arXiv:2608.21385v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Social media has become a central arena in which armed conflicts are contested, yet the pro-Israel and pro-Palestine communities on Telegram, whose broadcast architecture yields an unusually direct record of deliberate political communication, have not been systematically compared at scale. This study presents a multi-method computational analysis of 87,617 messages from sixteen Telegram channels, eight pro-Israel and eight pro-Palestine, spanning May 2021 to June 2026 and covering multiple conflict escalations. It combines sentiment analysis, three stance detection methods drawn from distinct paradigms (keyword matching, zero-shot DeBERTa via natural language inference, and a fine-tuned BERTweet model), and a framing analysis, all evaluated against 736 manually annotated messages. The fine-tuned model performed best (72.1% accuracy, 0.721 macro F1 under 5-fold cross-validation), outperforming both label-free baselines by 8 to 11 points; the baselines stalled in the low-to-mid 60s, indicating a hard ceiling for stance detection not adapted to in-domain language. The central finding emerges only when sentiment, stance, and framing are read together: the two communities deploy the same death- and victim-related vocabulary in opposite emotional registers, pro-Israel channels predominantly neutral and report-style, pro-Palestine channels markedly more negative, consistent with writing from the distinct discourse positions of acting party and affected party.
Abstract: Social media has become a central arena in which armed conflicts are contested, yet the pro-Israel and pro-Palestine communities on Telegram, whose broadcast architecture yields an unusually direct record of deliberate political communication, have not been systematically compared at scale. This study presents a multi-method computational analysis of 87,617 messages from sixteen Telegram channels, eight pro-Israel and eight pro-Palestine, spanning May 2021 to June 2026 and covering multiple conflict escalations. It combines sentiment analysis, three stance detection methods drawn from distinct paradigms (keyword matching, zero-shot DeBERTa via natural language inference, and a fine-tuned BERTweet model), and a framing analysis, all evaluated against 736 manually annotated messages. The fine-tuned model performed best (72.1% accuracy, 0.721 macro F1 under 5-fold cross-validation), outperforming both label-free baselines by 8 to 11 points; the baselines stalled in the low-to-mid 60s, indicating a hard ceiling for stance detection not adapted to in-domain language. The central finding emerges only when sentiment, stance, and framing are read together: the two communities deploy the same death- and victim-related vocabulary in opposite emotional registers, pro-Israel channels predominantly neutral and report-style, pro-Palestine channels markedly more negative, consistent with writing from the distinct discourse positions of acting party and affected party.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: