflict, in order to portray a tough and heroic image of the militants. From August onwards, in light of the stalled peace talks, the posts actively claimed responsibility for bombing in Tel Aviv and other places, and warned of future attacks, putting psychological pressure on the opponent.

Among the 21 posts coded as criticism, a great majority (19) of them targeted Israel. These mainly emerged in August, accusing Israel of its lack of sincerity and responsibility in peace negotiations, and stating that Israel should take the credit for failing to reach an agreement. Israeli intelligence forces were also mocked for their failure in operations against Mohammad Deif. Another two posts denounced the US for being biased towards Israel and accomplice to the slaughter of Palestinian civilians.

Diplomatic activities reflected the trend of the conflict. Official statements sprung up around July 15, when Hamas and PIJ rejected the ceasefire then IDF launched its ground operation. Mid-August also saw a zenith, when Hamas reiterated its objectives and conditions in the light of the political impasse.

C. Images

A less official account @gazapl, which aimed to depict the daily life of Gazan people, shone the spotlight on something slightly different. This account was not particularly active at first, but its activities witnessed a significant rise since mid-July, publishing images and posts with great density as well as interacting with other users on the platform.

The following chart shows ratio of the different themes:

Positive incentives	60	20.83%	Determination & unity	20	6.94%
Carry on living	28	9.72%
Support from abroad	8	2.78%
Victory	4	1.39%
Persecution & threat	35	12.15%	Threats from the enemy	35	12.15%
War damage	137	47.57%	Civilian casualties	61	21.18%
Military casualties	46	15.97%
Property loss	30	10.42%
Military display	41	14.24%	Weaponry display	24	8.33%
Military attainments	17	5.90%
Criticism & attack	15	5.21%	Israel	5	1.74%
International society	3	1.04%
Arab countries	7	2.43%
			Sum	288	100.00%