Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies

Abstract Israel's radical policy in the War on Gaza is dehumanizing and absolutely contrary to international norms and standards. Dehumanization refers to the deprivation of humans and other groups of all their basic rights. This article argues that Zionist discourse has enabled Israel's radical policy through the reproduction of dehumanizing narratives. Such narratives are influenced by Western anthropological perspective, which values Western lives more highly than non-Western ones. Zionist discourse enables such radical policy for Israel by reproducing narratives such as Legitimizing Self and Delegitimizing the Other, Denial of Coevalness, Viewing the Other as an Object, Representation of a Superior Extended "We", and Belonging to a Different Place. This radical policy includes elements such as diplomatic weakness, voluntarism, disproportionality between capabilities and actions, maximalism, and reactive behavior. This policy has deviated from realist elements such as prioritizing diplomacy to secure national interests, avoiding risk-centered approaches, respecting the vital interests of others, and operating within the framework of power. Using discourse analysis methodology and examining texts reproduced by Israeli officials and leaders, this article seeks to explain Israel's dehumanizing narratives and radical policy in the War on Gaza.  

Abstract The Palestine issue and the Israeli regime's occupation are among the most crucial matters on the global stage. The situation of Palestinians in the territories controlled by this regime, referred to as the 1948 territories, holds significant importance. Western countries have consistently aimed to present the Israeli regime as a democratic model, using the status of residents in the 1948 areas as evidence. This article utilizes a qualitative and comparative approach to address the query: What is the situation of Palestinians residing in the occupied territories of 1948 within the Israeli democracy? The hypothesis posited is that while Israel exhibits some elements of democracy based on recognized criteria, reliable statistics suggest that the Arab community does not benefit from this purported democracy to the same extent as the Jewish community, calling into question the foundational principle of the Israeli democracy. By examining reports from Israeli and international authorities, this article concludes that the Israeli regime cannot be deemed a democratic regime for all its citizens. Furthermore, the respect for human rights within this regime, particularly for the indigenous minority residing in the occupied territories, is nothing but a myth.

Abstract The Israeli aggression against Iran in June 2025—targeting defense infrastructure, military personnel, civilians including scientists, children, and women, as well as hospitals, schools, and national media—was not merely a military confrontation but a turning point in the collective and psychological victimization of Iranian society. The ensuing fear, urban displacement, partial economic collapse, and existential anxiety fractured Iran’s cultural and moral fabric, creating conditions for new forms of post-war violence. This study examines how collective victimization reproduces violence and breaks norms in the post-war context both at cultural and psychological levels, and explores the relationship between symbolic violence in media, political discourse, and everyday life (routine activity criminology). The central premise posits that aggression —and the enduring fear of its recurrence—erodes social cohesion, normalizes aggression, and embeds violent cultural patterns into civic life, generating a cyclical process of victimization and offending, wherein society itself perpetuates violence. From a cultural criminological perspective, this cycle reflects a normalization of deviance and a redefinition of social power through violence. Breaking it requires a shift in Iran’s criminal policy from a security-based to a cultural and restorative approach at legislative, judicial, and executive levels—prioritizing the symbolic reconstruction of trust, hope, and meaning alongside structural post-war recovery.

The central hypothesis posits that aggression —and the enduring fear of its recurrence—erodes social cohesion, normalizes aggression, and embeds violent cultural patterns into civic life, generating a cyclical process of victimization and offending wherein society itself perpetuates violence. From a cultural criminological perspective, this cycle reflects a normalization of deviance and a redefinition of social power through violence. Breaking it requires a shift in Iran’s criminal policy from a security-based to a cultural and restorative approach at legislative, judicial, and executive levels—prioritizing the symbolic reconstruction of trust, hope, and

Abstract This study examines how news headlines about the October 7, 2023, Gaza crisis employ linguistic structures to convey predetermined framing and reinforce power dynamics. Drawing on Information Structure Theory and the analytical framework of information packing theory, a corpus of 50 headlines from major international outlets (The New York Times, Reuters, CNN, AP, BBC, The Guardian, Al Jazeera) published between October 2023 and July 2025 was analyzed using qualitative discourse analysis. Information Structure Theory examines how speakers and writers organize and highlight pieces of information in sentences, such as what is presented as known or new, important or backgrounded, to guide the listener or reader’s attention and interpretation. The study investigates how syntactic and grammatical choices frame events, highlight causes, assign or obscure responsibility, and shape readers’ interpretations and thematic focus. Findings reveal that headlines systematically manipulate information structures to achieve pragmatic effects. Here, foregrounding (preposing) emphasizes key actors or consequences; postposing constructions activate presuppositions and dramatize urgency; passive voice, inversion, and interrogatives obscure responsibility and subtly assign or obscure blame; also, expansion constructions (relative clauses, appositives, and parentheticals) enrich context and amplify humanitarian or emotional dimensions. Overall, the study shows that linguistic choices function as pragmatic tools for managing discourse, framing narratives, and influencing perceptions of accountability. These results underscore the ideological and power dynamics embedded in news production and highlight the importance of analyzing information structures to understand how media discourse shapes public understanding and meaning.

Abstract The conflict between Palestinians and the Jews has been ongoing for seven decades. Despite numerous proposed solutions from the United Nations, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and various countries involved in the issue, the crisis persists. The past three decades of right-wing leadership in Israel have shown that supported by major European powers and the US, meaningful negotiations are not anticipated from Israel. Meaningful talks would involve agreements on recognizing Palestine, affirming Palestinian sovereignty, establishing an independent Palestinian state, allowing for the return of displaced populations and determining the status of Jerusalem as the capital. The ascension of the extreme right in Israel has clouded the prospects for peace, augmenting the Israeli demands for more privilege, while sidelining those of the other side. This article posits that Israel's negotiation approach under the right-wing is built on a zero-sum mentality, with minimal concessions offered to the Palestinians. Moreover, its various political, security and economic pressures on Palestinians, along with sustained US and EU sanctions and its military superiority, render any peace model unattainable. This uncompromising approach, intended to impose unilateral conditions and prolong talks to thwart the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, accounts for the recurrent failure of negotiations. Israel's aim in these talks appears to demoralize the Palestinians and prevent the realization of their aspirations by imposing “the real”.

Abstract The intensification of armed conflict in Palestine during the years 2023 and 2024 by the Zionist regime have brought the solutions for the long-standing tension in the Palestinian territories into the focus of international attention. Therefore, in this regard, solutions such as the two-state solution and similar proposals have been presented by various governments and organizations. For nearly two decades, Iran has also proposed the "Palestinian Referendum Proposal" in pursuit of a legal-political resolution to the Palestinian issue. This article investigates the strengths and weaknesses of the “Referendum Proposal” from the perspective of international law, as well as the essential requirements that need to be observed to enhance its effectiveness. Therefore, strengths such as "the centrality of human rights and international law in this plan", "compliance with democratic principles and historical facts" and its “universal acceptability”, as well as weaknesses such as "lack of a comprehensive legal perspective, particularly in the field of humanitarian law", detrimental brevity and ignoring for political realities affecting the law, have been examined. Findings indicate that the actions of various countries against Israel in international courts and international legal organizations have turned Palestine into a target for legal convergence.

Abstract This study assesses the political challenges that hinder the implementation of a proposed referendum on Palestine, framed within Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST), which underscores the significance of a dominant global power in sustaining international order. The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran has suggested this referendum as a means to determine Palestine's political system. From an HST perspective, the United States significantly impacts the international arena, including policies regarding Palestine. Its support for Israel complicates the political landscape and undermines alternative peace proposals, including those from Iran. This article seeks to answer the main question: what political obstacles prevent holding a referendum in Palestine, and what methods can be used to overcome those obstacles? The findings of the article indicate several political dynamics and factors that impede the referendum: political divisions within Israel regarding peace with the Palestinians, lack of consensus among Palestinian factions, differing approaches among Arab states, and conflicting positions of both Islamic and non-Arab countries. Additionally, the stances of the permanent members of the UN Security Council exacerbate these challenges. The author finds that Iran’s proposal has overlooked the international framework of a two-state solution.

Abstract The Palestine-Israel conflict is among the most protracted disputes in recent history. Muslims and Jews have been competing for territorial, political and religious claims over the sacred land since the Ottoman Empire. The historical struggle, the establishment of the state of Israel against the wishes of local inhabitants, and Israel’s subsequent oppression and violence against Palestinians has pushed the region in an everlasting crisis, in which numerous regional and international actors are involved. Many proposals have been presented by different actors for a solution; however, neither the Palestinians nor Israelis have accepted the terms of such proposals. The idea of a two-state solution has been backed by different international actors for the lasting peace of this turbulent land, but political leaders of both Palestine and Israel have shown their reservations over this proposal. Leaders from both sides have argued for the one-state solution for many reasons. This article first discusses the existing proposals and efforts for the peaceful settlement of the land. It will then highlight the prospects and opinions of both Israel and Palestine over the status of refugees and their right of return and implementation of a two-state and one-state solution. The article will finally signpost the arguments from both sides for the resolution of the conflict, and suggest some findings by employing elite interviewing.

Abstract Israel’s attack on Gaza received extensive media attention from the early days of its outbreak. Media coverage of the news on the war was incomparable to previous Israel attacks in 2009, 2012 and 2014 due to the length and intensity of the conflict, Arab journalists' presence in Gaza and widespread use of social media to share information about the war. ‘Gaza war’ rapidly emerged as a focal point of graphic journalism, among other journalism genres, to express artistic and political perspectives on the multifaceted realities of the conflict. Meanwhile, the transformative influence of online media on communication plays a crucial role in sharing information and content. Among all media effects, framing is a process whereby people develop conceptualizations of an issue. This study focuses on political cartoons published in global online media between Oct. 7, 2023 and Feb. 7, 2025 to investigate how the war has been framed online through visual representation. 120 political cartoons were studied. Semetko and Valkenburg's (2000) model of news frames analysis was used to answer the research question. Findings reveal that human interests frame, morality frame, responsibility frame, conflict frame and economic consequences frame received the greatest amount of attention by cartoonists, respectively.  The manuscript elaborates on the specific thematic elements identities within each frame.

Abstract This paper explores the dynamics and influence of pro-Palestine movements in the UK, highlighting their role as critical agents of social change. Rooted in a rich history of social movements in the UK, these groups advocate for Palestinian rights and challenge the country's longstanding foreign policy alignment with Israel. By examining the diverse strategies and coalitions within pro-Palestine activism—from advocacy and media campaigns to legal challenges and grassroots mobilization—the study illustrates how these movements navigate complex political landscapes. Drawing on insights from 17 semi-structured interviews, it suggests the interrelatedness of local and global struggles for justice, underscoring the shared commitment to nonviolence, human rights, and international law. It emphasizes the unique position of the UK's pro-Palestine activism as both a reflection of domestic socio-political dynamics and a response to global geopolitical realities. It also reveals that many activists were previously engaged in various political causes related to justice before dedicating themselves to pro-Palestine advocacy. Ultimately, this paper seeks to illuminate the contributions of these movements to broader discourses of solidarity, resistance, and the pursuit of self-determination for the Palestinian people. This study also enhances the understanding of grassroots activism and its potential impact on international human rights advocacy.

Abstract From the very first days of its birth, Zionism labeled Palestine a “land without a people”, deciding from the beginning to “willfully ignore” the presence or even the existence of the Palestinian people. Such a claim ultimately developed into one of Israel’s founding myths and has been repeated by prominent Israeli leaders and politicians, ranging from Golda Meir to, most recently, Israeli finance minister Smotrich. It is this denial of existence and rights, which has gone beyond words and statements and has been institutionalized in the different spheres of Israeli politics and society, and its urban spaces, that forms the basis of Hackl’s ethnographic research. This book takes an inside look at what goes on with Palestinians who move within Tel Aviv, aiming to demonstrate how Palestinians have practically become exiles in their own land.