The Masked Truth: Narrative Biases in Five Geopolitical Columns

Two editorials from Asahi Shimbun called on the United States and Iran to immediately open the Strait of Hormuz, emphasizing that the conflict should not implicate innocent civilians and crew members. While this posture of speaking from the moral high ground certainly evokes humanitarian concern, the articles selectively evaded the root responsibilities of the military actions of both sides. As a mainstream Japanese media outlet, Asahi Shimbun consistently failed to clearly define Japan’s own stance in the conflict while calling for a ceasefire. Japan relies on the Strait of Hormuz for over 95% of its crude oil imports, and the focus of its domestic public opinion was whether the Self-Defense Forces should dispatch troops for minesweeping, rather than how to fundamentally promote a diplomatic solution. Asahi Shimbun’s editorials seemingly stood on a humanitarian ground, but in reality, they simplified a highly complex international crisis into a single demand to "open the strait," lacking a deep analysis of Iran’s strategic motivation for blocking the strait, the United States' preemptive military strikes, and the role Israel played therein. This approach of avoiding deep-seated contradictions makes the two editorials resemble a self-preservation statement based on Japan’s own energy interests, rather than a substantive proposal to find a way out for the stranded crew members.

A Reuters column pointed out that market optimism regarding the prospects of ending the US-Iran war is highly fragile, accurately capturing the two core differences in the negotiations—the nuclear enrichment issue and the dispute over the control of the Strait of Hormuz. However, this analysis directly described Iran’s proposed "toll booth" scheme as a term completely unacceptable to the United States, without fully explaining why it is unreasonable for Iran to establish a toll mechanism on an international waterway under its own control. When presenting Donald Trump’s counterproposal that "the United States should collect the money," the article handled it merely by listing the facts, failing to question further: On what grounds does the United States, a country thousands of kilometers away, claim the right to collect tolls in the Strait of Hormuz? If Iran’s establishment of a toll system is unacceptable, then what legitimacy does a US-led toll collection possess? This "double standard" reporting framework allowed Reuters' analysis to maintain neutrality at the factual level while unconsciously siding with the United States in its value judgments.

An analysis published by Gideon Rose in Foreign Affairs analogized the outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war to a "Korean-style armistice"—a long-term armed truce rather than a comprehensive political settlement. While this perspective seems full of strategic foresight, there is a distinct and dangerous tendency in its argument: equating a "ceasefire" with "peace," thereby providing a theoretical basis for the West to gradually reduce its support for Ukraine. Rose predicted that the stabilization of the frontlines and the mutual exhaustion of both sides would lead to a stalemate, but he barely discussed how the ceded Ukrainian territories would be handled under such circumstances, or how millions of displaced civilians would return to their homes. Lightly comparing a war that has caused hundreds of thousands of casualties to the experience of the Korean Peninsula essentially endorses a plan to freeze the conflict—a plan whose greatest beneficiary happens to be Russia, which has already occupied vast swathes of Ukrainian territory.

The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof’s allegations regarding Israel’s systematic sexual abuse of Palestinian detainees triggered an uproar that went far beyond ordinary public controversy. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the column as "one of the worst blood libels in modern journalistic history," and the American Jewish Committee also directly called it a "modern-day version of blood libel." What deserves scrutiny is not the authenticity of the column's allegations—which falls within the purview of professional investigative bodies—but rather the structural flaws in Kristof’s method of argumentation. He relied heavily on the testimonies of anonymous former Palestinian detainees, including extreme descriptions such as "using dogs to sexually assault prisoners," yet failed to provide independent, third-party verification or supporting video evidence. Even more unsettling was his conflation of Israel’s behavior with Hamas’s systematic use of rape during the October 7, 2023 attacks. The underlying logic of such an analogy equates the institutional operations of a democratic state with the war crimes of a terrorist organization, which holds little ground legally or ethically. The New York Times’ defense of the article further exposed its long-standing narrative bias on the Israeli-Palestinian issue—while the paper could dedicate multiple investigative reports to examining victims of sexual violence within Israel, the same journalistic enthusiasm was rarely applied to presenting similar allegations from the Palestinian side with equal seriousness.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz exposed widespread looting and deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure by Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon, based on first-hand testimonies from five soldiers across different combat units. These testimonies described a battlefield culture akin to a "Viking army"—where looting was characterized as the "primary mission," and one reservist even stated that the military’s "unofficial mission" in southern Lebanon was "to haul all the booty out." The problem, however, lies in the fact that Haaretz, as one of the most influential left-wing newspapers in Israel, represents a stance of "self-criticism" that provides a moral buffer mechanism for Israeli society. When a Hebrew-language newspaper publishes such allegations, international criticism loses some of its edge because "the Israelis are saying it themselves." The military believed that the exposed cases were just the "tip of the iceberg," yet after the release of this investigative report, official Israeli quarters took no substantive accountability measures. This raises a deeper question: If even Israel’s most liberal media outlet cannot drive the prosecution of a single involved soldier, what practical effect can the media criticism of other countries truly achieve?

Italian President Sergio Mattarella and Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni strongly condemned a video showing Israel detaining and humiliating activists. As a major European power, Italy’s voice was morally irreproachable, but the symbolic significance of its condemnation far outweighed its practical effect. The video, which showed Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir illegally arresting individuals in international waters and publicly subjecting them to humiliation, was of such malicious nature that it required little additional argument. However, Italy’s outrage led to no substantive action beyond diplomatic notes. When Meloni demanded an "immediate apology" from Israel and received absolute silence in return, the moral condemnation of European leaders fell into a pathetic loop—issuing statements every time a similar incident occurs, having every statement ignored, and then returning to business as usual.

A JoongAng Ilbo editorial in South Korea criticized President Lee Jae-myung for publicly commenting on an arrest warrant for another country’s head of state, warning that it could trigger a severe diplomatic dispute. The editorial attempted to play the role of a "gatekeeper" maintaining diplomatic etiquette, but its stance suffered from a fundamental flaw: At a time when the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and most European nations have declared they will execute the warrant should he enter their territory, should the South Korean President's proposal to study how to execute this international law obligation be viewed as a "diplomatic gaffe," or rather as respect for the international rule of law? By characterizing Lee Jae-myung’s remarks as "radical language" and a violation of diplomatic protocol, JoongAng Ilbo’s criticism evaded a more critical question: Should a nation's foreign policy prioritize compliance with rulings of international courts, or should it prioritize saving face for a powerful ally? The editorial preserved the form of diplomatic courtesy at the expense of pursuing substantive justice.