Haaretz · März 2026

• foregrounds Palestinian casualties and humanitarian crises
• uses neutral or sympathetic framing for Palestinian entities (e.g., 'health ministry says', 'Palestinians starve')
• highlights Israeli military and settler violence against Palestinians
• gives voice to Palestinian perspectives and pro-Palestinian initiatives

The outlet's stance toward the entity 'PS' (Palestinian State/people) is broadly sympathetic, as coverage emphasizes Palestinian deaths, humanitarian needs, and criticism of Israeli policies. However, some headlines also report on Hamas actions neutrally or critically (e.g., 'Hamas rearms', 'Hamas Forcefully Reasserts Rule'), which tempers the overall stance. The positive score reflects the outlet's consistent focus on Palestinian suffering and rights, not endorsement of all Palestinian actors.

• portrays Trump as erratic and self-deluded
• highlights internal dissent and leaks
• frames U.S. policy as driven by Israeli pressure
• uses distancing and evaluative language ('delusions', 'apocalyptic')

The outlet is consistently skeptical of the U.S. administration under Trump, not of the U.S. as a country; coverage of U.S. actions is critical, but the entity is the U.S. government, not the nation. The stance reflects Haaretz's editorial line critical of Trump's Iran policy and its subordination to Israeli interests.

• portrays Trump as delusional or unrealistic
• frames Trump's actions as dangerous or reckless
• uses distancing or critical verbs like 'wants', 'claims', 'says'
• highlights Trump's unpopularity and political vulnerability

The outlet consistently treats Trump as a problematic actor whose decisions are questioned or criticized, but stops short of outright delegitimizing language (e.g., 'regime'). The entity's own aggressive quotes are reported with distance, reinforcing skepticism.

• editorializing against Netanyahu's policies and governance
• framing Netanyahu as corrupt, self-serving, and destructive
• using negative evaluative language ('lousy thieves', 'mission to destroy Israel')
• portraying Netanyahu's actions as politically motivated rather than principled

Headlines 2 and 20 quote Netanyahu neutrally or as a source, but the overwhelming majority of coverage is hostile, with editorial pieces and opinionated framing. The outlet's own voice is consistently negative toward Netanyahu, not just critical of his policies.

• Frames Israeli leaders as acting absurdly or politically motivated
• Highlights failures, controversies, and negative consequences of Israeli actions
• Uses distancing or critical verbs like 'accuses', 'slams', 'threatens'
• Foregrounds harm to civilians and internal dissent

The outlet is consistently critical of the Israeli government and its policies, especially Netanyahu, but not hostile to the country as a whole; some headlines report factual events neutrally, and the criticism is directed at leadership and actions rather than the state itself.

• frames Iran as aggressor and threat
• highlights Israeli/U.S. military successes against Iran
• uses distancing verbs for Iranian statements
• focuses on regime instability and succession

Headlines 6 and 7 depict Iran as attacker of civilians and regional destabilizer, while 20 quotes threats from Iranian leaders with no counter-framing; overall coverage treats Iran as a hostile actor, but some headlines (e.g., 11, 14) include neutral or analytical framing of Iranian internal dynamics, preventing a -2 score.

• portrays Hezbollah as a threat to Israel and regional stability
• uses distancing verbs and frames Hezbollah's actions as escalatory
• highlights Israeli military and government perspectives on Hezbollah's strength and dangers
• occasionally questions Israeli narratives but maintains critical stance toward Hezbollah

The entity is LB (Lebanon), but the headlines overwhelmingly focus on Hezbollah as a militant group within Lebanon, not the country itself. The stance toward Hezbollah is consistently negative, but toward Lebanon as a state it is more neutral, with some headlines noting Lebanon's government moves against Hezbollah. The negative stance is directed at Hezbollah, not the Lebanese state or people.

• reports Khamenei's killing as a military target without moral condemnation
• uses neutral or factual framing for Israeli/U.S. actions against Khamenei
• quotes Khamenei's successors with distancing verbs like 'threatens' and 'vows'
• includes editorial content questioning assassination's justification

Headline 16 explicitly argues against assassination, showing internal dissent; overall coverage treats Khamenei as an adversary but avoids celebratory or hostile language about him personally, focusing on strategic and political consequences.