Hamas
Date Range
Score Range
Hamas framed as a terrorist organization responsible for atrocities
[loaded_language] The Israeli minister’s quote uses extreme moral condemnation, describing Hamas as having 'massacred, raped and burned' civilians, which strongly delegitimizes the group.
“an organization that massacred, raped and burned Jewish children, women and the elderly on Oct. 7, (2023)”
Hamas framed as wholly illegitimate and solely responsible for violence
Linehan’s claim that Hamas consists of 'homicidal rapist lunatics' is reported without challenge or contextual qualification, and Coleman only partially disputes the extremity. The omission of geopolitical context (e.g., occupation, blockade) prevents a nuanced assessment, reinforcing a dehumanizing, illegitimate framing.
“to give aid to homicidal rapist lunatics”
Hamas framed as a deliberate, systematic perpetrator of sexual violence
Cherry-picking and loaded language present the 'Silenced No More' report as definitive, using terms like 'calculated brutality' to cement Hamas as a hostile, morally depraved actor without counter-narratives.
“Hamas used sexual violence 'deliberately and systematically' on Oct 7, report finds”
Hamas is framed as an obstructive, adversarial force delaying peace through refusal to disarm
The article attributes the stalemate primarily to Hamas’s failure to comply with disarmament, using Mladenov’s statements to position the group as consolidating control and blocking reconstruction, without including direct justification from Hamas.
“Hamas refuses to disarm as required by the ceasefire agreement”
Hamas framed as initiator of conflict, justifying Israeli response
The article attributes the start of the Gaza war solely to the Hamas-led attack on 7 October 2023, presenting it as the causal event without contextualizing broader conditions. This framing legitimizes Israel’s military campaign as reactive and defensive.
“The Gaza war was triggered by the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, when about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.”
Framed as a source of propaganda and moral adversary
Hamas is implicitly positioned as a hostile actor through the accusation that the Times amplifies 'proven Hamas-affiliated sources and their propaganda', linking the outlet to a designated terrorist organization.
“amplifies proven Hamas-affiliated sources and their propaganda”
Hamas is framed as a hostile adversary responsible for a major security breach
[framing_by_emphasis] — The article references the 7 October attack as a catalyst for political crisis and public anger, framing Hamas as the initiating aggressor without counter-context.
“Many Israelis blame Netanyahu for the security failure that enabled the unprecedented attack by Hamas.”
Hamas framed as an adversarial force
[framing_by_emphasis], [loaded_language]
“the militant group to give up its arms”
Hamas framed as untrustworthy and rearming in bad faith
[vague_attribution]: Reliance on anonymous Israeli officials to claim Hamas is 'tightening its grip' and rearming, without independent verification or Hamas response, frames the group negatively on integrity grounds.
“four Israeli defence officials have told Reuters that the military had warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government in recent weeks that Hamas has been tightening its grip, rebuilding its forces and making weapons.”
Hamas is framed as under military threat from Israel
The article repeatedly references Israeli strikes targeting Hamas, its fighters, and affiliated police forces, emphasizing military pressure without reciprocal portrayal of offensive actions. This creates a framing of Hamas as a group under siege rather than an active belligerent.
“Since the pause in the war in Iran, several of Israel’s strikes in Gaza have targeted positions held by the Hamas-run police force.”