The biggest problem with foreign media coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict is that the conflict is analyzed and framed not within a cooperative model but within a competitive model. Due to mechanical neutrality and a tendency towards binary debates, foreign media coverage avoids responsibility by allowing the conflict and tension to persist on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides, each justifying their violence against the other as legitimate and necessary for maintaining security, reaching a point where violence becomes equated with safeguarding national security. Ultimately, foreign media coverage has failed to dismantle the entrenched discourse of mutual threat posed by nation-building efforts on both sides of Israel and Palestine. Similarly, our domestic media coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict inherits the same problem by uncritically accepting the aforementioned foreign media narratives. Consequently, the mechanical neutrality apparent in the coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict has not only failed to summon discussions on the core issues necessary for resolving the conflict but has also led to media coverage becoming ensnared within the frame of securitization logic produced by Israel. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the behavior of international media coverage surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict and examines the domestic coverage of the conflict in light of its influence.