Bot narratives: Israel - Gaza
The network visualisation on the analytics page of this Hub displays data gathered by the AI on hashtags used in bot-generated comments. It illustrates the connections between various hashtags and highlights how frequently each is used. Based on this analysis, the most prominent narratives focus on Israeli actions related to Palestine, with additional attention to Iran, Pakistan, and Syria. A central theme is the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). The visualisation also reveals narratives constructed around key terms such as conflict, nuclear, and weapon.
Narratives Surrounding Palestine and Gaza
Hunger, Genocide, Gaza, Listens, Heals: These terms highlight the ongoing humanitarian crisis attributed to Israeli actions in Gaza, including the indiscriminate targeting of Palestinians and the continued obstruction of life-saving aid—resulting in what is widely described as a man-made famine. The narrative reflects the trauma and struggle for survival endured by Palestinians, emphasizing the silence and inaction of the international community, and the urgent need to listen to and acknowledge Palestinian voices.
IDFDeath, Illegal, Weapons, Nuclear: The hashtag #IDFDeath has gained significant traction on social media in response to allegations of mass atrocities and acts of genocide committed by the Israeli Defense Forces. Its visibility grew further following British musician Bob Vylan’s public chant at the Glastonbury Festival, broadcast live on the BBC. The term Illegal may refer both to violations of international humanitarian law by Israeli forces and to the broader context of Israel’s occupation, settlement expansion, and alleged apartheid regime. Weapons and Nuclear signal the increasing militarization of the conflict and growing concerns about regional escalation, particularly involving Iran.
Protect and Accountability: These keywords capture the widespread international calls to safeguard civilian lives, investigate and prosecute potential war crimes and genocide, and ensure accountability for powerful state and military actors.
Narratives Surrounding Iran
Iran, Israel, Palestine: These three actors form a geopolitical triangle at the heart of the conflict. While Gaza remains the epicentre of violence, the war has expanded into a broader regional confrontation involving Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iran. The direct strikes exchanged between Israel and Iran in June 2025 marked an unprecedented and dangerously escalatory development.
Nuclear, Bomb, Threat, Dominate, Defeat: The intensifying militarisation of the conflict has sparked widespread speculation about Israel’s nuclear capabilities and the possible existence of an Iranian arsenal. Public discourse has increasingly focused on power dynamics—who is stronger, who might prevail—reflected in the recurring terms dominate and defeat. These narratives reveal both national ambitions and existential anxieties.
Retaliation and Escalation: Fears of nuclear escalation cast a shadow over every military or diplomatic manoeuvre. These terms point to the ongoing tit-for-tat responses—missile strikes, drone attacks, and proxy engagements—while highlighting the breakdown of diplomacy and the rapid deterioration of regional stability.
Narratives Surrounding Israel
Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Genocide, Fear, Sick, Protect: Central to the conflict are the intertwined fates of Israel, Palestine, and Gaza. The term genocide reflects the severe accusations levied against Israel regarding its military operations in Gaza. Fear and sick likely capture the psychological and physical toll—both on Palestinians and on global observers feeling helpless or outraged. Protect carries dual meanings: it may represent calls to shield Palestinian civilians from harm or Israel’s contested justification of its actions as acts of self-defence.
Iran, Pakistan, Trump, Donald: Iran reappears as a key regional actor increasingly clashing with Israel. Pakistan introduces a South Asian perspective—often vocally critical of Israeli policies and expressing solidarity with Palestine. These references also speak to broader political alignments within the Islamic world, especially among nuclear-armed states. The inclusion of Trump and Donald ties the conflict to the polarised U.S. political landscape, where support for Israel has become a partisan issue.
Weapons, Nuclear: These keywords evoke both the literal instruments of war and the symbolic weight of global threat. The crisis has transcended local and regional boundaries, becoming a globally politicised and emotionally charged issue, with nuclear anxieties further deepening its complexity.
Narratives Surrounding “Weapon”
Iran, Palestine, Israel, Conflict, Genocide: These terms reflect the core of a decades-long struggle, now intensified into a humanitarian catastrophe. The presence of genocide and conflict highlights the deeply polarised discourse surrounding the war. On one side are competing narratives; on the other, a growing international consensus that Israel’s actions in Gaza may constitute genocide under international law.
Nuclear, Trump, Iran, Pakistan, Weapons: This cluster of terms points to the scale and intensity of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza—enabled by Western military support. The inclusion of Trump, Iran, and Pakistan reflects the global scope and geopolitical entanglements of the conflict. These references also evoke the looming threat of a wider nuclear escalation and the complexities of power politics involving nuclear-armed states.
Narratives Surrounding “Conflict”
Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Genocide: These keywords directly invoke the ongoing war and humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Israel, as the occupying and militarily dominant power, is increasingly accused of committing genocide. Gaza stands as a symbol of destruction, while Palestine represents the broader struggle against occupation, colonialism, apartheid, and unchecked militarism—issues that resonate globally in human rights discourse.
Weapon, Nuclear, Launched, Escalation, Extremism, Regime: These terms highlight the asymmetry of power in the conflict. Israel’s advanced, U.S.-supplied military arsenal is contrasted with Hamas’s far more limited capabilities. Iran’s involvement, and its portrayal as an extremist regime, adds to fears of escalation and the potential for broader regional destabilisation.
Conflict, Trump, Fear, Protect, Accountability: The word conflict is often used in media coverage as a euphemism that glosses over the deeper power imbalances and colonial dynamics at play. Its use here suggests frustration with mainstream narratives that obscure civilian suffering and structural violence. Trump references his administration’s major policy shifts—such as relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, defunding UNRWA, and ramping up arms shipments to Israel. Fear, Protect, and Accountability reflect both the humanitarian impulse to shield Palestinian civilians and the demand for legal responsibility and justice. Notably, Protect also points to Israel’s often-contested justification of its actions as self-defence.
Narratives Surrounding “Weapon”
Iran, Palestine, Israel, Conflict, Genocide: These terms lie at the centre of a decades-long geopolitical struggle that has escalated into a full-blown humanitarian crisis. The inclusion of genocide and conflict reflects both the polarised public discourse and a growing international consensus that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza may constitute genocide.
Nuclear, Trump, Iran, Pakistan, Weapons: This cluster highlights the scale and intensity of Israel’s military offensive—armed and supported by Western powers. The presence of Trump, Iran, and Pakistan underscores the global complexity of the conflict, drawing attention to the broader geopolitical stakes, nuclear anxieties, and the involvement of influential state actors.
Narratives Surrounding “Conflict”
Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Genocide: These four words encapsulate the current war and humanitarian emergency in Gaza. Israel’s role as the occupying and militarily dominant force is increasingly challenged under international law, with accusations of genocide gaining traction. Gaza represents the epicentre of destruction, while Palestine symbolizes a broader national struggle against occupation, apartheid, and impunity—resonating with global movements for justice.
Weapon, Nuclear, Launched, Escalation, Extremism, Regime: These terms point to the sharp asymmetry of the conflict. Israel’s use of advanced U.S.-supplied weaponry stands in stark contrast to the capabilities of Palestinian armed groups. Iran’s involvement adds another layer of escalation, framed in international discourse as a threat from an extremist regime with regional ambitions.
Conflict, Trump, Fear, Protect, Accountability: The term conflict is frequently used in headlines as a neutral descriptor, yet it often masks the deeper colonial dynamics and military imbalance. Its use here suggests critique of media narratives that downplay Palestinian suffering. Trump refers to his administration’s realignment of U.S. policy—relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, cutting aid to UNRWA, and continuing arms transfers to Israel. Fear, Protect, and Accountability express both the urgency to shield civilians and uphold international law, as well as the moral and legal imperative to hold powerful actors responsible. Protect may also reflect Israel’s contested justification of its actions as defensive.
Narratives Surrounding “Israeli”
Israeli, Fear, Conflict, Palestine: The term Israeli in this context likely refers not to individuals but to the state apparatus—its military, government, and prevailing ideology. Fear is a central pillar of Israeli political discourse, with the perceived existential threat posed by Hamas often used to justify military campaigns in Gaza. Conflict reflects a mainstream framing that reduces systemic oppression and structural domination to a narrative of "two sides clashing," thereby obscuring the realities of occupation and apartheid. The inclusion of Palestine serves as a stark reminder of the human cost—decades of displacement, bombardment, and erasure, frequently rationalised in the name of security.
Iran, Nuclear, Weapon, Regime: This grouping reveals a familiar Western narrative in which Iran is portrayed as a dangerous, irrational actor seeking nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and destabilise the region. The term regime is telling—often reserved for governments that challenge Western interests, while allies are rarely described in such terms. Nuclear and weapon tie into broader preemptive threat discourses, reminiscent of the rhetoric used during the lead-up to the Iraq War. Meanwhile, Israel’s own undeclared nuclear arsenal remains largely unacknowledged, and nuclear-armed allies are seldom framed as global threats.
Limits, Democratic, Serving, Dominance: This cluster exposes the contradictions inherent in framing Israel as the Middle East’s only “democracy.” Despite this label, the state imposes strict limits on dissent and exercises dominance through military occupation, surveillance, and apartheid structures. These terms critique the instrumental use of “democracy” as a rhetorical shield, often deployed to legitimise practices that contradict democratic principles. They also highlight liberal hypocrisy—where democratic states claim to serve the public good while enabling the suppression of others’ rights in service of elite or geopolitical interests.
Russia, Attack, NATO: These terms expand the lens to global geopolitics and military alliances. Russia, while escalating its own imperial aggression in Ukraine, has simultaneously expressed support for Israeli actions in Gaza. NATO, increasingly viewed in the Global South as an instrument of Western dominance rather than a neutral defence alliance, is implicated through its military support for Israel and confrontational posture toward Iran and Russia. The term attack likely refers to both direct and proxy military engagements, underscoring the increasingly interconnected nature of global conflicts.
Other Narratives
Fear and Protect: The narrative of fear is frequently deployed to justify militarisation by framing threats as existential. It also serves to suppress dissent and dehumanise the perceived enemy. In the case of Israel, protect becomes a rhetorical shield used to legitimise military strikes on civilians, illustrating a broader pattern of narrative inversion—where the aggressor is portrayed as the defender.
Conflict, Iran, Israel, Nuclear, Weapon: These terms frame a regional power struggle in which Israel is often cast as the defender and Iran as the looming threat. Nuclear and weapon introduce an escalation discourse: Iran is feared for what it might develop, while Israel’s existing arsenal escapes similar scrutiny. The use of conflict sanitises the reality of wars rooted in occupation, structural domination, and impunity. This narrative determines who is allowed to possess weapons, who is trusted, and who is considered dangerous—often along racialised, religious, and post-colonial lines.
Interests, Confirmed, Constant: These terms suggest the underlying motives often hidden beneath official narratives—whether strategic, economic, or ideological. Interests may refer to Western dominance, energy access, arms deals, or geopolitical alliances, all cloaked in the language of national security. Confirmed reflects the process by which certainty is manufactured—through governments and media reinforcing claims that justify preemptive violence (e.g., Iraq’s WMDs, Hamas tunnels, Iran’s nuclear ambitions). Constant speaks to the perpetual state of emergency that normalises conflict, using fear to justify ongoing militarisation and framing dissent as disloyalty.