Opinion: Language and War

By choosing specific terms such as ‘war’ and ‘conflict’, news narratives can shape public conscience, affirm governing measures and delineate global interactions

By Nigel George, Dr Karamala Areesh Kumar

Conflict refers to any form of disagreement, opposition or clash which can be violent or non-violent. In contrast, war involves prolonged armed hostilities, typically between nations or factions, with a declared objective often political or territorial. It usually leads to significant destruction, loss of life and long-lasting consequences.

---

While the two definitions look very similar to the innocent eye, a denotation of difference exists. Just a nominal glance shows that conflict has an element of non-violence that makes it seem more bearable than the concept of war. On that same note, we invite the reader to pay closer attention to the other words used in defining either of the concepts as the article zooms in on media representation and word usage of two global issues.

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine issues received the attention of the international community due to the involvement of superpowers, human rights violations, use of force and social media. In international affairs, language has an unmatched ability to sway public opinion and create global viewpoints. It becomes a force that may reveal or obfuscate the truth due to ideological prejudices through selected language and tales.

The US Media

US media houses frequently use “warfare” to describe Russian actions or “terror acts” for invasion, which could be seen as a conscious decision that incites anger and promotes an aggressive narrative. This further justifies heavy arms and resource support by framing Ukraine’s resistance as admirable. Even while using the word “war,” the US media depicts Russian military involvement by attaching more negatively loaded concepts, as illustrated in “Russia Escalates Attacks on Ukraine as Refugee…” or “The global impact of Russia’s war in Ukraine.” Such application implies hostility and illegitimacy, casting Russia as the infringer.

However, there are notable linguistic shifts in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Despite claims of war crimes, these same publications frequently portray Israel’s actions as “defensive” and Palestinian casualties as a passive outcome of people who rather “die” than “are killed.”

Israel’s actions are often then summed up as “skirmishes,” the sentiment visible in titles such as “Escalating violence between Israelis and Palestinians” or “Analysis: The latest violence between Israel and Iran”. This jargon suggests a more balanced contest between opposition parties, potentially breeding moral parity or compassion for Israel.

A study by ‘The Intercept’ examined over 1,000 articles from major US newspapers and unearthed that the coverage was disproportionately highlighting Israeli perspectives and often underreported the impact on Palestinian civilians. The emotive language was usually deployed to describe Israeli casualties, whereas Palestinian deaths received comparatively muted attention. Such an imbalance could lead to a skewed public understanding of the situation, where Israel is portrayed as a victim and Palestinians as aggressors.

This intentional linguistic framing manipulates public perception by dehumanising the opposing viewpoint and fostering empathy for the latter. The media takes advantage of this weakness in the general public’s lack of awareness by introducing ideas that selectively defend or denounce violence. Such reporting shapes how audiences worldwide see and respond to crises, creating a perceived reality rather than just providing information.

Indian Media

In India, international conflict news receives media coverage based on the nation’s diplomatic ties and domestic political dynamics. Media covering India’s developments considers the country’s friendship with other nations and what is happening politically within India.

Traditionally, India has had close relationships with Russia since the Cold War. This naturally leads to Indian media taking a more subtle or even sympathetic approach when describing Russian military operations. For example, during the Russia-Ukraine crisis, Indian media emphasised Russia’s security interests and explained its behaviour as a reaction to NATO expansion.

Despite claims of war crimes, US media frequently portrays Israel’s actions as ‘defensive’ and Palestinian casualties as a passive outcome of people who rather ‘die’ than ‘are killed’

In the case of Israel, India’s ties have changed considerably within the last several decades, with deepening political, military and economic connections seemingly seeping into the media coverage as well. The diplomatic nature of the emerging relationship frequently positively depicts Israel. News of Israeli military actions against Palestinian lands almost legitimises Israel’s right to self-defence, minimising the humanitarian effects on Palestinians. This kind of reporting seems to fall in line with the foreign policy of the current Indian government and its strategic interests in deepening relations with Israel.

Impact of Political Allegiances

In the US, cross-institutional cooperation by Israel affects the media to use sympathetic language toward Israeli interests. This can be seen in the hesitance to designate Israeli activities as “war crimes” or “aggression” when these words are more easily used to describe opposing countries like Russia.

Likewise, in India, government strategic alliances shape media imagery, which results in reporting that advances national foreign policy interests. Media becomes a powerful force that reflects events and shapes societal beliefs and loyalties when language is used to persuade.

Consequences of Linguistic Choices

Using “conflict” and “disagreement” can affect people’s thoughts and how leaders talk about problems. Echoing Russia’s behaviour with “war” calls for ethical clarity. Alternatively, dubbing Israeli forces’ actions as “clashes” can incite a notion of a continuous, immutable issue that potentially leads to public indifference or acquiescence to the status quo.

Moreover, the linguistic construction has implications for diplomacy and global responses. Some sovereign entities may be inclined to condemn or counter nations categorised as infringers within a “war,” while participants in “skirmishes” are urged to discuss and exercise temperance. The US and Indian media narratives on Russia-Israel affairs are intricately intertwined with partisan agendas and diplomatic objectives.

By choosing specific terms such as “war” and “conflict”, news narratives can shape public conscience, affirm governing measures and delineate global interactions. Recognising this linguistic structuring is essential for a discerning interpretation of news narratives and a broader understanding of the media’s influence on international disputes.

 

(Nigel George is Assistant Professor, Department of English, and Dr Karamala Areesh Kumar is Head, Department of International Relations, Peace and Public Policy, St Joseph’s University, Bengaluru)