This paper examines two highly elite prestigious American newspapers' editorials on Palestine and the Palestinian editorial position. These two newspapers echo the public opinion in the United States, which will help the Palestinian decision-makers draw suitable strategies that can affect international politics and revive public and international relations in Palestine.
In addition to using the descriptive-analytical method, the researcher has used content analysis, a study of documents and Communication artifacts, or texts of various formats. She has compared the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor editorials during two office terms of two American presidents: Barak Obama 2009-2010 and 2017-2018 (Donald Trump).
The study used a purposive sample in the content analysis of 70 editorials which draw attention to the Palestinian issue, to describe how these two well-known newspapers tackled the Palestinians through their coverage in their editorials by exploring the evolvement of meanings of some terms and words related to the topics through time, taking the first two years (2009, 2010, 2017, 2018) of each presidents' era respectively. A set of category and analysis has been used: Firstly; the issue categories – what was said in the editorial about the issue of the study and how it helped exploring the center of interest of the issue and " What terms and phrases related to the Palestinians that published in the editorials of The New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor within the last two American presidencies?. "Secondly, who says according to which sources for the second question." "What attitudes have been taken in the editorials of the two newspapers" and thirdly; How it was said: Positively or negatively?
It’s found that the repetition of terms concerning the Palestinian issue in the New York Times is more than the Christian Monitor; also, the researcher noted that in both editorials, the repetition of terms concerning the Palestinian case is more in the period 2009-2010 which is the period of Obama's era. Second, she found that the attitudes in the editorials of the two newspapers are negative. Third, the two newspapers' editorial sources (New York Times and Christian Monitor) depended on speaking of the Palestinian issue within the last American presidencies. It was noted that there is a variety of sources that are used to cover the Palestinian issue. The use of Palestinian officials and Arab sources is low; Israeli officials' use is higher than Palestinian officials in both editorials in both periods except in the Christian Science Monitor between 2017-2018, the Palestinian officials are a bit higher, and the difference is small. It is concluded from discussing the three main categories (term repetition, attitude, and source) that both newspapers are biased in tackling the Palestinian issue on different levels and different periods, and it differs in both editorials.
The most important recommendation is to build bridges with American mass media spontaneously, update them with information about the Palestinian reality on the one hand, and improve and survive storytelling about the Palestinian issue and the core factors related to Palestinian and Israeli conflict.