The Image War Moves to TikTok Evidence from the May 2021 Round of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Figures & data

Table 1. The measurements used in the quantitative content analysis.

	Items	Range	M (SD)/ Percentage
Pro-Israeli/Pro-Palestinian	Which side does the message in the video support? Pro-Israeli, Pro-Palestinian, unclear	0–2	Pro-Israeli − 54.9% Pro-Palestinian − 38.2% Unclear − 6.9%
Victimization	Does the video: 1. present their side as the victim? 2. provide information about victims on their side (in text)? 3. provide information about destruction caused to their side (in text)? 4. present visuals of destruction on their side? 5. present visuals of victims (bodies, wounded, suffering) on their side? Each variable is a yes/no question. The victimization measurement sums the appearance of the different victimization strategies in each video.	0–5	M = 1.28 (SD = 1.30)
Blame	Does the video: (1) place blame on the other side? (2) present information about the other side’s aggression (in text)? (3) present visuals of armed forces of the other side? (4) present visuals of attacks or weapons of the other side? Each variable is a yes/no question. The blame measurement sums the appearance of the different blame strategies in each video.	0–4	M=.88 (SD = 1.08)
Solution	Does the video offer any solutions to the situation?	0–1	No − 98.7% Yes − 1.3%
Number of Hashtags	How many hashtags appear in the post?	0–17	M = 5.97 (SD = 3.09)
Other side’s Hashtags	Are any of the hashtags presented usually associated with the other side of the conflict?	0–1	No − 77.1% Yes − 22.9%
National symbols	Are there any national symbols (flags, maps, symbols, state institutions, leaders) presented?	0–1	No − 63.4% Yes − 36.6%
Other side immoral	Is there an attempt to present the other side as immoral (showing their brutality)?^5	0–1	No − 72.2% Yes − 27.8%
Justifications	Is there an attempt to justify their sides actions (why they had to act the way they did)?	0–1	No − 92.7% Yes − 7.3%
Personal story	Does the video present a personal story (any story, of the person presenting the story or of someone else).	0–1	No − 88.6% Yes − 11.4%
Identification	Are there any attempts to make viewers imagine themselves in the speaker’s situation? Also known as the What would YOU do strategy	0–1	No − 90.8% Yes − 9.2%
Duet	Is the video presenting a dialog with another video posted (mostly of the other side)?	0–1	No − 94.6% Yes − 5.4%
Account’s fans	Number of the account’s fans (or followers)	1–2700000	M = 81206.97 (SD = 314060.38)
Likes	Number of Likes the video had generated	2–302200	M = 9262.26 (SD = 29970.43)
Comments	Number of comments the video had generated	0–1621268195	M = 5114801.32 (SD = 91059471.84)
Shares	Number of Shares the video had generated	0–18400	M = 675.09 (SD = 2067.82)

Table 2. Correlations between the different sides of the conflict and various message strategies.

		No – % within that side’s publications	Yes – % within that side’s publications	${\chi }^2$	ϕ
National symbols	Pro-Israeli	66.1%	33.9%	5.59*	.125
	Pro-Palestinian	53.7%	46.3%
Other side immoral	Pro-Israeli	79.9%	20.1%	16.77***	.238
	Pro-Palestinian	57.9%	42.1%
Justifications	Pro-Israeli	87.4%	12.6%	13.86***	.217
	Pro-Palestinian	99.2%	0.8%
Personal story	Pro-Israeli	93.7%	6.3%	11.46***	.197
	Pro-Palestinian	80.8%	19.2%
Identification	Pro-Israeli	86.8%	13.2%	5.40*	.135
	Pro-Palestinian	95%	5%
Other side’s Hashtags	Pro-Israeli	69%	31%	18.05***	.248
	Pro-Palestinian	90%	10%
Duet	Pro-Israeli	91.3%	8.7%	6.36*	.147
	Pro-Palestinian	98.3%	1.7%

* p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Table 3. Differences between the different sides of the conflict in various message strategies.

		N	M	SD	T
Victimization	Pro-Israeli	174	1.56	1.36	3.875***
	Pro-Palestinian	121	1.00	1.12
Blame	Pro-Israeli	174	1.03	1.14	${1.932}^{\#}$
	Pro-Palestinian	121	.78	1.00
Number of Hashtags	Pro-Israeli	174	5.79	3.04	−0.972
	Pro-Palestinian	121	6.14	3.11

^# p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Table 4. Differences in users’ engagement to pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian videos.

		N	M	SD	T
Likes	Pro-Israeli	174	977.83	4351.67	−4.917***
	Pro-Palestinian	121	22930.07	46273.55
Comments	Pro-Israeli	174	113.15	504.63	−4.961***
	Pro-Palestinian	121	808.07	1482.14
Shares	Pro-Israeli	174	54.44	311.72	−5.642***
	Pro-Palestinian	121	1642.28	3084.90
Account’s fans	Pro-Israeli	174	12122.72	44606.37	−3.828***
	Pro-Palestinian	121	174965.42	466475.05

* p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Table 5. Regression models predicting users’ engagement.

	Model 1: Likes	Model 2: Comments	Model 3: Shares
Pro-Israeli (=1)/Pro-Palestinian	−0.261***	−0.228***	−0.291***
Victimization	−0.223**	−0.134	−0.151*
Blame	.260**	−0.171*	−0.084
Number of Hashtags	−0.040	−0.073	−0.072
Other side’s Hashtags (=1)	−0.072	−0.063	−0.057
National symbols (=1)	−0.014	−0.015	−0.067
Other side immoral (=1)	.086	.155*	.231**
Justifications (=1)	.008	−0.100	.021
Personal story (=1)	.014	−0.035	−0.004
Identification (=1)	.010	−0.027	.004
Duet (=1)	−0.053	−0.062	−0.047
Account’s fans	.122*	.033	−0.009
Intersect	21.429.45	844.71	1816.98
$R^2$	.165	.129	.181

* p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Figure 1. Interactions effects of both the side of the conflict that had published the content and different message strategies on the number of shares the video generate.

Table 6. The effect of both the side of the conflict that had published the content and different message strategies on the number of shares the video generated (using two ways ANOVA).

Model 1: Share – National symbols					Model 2: Share – Justifications
	SS	df	F	${\eta }^2$		SS	df	F	${\eta }^2$
Pro-Israeli/ Pro-Palestinian	161662966.99	1	41.841***	.126	Pro-Israeli/ Pro-Palestinian	201439779.31	1	57.398***	.165
National symbols	18230090.63	1	4.718*	.016	National symbols	133931509.13	1	38.162***	.116
Interaction	20649786.60	1	5.344*	.018	Interaction	126739037.10	1	36.113***	.110
Total	1485670959.00				Total	1485670959.00
Model 3: Share – Other side immoral					Model 4: Share – Other side’s Hashtags
	SS	df	F	${\eta }^2$		SS	df	F	${\eta }^2$
Pro-Israeli/ Pro-Palestinian	171470439.19	1	48.692***	.143	Pro-Israeli/ Pro-Palestinian	33915555.23	1	8.676**	.029
Other side immoral	70753504.76	1	20.092***	.065	National symbols	15624223.37	1	3.997*	.014
Interaction	59702914.18	1	16.954*	.055	Interaction	19540704.14	1	4.999*	.017
Total	1485670959.00				Total	1485654575.00

* p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Table 7. The effect of both the side of the conflict that had published the content and the message strategies of victimization and blame on the number of shares the video generated (using regression models).

	Model 1: Shares – Victimization	Model 2: Shares – Blame
Pro-Israeli (=1)/Pro-Palestinian	−0.331***	−0.245***
Victimization	.092
Blame		.369***
Interaction	−0.093	−0.325**
Intersect	1491.66	1078.53
$R^2$	.128	.173

* p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Figure 2. Critical monologue persuading (left) raw footage from the ground demonstrating (right).

Figure 3. Montage in the service of external authenticity.

Figure 4. Rally montage communicating affiliation.

Figure 5. Cartoon and makeup art conveying creativity.