Haaretz · September 2026

• Palestinians appear mostly as victims or in humanitarian/legal contexts (e.g., Abu Khdeir, West Bank demolitions), not as a state actor
• Coverage focuses on Israeli and Hamas actions; 'PS' as a country is rarely the grammatical subject
• Critical framing is directed at Israeli officials (Netanyahu, Smotrich) rather than at PS
• No consistent evaluative vocabulary about PS itself; stance must be inferred from adjacent coverage

The bundle contains no headline where 'PS' (Palestine/Palestinian state) is the direct subject of the outlet's evaluative voice. Most headlines concern Israel, Hamas, or Israeli-Palestinian dynamics. Stance toward PS is therefore inferred indirectly and is genuinely mixed: some headlines are sympathetic to Palestinian victims (15, 14), while others report Israeli security actions against Hamas/Palestinian militants without criticising PS. Confidence is low because the entity is largely absent as a distinct referent.

• critical framing of Trump and his administration (e.g., 'Trump Congratulates Far-right AfD', 'Trump declines Saudi request')
• skepticism toward US officials (e.g., 'Vance Doesn't Know What the Blood Libel Is')
• focus on US political divisions and controversies (e.g., 'Mamdani's Israel criticism draws Jewish student vigil', 'battle over Israel is fracturing his movement')
• neutral reporting of US actions (e.g., 'Trump Says Iran Probably Behind Attack', 'Google to Build New AI Chip in Israel')

The coverage is mixed: some headlines are neutral or factual (e.g., 2, 10, 20, 21), while others are critical of specific US figures or policies. The stance is toward the US as a country, but many headlines focus on individual US actors (Trump, Vance, Mamdani) rather than the country as a whole. The outlet's critical tone is often directed at US politicians' actions or statements, not necessarily the US as an entity. Additionally, some headlines report on US support for Israel or US-Israel relations without clear evaluative language.

• Investigative exposés and debunking framing ('Haaretz debunks', 'What Did Netanyahu Know and When')
• Negative evaluative verbs and framing ('refuses to end', 'stoking tensions', 'manufacture an election emergency')
• Selection of stories highlighting legal, ethical, and security failures (libel suit, submarine affair, October 7 warnings)
• Use of scare quotes and distancing around Netanyahu's claims ('defamation', 'NAZA')

Coverage is consistently critical and investigative, with no positive or neutral framing of Netanyahu. The outlet's own stance is hostile, even when reporting on his actions or statements. Some headlines are factual but embedded in a critical context.

• Foregrounds investigations, warnings and failures attributed to Israeli officials (Oct. 7 warnings, IDF rule-breaking, settlement defence gaps)
• Uses critical/ironic framing of Israeli actions ('rehearses its next war', 'IDF-settler alliance reaches a new level')
• Highlights Netanyahu's alleged misconduct and attacks on critics, often via opposition or Haaretz interviews
• Reports institutional pushback against government policy (Shin Bet, AG, IDF officials) as newsworthy

Coverage is largely domestic-critical rather than uniformly hostile to Israel as a country; some items are neutral or factual (e.g., Google AI chip, ZIM sale halt). The negative valence is directed mainly at the Netanyahu government and specific IDF conduct, not the state per se, so the stance toward 'IL' is best read as critical scrutiny rather than delegitimisation.