“Death and life are in the power of the tongue,” says the book of Proverbs (18:21).
Indeed, words matter. It is not just what is said, but how it is said. This makes all the difference. Our perceptions can be influenced by the way the information is presented to us. The use of legal rhetoric is an excellent example: If someone’s actions are repeatedly framed as “illegal” or “criminal,” people will come to believe it.
And this is exactly what is happening to Israel: The legal arena has come to occupy an increasingly central role in the efforts to delegitimize Israel. By labeling Israel a “criminal state” – which includes accusations of genocide and apartheid – and its leaders and soldiers as “war criminals,” a dangerously negative perception of Israel is becoming entrenched among wide audiences.
And how much is the media contributing to these delegitimization efforts?
Operation Rising Lion, also known as the 12-Day War, between Israel and Iran in June 2025, offered the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) a unique opportunity to test the media’s use of legal rhetoric toward Israel compared to the deployment of such rhetoric with respect to Iran.
Unlike the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this was a short war involving two sovereign states, with a clear start and end. It drew much less “bad blood” than the long decades of continuous conflict.
Using artificial intelligence, we examined the coverage on the websites of 17 leading global news outlets with a combined reach of over 2.11 billion monthly visitors.
Disturbing data
The findings were deeply troubling.
Almost 70% of the discussions about legality focused on Israel, with only 30% focusing on Iran’s actions. In fact, the numbers are even more disturbing: A substantial portion of media references to “legality” were merely quotations of official accusations made by either side against the other or self-justifications of their own actions. When excluding mutual accusations and self-justifications and examining only third-party references (such as journalists, human rights organizations, and legal experts), the results were even more one-sided: 77% of third-party references focused on Israel, while only 23% focused on Iran.
Diving into each media outlet, we found a very similar picture almost across the board: The focus on the legality of Israel’s actions was overwhelming. The largest media outlets we examined, the New York Times and CNN, had the same 77% Israel–23% Iran ratio in their articles. Al Jazeera scored a remarkable 92% Israel–8% Iran ratio, while the sole criticism against Iran was focused on the legality of its attacks on Qatari soil against the United States. We then examined how consistent this Israel-focused coverage was across the entire 12-day duration of the fighting and in the days that followed its conclusion; references to the legality of Israel’s actions consistently outnumbered those concerning Iran’s actions.
More anomalies
Diving into the content of the coverage, we found further anomalies.
First, we found more discussion of the legality of Israel’s actions concerning attacks on civilians, medical personnel, and medical facilities in Iran than of Iran’s attacks on civilians and medical facilities in Israel. This is particularly jarring, given that Iran has fired indiscriminately hundreds of rockets on densely populated Israeli cities – killing dozens and wounding thousands. These rockets’ accuracy was measured in tens, if not hundreds of meters or more from the targeted object, even if it was (an assumption highly contested) a military one, calling for a discussion of these attacks’ legality – which almost never took place.
Second, the issue of the legality of the use of cluster munitions is of specific significance: Israel had long faced harsh criticism over its use of cluster munitions in the Second Lebanon War.
The issue of cluster munitions use has continued to garner media and legal attention since then. It has come up most recently in the Russia-Ukraine war, with outlets like CNN and The New York Times addressing the issue.
Yet, during Operation Rising Lion, coverage of the legality of Iran’s use of cluster munitions against Israeli densely populated areas was extremely limited. In the few instances where it was mentioned, it was in a muted and marginal manner – contrasting sharply with the far more extensive and critical treatment of other issues.
Third, another remarkable finding was the lack of discussion of the legality of Iran’s response: International law regulates the use of force by both sides in a conflict.
The relevant legal question is not only whether Israel acted lawfully in launching Operation Rising Lion, but the legality of Iran’s response should also be scrutinized. Among other things, Iran would need to show that its actions were both “necessary” and “proportional” to repel Israel’s armed attack. Put simply: Can indiscriminate rocket fire on Israeli cities be considered a legitimate act of self-defense?
In past cases, such as the Second Lebanon War in 2006 or Israel’s response to October 7, there was extensive debate in legal and public discursive spaces regarding Israel’s right to respond and whether its actions complied with international law. By contrast, in the case of the 12-day war with Iran, there was very little discussion on the legality of Iran’s response. Instead, the discourse focused almost exclusively on whether Israel’s initiation of the offensive was justified.
In other words, when Israel is attacked, the discussion focuses on its right to respond; when Israel attacks, the discussion focuses on its right to initiate that attack. In any case, it’s all about Israel.
Israel’s responsibility
Does Israel bear any responsibility for this one-sided coverage? We’ve examined the use of legal rhetoric by state officials – that is, the degree to which the media quoted statements by Iranian and Israeli officials about their own state’s actions on the one hand, and the illegality of the adversary’s actions on the other.
The findings revealed a clear advantage for Iranian legal rhetoric: Iranian officials consistently framed their actions as lawful, presenting Iran as an international law-abiding state. At the same time, they depicted Israel’s actions as violations of international law, even war crimes. By contrast, Israeli officials were found to use legal language far less frequently in their communications. Perhaps there is a lesson here for those responsible for Israel’s public diplomacy messaging.
It is possible that, as with other aspects of this study, this imbalance partly reflects a pro-Iranian media bias rather than a true absence of Israeli legal framing. Yet, a sample review of statements by Israeli officials suggests that, indeed, unlike their Iranian counterparts – who made deliberate, consistent efforts to invoke international law – Israeli officials often refrained from systematically employing such legal rhetoric when addressing Iran’s actions.
These findings come as no surprise to most Israelis. They only quantify what we have come to accept as our (twisted) normality, in which Israel serves as the world’s leading “punching bag.” Yet we must not just throw in the towel and accept it, even if little can be achieved in the short term.
The Israeli government should do more in this field of what is commonly known as “hasbara” and use legal framing as an integral part of its own public diplomacy initiatives.
As the 12-day war between Israel and a country 78 times larger in size and 10 times in population proved again, our history is repetition after repetition of the David vs. Goliath story. ■
Robert Neufeld is a senior fellow at The Jewish People Policy Institute, an expert in international law, and served in numerous positions in the IDF’s Military Advocate General Corps and the Military Ombudsman.
Shlomi Breznik is a fellow at The Jewish People Policy Institute and an expert in data and information engineering.