“The Shadow and the Mouse”: Representations of Yahya Sinwar in the Israeli media

Media, ideology, and the construction of reality

The foundational premise of this study is that media texts are not transparent windows onto the world but are, as Hall (1997) argued, sites where meaning is actively produced and contested. Media “representation” is a formative process that shapes our understanding of events, people, and social groups. In times of domestic conflict, media coverage tends to support national goals, acting as a source of “national integration” (Karniel and Lavie-Dinur, 2024). This process is inherently ideological. Ideology, in this context, refers not to a set of false beliefs but to the framework of concepts, images, and narratives through which a society makes sense of the world, and which typically reproduces the interests of dominant social groups (Althusser, 1971). Althusser’s concept of “Ideological State Apparatuses” is highly pertinent here; it explains how the media, even when privately owned, often functions in tandem with state security apparatuses during crises to foster a unified, hegemonic worldview.

During wartime, the ideological function of the media is particularly pronounced. As argued by Herman and Chomsky (1988) in their propaganda model, media outlets, even in democratic societies, often operate within a framework that aligns with the interests of the state, especially in matters of foreign policy and national security. Rather than acting as objective watchdogs, journalists often internalize national security priorities, sourcing their narratives heavily from military elites. The enemy is consistently framed in ways that justify the nation’s cause and delegitimize the opponent. This aligns with the PMP (Politics–Media–Politics) model, suggesting a cyclical interaction where politics influences media coverage, which in turn shapes political outcomes (Tani-Yildiz and Tam, 2026). This is achieved through various mechanisms of “framing” (Entman, 1993), where certain aspects of a story are selected and made more salient to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation, or solution. The framing of an enemy leader like Sinwar is therefore not an objective act but a strategic one, designed to mobilize public opinion and solidify a national narrative.

Contemporary literature on media and conflict emphasizes the specific mechanism of dehumanization within this framing process. As Haslam (2006) outlines, dehumanization involves denying an outgroup uniquely human attributes (civility, morality) or basic human nature (warmth, agency), effectively reducing them to animals or automatons. Steuter and Wills (2010) further demonstrate how modern “War on Terror” media discourse heavily relies on metaphors of vermin, disease, and eradication. These contemporary studies form a vital bridge between classic propaganda models and the specific, visceral representations observed in the Israeli media landscape.

The myth of the enemy: Barthes and modern mythologies

The original text astutely references Roland Barthes’ concept of myth, which is central to this study’s analysis. For Barthes (1998), myth is a type of speech, a second-order semiological system that takes a sign (like the image of a person) and turns it into a signifier for a new, broader concept. The original sign is emptied of its historical and political complexity, and refilled with a new, ideological meaning. Barthes demonstrates how semiotics can be applied to various aspects of life, thereby revealing the prevailing ideology of Western society.

In “Myth Today,” Barthes (1998) showed how myth is constructed and used to convey bourgeois norms and values. He also shows (Barthes,1977) how to analyze different kinds of contents: Images, Music and Text to detect symbols and myth. According to autonomous approaches to culture, communication is a process by which individuals represent social reality through symbolic work. These symbolic forms are reproduced and circulated into a broader community. Myth, then, is a form of communication that is publicly produced and circulated within a culture. Sivan (1991) further defined a basic myth as a dramatic story, real or fictitious, that describes and lends meaning to the initial stages of a given human collective. Myth, according to Drummond (1984: 27), is “primarily a metaphorical device for telling people about themselves, about other people, and about the complex world of natural and mechanical objects which they inhabit”. In a synthesis of semiotic and post-structural approaches to culture, myth is a message that reproduces dominant values through stories recognized by a specific culture (Nossek, 1994).

A previous study, which employed a similar theory and method by Mandelzis (2003), demonstrated how the image of Yasser Arafat, the arch-enemy of Israel, in the Israeli Press changed after the Oslo Accords to enhance the peace process yet still captured the basic negative stereotype. The media used stereotypes and myths to reinforce societal beliefs and justify political stances. Pre-Oslo, Arafat was demonized, often compared to historical enemies of the Jewish people. Post-Oslo, he was humanized and depicted as a partner for peace. The shift in representation was driven by political changes and the need to align public opinion with government policy.

This research’s theory and empirical methodology are partially based on the same literature and build upon it. Since there was no peace process with Hamas, the expectation is that the image of Sinwar would remain negative and monstrous.

This mythologizing serves a key purpose: it naturalizes a particular worldview. By presenting Sinwar as an embodiment of pure, ahistorical evil—a barbarian, a monster—the media narrative erases the political context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, such as the occupation, the blockade of Gaza, and previous rounds of violence. The conflict is reframed not as a political struggle between two national movements but as a timeless, epic battle between civilization and barbarism, good and evil. This is the power of myth: it presents a culturally constructed ideology as if it were a natural, universal truth. The media’s “obsession” with Sinwar, as noted in the initial text, is a symptom of this mythologizing process, as the myth must be constantly repeated and reinforced to maintain its power.

Defining the self through the “other”: Binary oppositions and orientalism

The construction of the enemy is inextricably linked to the construction of the self. The anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (1973) proposed that human thought fundamentally operates through “binary oppositions”—pairs of contrasting concepts like raw/cooked, nature/culture, and, most relevantly, us/them. This framework is not merely a linguistic tool; it performs critical ontological work. In times of crisis, the creation of a monstrous “other” is essential to preserve the psychological coherence of the “us.” By representing Sinwar and Hamas as barbaric, irrational, and fanatical, the media implicitly and explicitly constructs Israeli society as modern, rational, and civilized.

This process perfectly dovetails with what Edward Said (1978) termed “Orientalism.” Said argued that the West constructed a stereotypical image of the “Orient” (the Middle East) as exotic, despotic, and unchanging, which served to justify colonial domination. This Orientalist discourse casts the “Arab” as fundamentally different and inferior, driven by primal emotions and religious fanaticism rather than logic. Orientalism operationalizes Lévi-Strauss’s binary oppositions within a specific geopolitical power dynamic. By applying these dual theoretical lenses, we can see how the representations of Sinwar as a messianic zealot, a “butcher” acting on ancient hatreds, fit perfectly within this framework. This discourse depersonalizes Palestinians, reducing them to a monolithic, threatening mass and obscuring their legitimate political grievances and national aspirations (Bhabha, 1994).

The archetypal enemy: Jung and the projected shadow

Finally, to understand the deep psychological resonance of these representations, Carl Jung’s (1981) concept of the “shadow” is invaluable. The shadow is an archetype from the collective unconscious that represents the repressed, unwanted, and dark aspects of our personality. Because we refuse to acknowledge these traits in ourselves, we tend to project them onto others, particularly onto our enemies. The enemy becomes a convenient screen upon which we project everything we fear and despise.

Sinwar, as the “Shadow,” became the container for Israel’s deepest anxieties. He represented the chaos that lurked just beyond the border fence, the violent potential that Israelis had tried to manage and contain, and the catastrophic failure of their intelligence and security. The intense hatred directed at him was not just a reaction to his actions; it was also, in a Jungian sense, a reaction to the terrifying reality he exposed about Israel’s vulnerability and perhaps its repressed capacity for violence. By externalizing this darkness and locating it entirely within the figure of Sinwar, Israeli society could reaffirm its sense of moral purity and coherence in a moment of terrifying disorientation. The “Shadow” is a universal archetype, making it a powerful tool for enemy construction that transcends cultural boundaries. However, it found a particularly fertile ground in the specific context of the “Iron Swords” war.

Data corpus and sampling

The corpus for this analysis consists of a purposive sample of media texts produced by major Israeli media outlets between October 7, 2023, and October 17, 2024 (the date of his announced assassination). A purposive sampling strategy was used to select prominent and influential representations that were widely circulated and likely to have a significant impact on public opinion, rather than attempting to catalog every single mention of Sinwar. Crucially, the selected texts were analyzed not merely as isolated illustrative examples, but as representative mechanisms (Fairclough, 1995)—synecdoches that encapsulate the broader discursive patterns dominating the national media landscape. The selected sources span different genres to provide a holistic view of the media landscape:

Analytical procedure and validity

The analysis was conducted in three stages. First, the collected texts were systematically reviewed to identify recurring patterns, tropes, metaphors, and visual motifs used to represent Sinwar. Second, these patterns were categorized into the dominant representational frames that emerged from the data: the Barbarian/Messianic, the Shadow, and the Mouse. Third, these frames were analyzed through the theoretical lenses outlined in the previous section to uncover their underlying ideological functions and social roles. The analysis paid close attention to both textual elements (adjectives, metaphors, narrative structures) and visual elements (photographs, video footage, graphic designs).

To ensure the validity and reliability of the qualitative analysis, several established methodological strategies were employed. First, data triangulation was achieved by cross-referencing findings across disparate media formats (print, broadcast news, and satire) to confirm that the identified archetypes were truly systemic rather than outlet-specific anomalies. Second, continuous peer debriefing was used throughout the coding process, in which preliminary interpretations were discussed with academic peers specializing in media and conflict to mitigate researcher bias. Finally, a clear audit trail was maintained, linking theoretical conclusions directly back to explicit textual and visual evidence within the primary sources, ensuring transparency in the interpretive process.

Analysis of key visual representations

Visuals are potent tools in mythmaking. The following are three exemplary images that were central to the construction of Sinwar’s public persona and serve as case studies for the analysis.

Case Study 1: The Official Portrait—The Messianic Barbarian

In Figure 1, Sinwar is typically depicted looking directly at the camera with a stern, unsmiling expression. He may be wearing simple clothing, sometimes with a Keffiyeh. The background is often neutral or nondescript, focusing all attention on his face. In some versions, he is seen holding or standing near a Quran.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

A widely circulated official Hamas or personal portrait of Yahya Sinwar.

From a semiotic perspective, this image was frequently utilized in the initial days and weeks of the war, often juxtaposed with the visceral imagery of the atrocities of October 7. The direct, unblinking gaze functions as a signifier of defiance, fanaticism, and unwavering resolve. The lack of emotion on his face is not framed by the Israeli media as stoic leadership, but rather reinterpreted as inhuman coldness—the face of a “monster.” When a Quran is included in the frame, it serves to reinforce the “messianic” or “jihadi” narrative, suggesting that religious zealotry, rather than tangible political goals, drives his actions.

This visual framing serves a distinct and powerful ideological function. It constructs Sinwar as the “Barbarian Zealot.” By emphasizing these traits, the representation effectively de-politicizes him, removing him from the realm of rational political negotiation or statecraft. The underlying message is that one cannot reason with a fanatic; one can only eliminate him. Consequently, this image assists in establishing the moral binary that is central to the war narrative: the rational, modern Israeli state versus the irrational, medieval religious fanatic. It primes the audience to view the conflict not as a territorial dispute, but as an existential clash of civilizations.

Case Study 2: The Tunnel CCTV footage—The Shadow and The Mouse

Figure 2 shows a figure identified as Sinwar, hunched over, leading what appears to be his wife and children through a dark, narrow concrete tunnel deep beneath Gaza. He is a fleeting, shadowy figure, visible for only a few seconds.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

A screenshot from grainy, black-and-white CCTV footage released by the IDF in February 2024.

The semiotic analysis of this footage reveals why it was presented by the IDF and media as a significant intelligence achievement. It offered a rare glimpse of the “devil” in his “lair.” The visual quality itself is significant: the grainy, low-resolution imagery enhances his mystique, positioning him as a phantom—a “Shadow”—who lives beneath the earth. His movement, characterized by a hurried scurry through the tunnels, was almost universally described in the media using language associated with vermin. He is not depicted as walking; he is “fleeing like a rat” or “scuttling like a mouse.” Furthermore, the presence of his family does not serve to humanize him in the Israeli media narrative; instead, it is framed as a cowardly act of using them as human shields, thereby reinforcing his moral depravity.

This single piece of footage crystallized two key archetypes essential to the war’s narrative. As the “Shadow,” the footage confirmed his elusiveness and the subterranean nature of the threat, thereby justifying the destructive and brutal military campaign required to penetrate the tunnels. Simultaneously, as the “Mouse,” it powerfully dehumanized him. This metaphor reduces him from a formidable enemy leader to an animal-pest, an object of disgust to be cornered and exterminated. This dual representation makes him both terrifyingly elusive and contemptibly weak, creating a potent combination for wartime propaganda.

Case Study 3: The satirical caricature—the diminished monster

Figure 3 shows a typical caricature of Sinwar from the satirical show Eretz Nehederet. The actor portraying him often has exaggerated facial features, speaks in a guttural, primitive-sounding manner, and is depicted in a ridiculous context—for instance, complaining about the Wi-Fi in his tunnel or being outsmarted by a simple trap. He is often shown with rodent-like features, such as prominent teeth or a twitching nose.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

A typical caricature of Sinwar from the satirical show Eretz Nehederet.

The semiotic function of satire here is to both demonize and belittle. By portraying Sinwar as a bumbling, idiotic villain, the caricature diminishes his perceived power and makes the terrifying threat he represents psychologically manageable for the audience. The humor provides a necessary release for national anxiety. However, at the same time, the animalistic and grotesque features reinforce his monstrous and inhuman nature. The combination of mockery and demonization is a classic tool for propaganda.

Ideologically, this representation serves a crucial role in maintaining public morale. It allows the audience to laugh in the face of their greatest fear, creating a sense of superiority and control in a situation where they often feel powerless. It reinforces the “us vs. them” binary by portraying the enemy as not only evil but also pathetic and stupid. This comedic frame complements the more serious news frames, creating a comprehensive and multi-layered myth of Sinwar that is both terrifying and mockable.

The Barbarian and the Messianic Zealot: Framing absolute evil

In the immediate aftermath of October 7, the primary representation of Sinwar was that of the ultimate barbarian. This frame was crucial for a nation struggling to comprehend the scale and brutality of the attack. Media language was saturated with terms that placed him outside the bonds of humanity. News commentators, military analysts, and politicians consistently referred to him as a “monster,” “a man with no God,” “the butcher of Khan Younis,” and “an animal in human form.” This language was not accidental; it was a deliberate act of moral categorization. By framing Sinwar as fundamentally inhuman, the media narrative precluded any possibility of understanding his motivations in political or historical terms (e.g., commentary by various analysts on Channel 12 News, October 10–15, 2023).

This “Barbarian” trope was frequently fused with that of the “Messianic Zealot.” Sinwar was often depicted as a religious fanatic driven by a nihilistic, apocalyptic ideology. News reports emphasized his deep involvement with the most radical wing of Hamas. They highlighted his writings from prison, which were interpreted as evidence of a deep-seated, irrational hatred of Jews. Pundits on Channel 12 and Channel 13 often spoke of his “messianic complex,” suggesting he saw himself as a modern-day Saladin destined to destroy Israel. For example, a prominent military analyst on Kan 11 stated, “You have to understand, Sinwar is not a politician. He is a ‘shahid’ [martyr] in waiting. He does not think in terms of ceasefires or two-state solutions; he thinks in terms of holy war” (Kan 11, Evening News, November 2, 2023).

This dual frame of barbarian/zealot served a vital ideological purpose. It constructed the conflict as a Manichaean struggle between the forces of light (modern, democratic Israel) and darkness (primitive, jihadist Hamas). This narrative, as explained by Orientalist theory, denies the enemy any political agency or legitimate grievance, reducing the conflict to a simple matter of eradicating an existential evil.

“The Shadow”: The elusive, omnipresent threat

As the war progressed and the ground invasion of Gaza began, a second representation came to the fore: Sinwar as “the Shadow.” With Sinwar having disappeared from public view, the hunt for him became a central narrative of the war. The media became obsessed with his location, turning the vast, unknown network of tunnels beneath Gaza into his mythological domain. He was “the ghost in the machine,” “the man in the tunnels,” “the Shadow leader.”

This representation tapped into deep-seated, universal fears of the unknown. The tunnels were consistently described as a “shadow world” or “the metro of terror,” and Sinwar was its master. News reports were filled with speculative maps and 3D graphics illustrating the supposed complexity of the tunnels, all of which reinforced the image of an unseen enemy lurking just beneath the surface. The IDF spokesperson’s daily briefings often included updates on the “closing in” on Sinwar, a narrative that built suspense and framed the war as a personal manhunt. An editorial in Yedioth Ahronoth captured this sentiment: “We are not just fighting an army; we are fighting a Shadow. Moreover, that Shadow has a name: Yahya Sinwar. Until we drag him from his subterranean kingdom into the light, this war cannot be won” (Yedioth Ahronoth, January 12, 2024).

Psychologically, this representation transformed Sinwar into the embodiment of Israel’s collective anxiety. He was the unseen threat, the source of the nation’s trauma, who could be anywhere and everywhere. As the Jungian shadow archetype suggests, he became the projection of all that was feared and repressed: vulnerability, the failure of intelligence, and the terrifying reality of a clever and determined enemy. His eventual capture or death was thus framed not just as a military objective but as a national exorcism—the only way to banish the Shadow he cast over the country.

“The Mouse”: Dehumanization and extermination

The third and perhaps most potent representation was that of Sinwar as a “mouse” or “rat.” This metaphor became ubiquitous following the release of the tunnel CC TV footage, but had been present in discourse even before. This trope functions on a visceral, biological level. Mice and rats are almost universally regarded as vermin—unclean, disease-carrying pests that infest homes and must be exterminated.

The “mouse” metaphor was deployed relentlessly. Politicians promised to “smoke the rat out of his hole.” Newspaper headlines read, “The Mouse in the Labyrinth.” Satirical sketches on Eretz Nehederet depicted him with a twitching nose and an obsession with cheese (Eretz Nehederet, February 20, 2024). This dehumanizing language was not subtle; it was a blunt instrument of propaganda. It strips the subject of all human qualities—dignity, intelligence, and even the right to life. A mouse is not a political opponent to be defeated; it is a pest to be trapped and killed without moral compunction. A columnist for Israel Hayom wrote, “Chasing Sinwar is not a negotiation with a leader. It is pest control. You do not reason with a rat infestation; you eradicate it” (Israel Hayom, March 5, 2024).

This representation provided a powerful moral justification for the immense destruction wrought upon Gaza during the hunt for him. If Gaza’s tunnels were merely a “rat’s nest” and Sinwar its “chief rat,” then turning vast areas into rubble was not an act of war against a civilian population but a necessary act of fumigation. The “mouse” trope completed the process of mythologization by reducing the architect of Israel’s most significant trauma to a loathsome and contemptible creature, whose violent end was not only desired but morally required.

Nuances across media genres and outlets

While the construction of these archetypes formed a powerful hegemonic narrative, it is vital to acknowledge that the Israeli media landscape is not monolithic. A careful reading reveals nuanced differences across various outlets and genres regarding how explicitly these myths were propagated. Right-wing platforms, such as Channel 14, utilized overt, unfiltered dehumanization, openly embracing the vermin metaphors without reservation to advocate for total warfare. Conversely, mainstream commercial channels like Channel 12 and Kan 11 embedded these same dehumanizing tropes within a veneer of professional, objective security analysis, making the mythologization more insidious. The left-leaning newspaper Haaretz represented a partial divergence; while it occasionally offered marginalized counter-narratives criticizing the government’s strategic failures, its reporting on Sinwar still frequently relied on the “monster” and “shadow” archetypes (see Table 1). This demonstrates that, while political opinions on the war’s management varied, the core mythological representation of the enemy remained a deeply entrenched national consensus. Finally, satirical platforms like Eretz Nehederet functioned uniquely. They utilized the “Mouse” trope not for somber threat-assessment, but as a psychological pressure-release valve, providing a traumatized public with the agency to mock the source of their terror.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Schematic overview of Sinwar archetypes and discursive tropes.

Archetype	Theoretical lens	Key descriptive tropes	Psychological function
The Barbarian	Orientalism/Barthesian myth	“Monster,” “Animal,” “Saladin complex,” “No God”	Moral binary construction; Depoliticization of the enemy
The Shadow	Jungian psychology	“Ghost,” “Subterranean kingdom,” “Unseen leader”	Management of collective anxiety; Externalization of trauma
The Mouse	Dehumanization theory	“Rat,” “Vermin,” “Pest control,” “Scurrying”	Moral justification for destruction; Moral license for mass violence

Contribution to existing literature and theoretical implications

This study advances the existing literature on media and conflict by demonstrating the specific mechanics of mythmaking during a “rupture” event. By deconstructing the representations of Sinwar, this research responds to the call for a new, rigorous academic engagement with the post-October 7 landscape (Saposnik, 2024), providing a case study of how symbolic construction fills the void left by the collapse of standard political discourse. While previous scholars like Nossek (1994) and Mandelzis (2003) have established that Israeli media tends to rally around the flag and use historical narratives like the Holocaust to frame current conflicts, this study illustrates a significant evolution in this dynamic. In the context of the Iron Swords war, the media did not merely frame the enemy politically or militarily; it engaged in a regression to pre-modern, archetypal mythmaking (Barthes, 1998) to process a trauma that exceeded the capacity of standard political discourse.

Furthermore, this research contributes to the understanding of “the Shadow” not just as a psychoanalytic concept but as a media product. By identifying the specific textual and visual strategies used to construct Sinwar as the Shadow and the Mouse, the study bridges the gap between Jungian psychology and critical media studies. It shows how the media effectively “weaponizes” the collective unconscious, turning internal psychological needs (for safety, for clarity) into external political consent for warfare. This extends Hall’s (1997) theories of representation by showing that, in times of existential crisis, representation moves beyond stereotyping into the realm of total mythologization, where the enemy is stripped of all human and political context to become a vessel for the nation’s projected fears. Finally, by highlighting the “Mouse” trope, the study offers a critical contribution to the literature on the cyclical nature of dehumanization rhetoric, showing how historical traumas can lead to the unwitting adoption of the oppressor’s language by the victimized group, a finding that adds a disturbing nuance to postcolonial and trauma studies in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

The media’s representations of Sinwar did not challenge the dominant Israeli mindset; they consecrated it. There was a notable absence of counter-narratives in the mainstream media. Alternative frames—such as portraying Sinwar as a product of decades of occupation and blockade, or as a political actor with rational (if brutal) strategic aims—were primarily confined to the margins of discourse, such as in the newspaper Haaretz or academic circles. As Alpher (2024) argues, this was a systemic feature, particularly on outlets like Channel 14, which he labels a “propaganda tool” where the dehumanization extends to all Gazans, who are presented as having “no innocent people.” The mainstream media, in its relentless focus on the mythic archetypes, provided a narrative that was emotionally satisfying and politically expedient. It gave the public a villain worthy of their hatred and a story that made the war feel necessary, just, and winnable, thereby reinforcing the government’s narrative and cementing a broad national consensus for the war as revenge and insurance against repetition of the vicious attack on Israel on the 7th October 2023.

Limitations and future research

This study is limited by its focus on Israeli mainstream media. A more comprehensive understanding would require a comparative analysis with Palestinian and international media representations of Sinwar. Furthermore, this is a study of media production; future research should focus on reception, examining how these representations were interpreted and understood by different segments of the Israeli public.