Dr. Ma'moun Alshtaiwi

In times of war and conflict, weapons are no longer limited to guns and missiles. Language itself has become a powerful tool, skillfully used for influence, provocation, direction—and even manipulation of facts. In this context, media terminology emerges as a highly precise weapon, reshaped and deployed in ways that serve the interests of warring parties and reshape both local and global public opinion.

When media outlets refer to a fighting group as “resistance,” it grants them a sense of moral and national legitimacy. However, using terms like “militias” or “rebels” drastically alters that image. A single event or group can be described in radically different terms, depending on the political alignment of the channel or publication. The difference between calling an event an “invasion” or a “limited military operation,” or labeling casualties as “martyrs” versus “victims,” can shift the narrative entirely.

These terms are far from neutral; they are often deliberately crafted to reflect specific political or ideological stances. Thus, the role of the journalist or editor becomes pivotal—not just in reporting facts but in shaping collective understanding.

Terminology also plays a central role in psychological warfare. Referring to a military action as a “preemptive strike” suggests a legitimate act of defense, whereas “indiscriminate bombing” implies a moral violation. Terms like “special operation” instead of “occupation” aim to soften the harsh reality and avoid describing actions as war crimes.

In some cases, “refugee” is replaced by “displaced person” to downplay legal and political responsibilities. Likewise, “crisis” is used instead of “massacre,” and “clashes” instead of “crackdown.”

Contemporary Examples
•In the Russia-Ukraine war, Moscow refers to the invasion as a “special military operation,” while Ukraine and Western media call it a “war of aggression.”
•In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, descriptions vary between “Palestinian resistance” and “terrorist organizations,” depending on the broadcaster or country.
•In conflicts like those in Syria or Yemen, media are saturated with biased terms reflecting the interests of global powers rather than the realities on the ground.

Journalists often find themselves caught between professional ethics, which call for objectivity and accuracy, and editorial policies that push a particular agenda. In such cases, terminology can become a tool of disinformation rather than clarification.

This raises deep ethical questions: Does the media have the right to weaponize language in service of ideologies or interests? Where does freedom of expression end, and the duty of truthful representation begin?

In the age of fast-moving information, images, and narratives, wars are no longer fought solely on battlefields—they are also waged on screens and in headlines. Media terminology plays a decisive role in this hidden battle. It shapes awareness, directs opinion, and determines who is seen as the victim and who as the aggressor.

Awareness of this reality is not a luxury—it is a necessity for every reader, viewer, and researcher. Because a single word—like a bullet—may be released in a moment, but its impact can linger in minds and societies for years to come.