Times of Israel · July 2026

• Frequent use of direct quotes and official statements without evaluative framing
• Balanced inclusion of criticism and legal challenges alongside policy announcements
• Occasional distancing verbs like 'claims' and 'says' in contested contexts
• Mix of positive diplomatic coverage and negative domestic/political scrutiny

Coverage is genuinely mixed: many headlines neutrally report Netanyahu's statements and diplomatic activities, while others highlight legal troubles, political opposition, and public distrust. The outlet does not consistently lionize or delegitimize him; stance is neutral overall, though some headlines (e.g., 15, 24) carry implicit skepticism.

• Quotes Israeli officials as authoritative voices on security and diplomacy
• Foregrounds Israeli military and government actions as legitimate responses
• Occasional critical reporting on domestic issues (e.g., Netanyahu's expenses)
• Uses neutral-to-positive framing for Israeli operations and statements

The outlet generally treats Israeli officials and military actions as credible and justified, but includes some critical domestic reporting (e.g., Netanyahu's expenses, delayed flight) that tempers a fully positive stance. The entity is the country itself, so coverage of internal criticism is part of the mix.

• Frames Hamas primarily as a terrorist threat, emphasizing killings and Oct. 7 attacks
• Uses distancing attribution ('IDF says', 'said to', 'report') for Hamas-related claims
• Highlights Hamas's obstruction and demands, not its governance or legitimacy
• Mentions Hamas in context of Israeli military operations and international criticism

The outlet's stance is toward Hamas as an entity, not the Palestinian people or statehood. Coverage is largely operational and security-driven, with negative framing of Hamas's actions and leadership, but it does not use overtly hostile or delegitimizing language about the entity itself; it reports Israeli military actions and Hamas's moves with a skeptical, distancing tone. The entity's own statements are often attributed with 'said to' or 'report', reducing authority.

• Frames Iran primarily as a military/security threat (IRGC strikes, attacks, threats)
• Uses distancing attribution for Iranian claims ('said', 'reports', 'said to find')
• Highlights internal dissent and instability (attacks on president, Ahmadinejad plot)
• Neutral-to-critical selection emphasizing conflict and Iranian aggression

Coverage is largely factual and event-driven, but the selection and framing consistently foreground Iranian military actions and threats, with skeptical attribution of Iranian statements. The outlet does not use overtly hostile language like 'regime' or 'brutal', but the overall emphasis on IRGC attacks and internal discord tilts toward a critical stance. Some headlines (e.g., funeral coverage) are neutral or even sympathetic to the human dimension, but the dominant pattern is skeptical of Iran's leadership and actions.

• reports Trump's actions and statements factually, often with direct quotes
• occasionally highlights controversies or conflicts involving the US administration
• frames US-Israel relations as central, with both supportive and skeptical angles
• uses neutral verbs like 'says', 'tells', 'reportedly' without strong evaluative language

Coverage is predominantly factual and event-driven, with no consistent positive or negative framing of the US as an entity. Some headlines (e.g., 8, 21) imply criticism of US actions or internal tensions, while others (e.g., 7, 18) present US-Israel interactions neutrally or positively. The outlet's own stance is not clearly favorable or hostile; it treats the US as a major actor whose decisions are reported with a mix of scrutiny and routine coverage. Note that quoted content from Israeli officials (e.g., 9, 18) is favorable to the US, but that reflects the speakers' views, not the outlet's.

• Uses neutral verbs like 'says', 'tells', 'indicates' without evaluative adjectives
• Frames Trump's actions as policy decisions, not personality or scandal
• Occasionally highlights Israeli skepticism or friction (e.g., polls, disagreements)
• Quotes Trump directly without distancing or endorsement

Coverage is largely factual and balanced, but some headlines (e.g., #19 on Israeli poll, #9 on Katz pushback) subtly signal Israeli concerns about Trump's reliability. No consistent positive or negative editorial stance toward Trump; the outlet treats him as a key actor whose statements and decisions are reported without overt favor or hostility.

• Frequent IDF-sourced operational reports framing Hezbollah as a threat
• Headlines emphasize Hezbollah weapons, tunnels, and attacks
• Lebanese officials quoted but often in defensive or conditional contexts
• Neutral reporting on diplomatic moves, but underlying security framing

Entity is Lebanon as a country, not Hezbollah specifically. Coverage is mixed: diplomatic items (8, 13, 17) are neutral, but the majority of headlines focus on Hezbollah's military activities and Israeli responses, which implicitly frames Lebanon as a security problem. The outlet does not use overtly hostile language toward Lebanon itself, but the selection and sourcing tilt negative.

• Emphasizes threats and revenge chants at funeral, framing Khamenei's legacy as militant
• Highlights succession uncertainty and intelligence failures under his rule
• Uses distancing attribution ('said to find', 'claims') for claims about successors
• Quotes Israeli officials warning future leaders, implying Khamenei's fate as cautionary

Coverage is largely factual reporting of funeral events, but selection foregrounds vengeance rhetoric, succession doubts, and Israeli warnings, casting Khamenei's death as a security event rather than honoring his legacy. The outlet does not use overtly hostile language about Khamenei himself, but the framing is skeptical of Iran's leadership and its aftermath.

• Uses confrontational framing ('declares war on Israel', 'lashes out', 'rails')
• Highlights disputes and distancing between Vance and Israeli officials
• Quotes Vance with verbs implying hostility or unreliability ('claims', 'denies')
• Foregrounds Republican Jewish voters souring on Vance

Some headlines are neutral factual reports (e.g., attendance, indictments), and one quotes Herzog respectfully mentioning Vance. But the outlet's own framing repeatedly casts Vance as adversarial to Israel and politically weakened, while Netanyahu's rebuttal is given prominence. The entity's quoted content is hostile to others, but the outlet's selection and vocabulary still tilt negative toward Vance.

• labels Houthis as 'Iran-backed' repeatedly
• uses 'claim' and 'say' for Houthi statements, implying unverified
• foregrounds Houthi attacks and threats, not their perspective
• frames Houthis as aggressors against Saudi/UAE interests

The outlet reports Houthi actions factually but consistently attributes them to Iranian backing and uses distancing verbs ('claim', 'say'), suggesting skepticism. The entity's own statements are amplified but not endorsed; the outlet's framing aligns with Saudi/UAE security concerns.

• Frames Mamdani's actions as theatrical or ineffective ('big whoop', 'can't arrest', 'headline they want')
• Amplifies Israeli officials' and Jewish groups' condemnations of Mamdani
• Uses distancing and delegitimizing language ('claims', 'threat', 'fomenting hate')
• Highlights opposition to Mamdani from multiple sides

The outlet reports Mamdani's statements but consistently frames them as controversial, ineffective, or harmful, and gives prominent voice to his critics (Israeli officials, Jewish groups). While some headlines are neutral, the overall selection and framing tilt toward skepticism and criticism of Mamdani, not outright hostility. The entity's own quoted content is critical of Netanyahu, but the outlet's stance toward Mamdani is negative.