Arab satellite channels play an important role in the daily coverage of the Israeli war on Gaza and its terrible scenes of destruction. However, most of these channels are characterized by an organized politicization. Some of them - driven by the political agenda of forces described as "moderate" that look at Hamas suspiciously - intended to belittle the importance of the Gaza incidents and to blame Hamas and its strategic options rejecting a peaceful settlement. Other satellite channels launched a campaign against the moderates, particularly Egypt, and held them responsible for the war on Gaza, claiming that they are colluded with Israel. In addition, these channels depicted Hamas - and Palestinian civilians - as victims of a regional plot aiming at liquidating the resistance and handing over the region to Israel and the United States.
The two categories of channels employed many media strategies in their images, vocabularies and issues under discussion. In some moderate channels, Palestinian victims of the Israeli aggression in Gaza have not reached the status of martyrs, but they are those who were "killed in confrontations between Israel and Hamas". In addition, these channels have not descried the Israeli operations as war, but as the "Gaza dilemma". On the other hand, the second category of satellite channels focused on dramatic images of civilian victims and used a very emotional language that lacked information and was characterized by a clear incitement. This split has been reflected on the issues, as some people close to the Palestinian authority and representatives of the moderate forces blamed Hamas for the "Gaza dilemma" while some symbols belonging to Islamic trends or the Leftist or very close to the opposition countries have been talking about the "Arab collusion" with Israel in its war. However, split over assessing the Egyptian role is the main yardstick for the formulation of the Arab satellite channels' two points of view. Moderate satellite channels defended Egypt's adherence to closing crossings with the Gaza Strip in accordance with its international commitments and opening them only to humanitarian assistance and to treat the Palestinian wounded. Indeed, these channels forgot that the Egyptian official stance could protest against the Israeli war on Gaza using escalatory steps such as withdrawing the Egyptian Ambassador from Tel Aviv or informing the Israeli ambassador in Cairo that he was a persona non grata or coordinating quickly with other world capitals to practice pressure on Israel to immediately stop its military operations. Instead of directing a legitimate criticism to Egypt, the other category of satellites launched a bitter campaign against Egypt as if it is the country that attacks the Gaza Strip to the extent that some silly analysts accused Egypt of betraying the Arabs and giving up their rights. In fact, the two categories of satellite channels lost a great part of their professional credibility and showed that the politicization of the Arab visual media is not limited to government channels, but also extends to satellite channels.
