public opinion

This study examines the pragmatic strategies employed by Arab and Western politicians in shaping public opinion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By analyzing political speeches and media statements, the research reveals a distinct contrast in rhetorical approaches between the two groups. Arab politicians predominantly use emotionally charged language and accusatory rhetoric, framing Israel as the aggressor and appealing to cultural and ideological sentiments that resonate with their domestic audiences. In contrast, Western politicians adopt a more neutral, diplomatic tone, focusing on cooperation and peaceful negotiations to navigate complex geopolitical interests. The findings confirm that these divergent strategies significantly influence public sentiment, with Arab leaders mobilizing strong support for Palestine, while Western leaders attempt to maintain international alliances by promoting balance and compromise. This study contributes to the fields of political pragmatics, cross-cultural communication, and conflict resolution by highlighting the role of language in shaping public perceptions and policy decisions. The research emphasizes the need for policymakers to consider cultural differences in political communication, offering an understanding to develop more effective communication strategies for international diplomacy. This study examines the pragmatic strategies employed by Arab and Western politicians in shaping public opinion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By analyzing political speeches and media statements, the research reveals a distinct contrast in rhetorical approaches between the two groups.

The rapid dissemination of news and the creation of media hype have made social media high-ly powerful in the battle for public opinion. However, today, social media acts as a double-edged sword in covering the Gaza war. While it provides unprecedented coverage opportuni-ties, it also faces serious challenges. Despite limitations such as the rapid spread of infor-mation—which opens the door to misinformation and raises fact-checking concerns—social media in the United States has sought to support Israel. This has heightened suspicions of manipulation, division, and narrative distortion in the eyes of global public opinion. From this perspective, the present article, using a descriptive-analytical method, aims to answer the key question: What role do American media play in supporting Israel in the war against Palestine? The research findings indicate that the gaps in the coverage of the Gaza war by American me-dia significantly influence public opinion and seek to shape the discourse surrounding it. As a result, they contribute to a one-dimensional narrative that, by inadequately presenting Pales-tinian perspectives, omitting essential historical and cultural contexts, and neglecting to hu-manize those most affected, reinforces misconceptions and biases. This has, in turn, led to a decline in the perception of democracy in the eyes of public opinion.