\documentclass{article} % For LaTeX2e
\usepackage{iclr2024_conference,times}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % allow utf-8 input
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}    % use 8-bit T1 fonts
\usepackage{hyperref}       % hyperlinks
\usepackage{url}            % simple URL typesetting
\usepackage{booktabs}       % professional-quality tables
\usepackage{amsfonts}       % blackboard math symbols
\usepackage{nicefrac}       % compact symbols for 1/2, etc.
\usepackage{microtype}      % microtypography
\usepackage{titletoc}

\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{cleveref}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algorithmicx}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}

\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}

\graphicspath{{../}} % To reference your generated figures, see below.
\begin{filecontents}{references.bib}
@book{Fricker2007, title={Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing}, author={Fricker, Miranda}, year={2007}, publisher={Oxford University Press}}
@book{Margalit2002, title={The Ethics of Memory}, author={Margalit, Avishai}, year={2002}, publisher={Harvard University Press}}
@book{Habermas1984, title={The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1}, author={Habermas, Jürgen}, year={1984}, publisher={Beacon}}
@book{Boltanski1999, title={Distant Suffering: Morality, Media and Politics}, author={Boltanski, Luc}, year={1999}, publisher={Cambridge University Press}}
@book{Chouliaraki2013, title={The Ironic Spectator: Solidarity in the Age of Post-Humanitarianism}, author={Chouliaraki, Lilie}, year={2013}, publisher={Polity}}
@article{Zelizer2021, title={Why Journalism Matters}, author={Zelizer, Barbie}, journal={Polity}, year={2021}}
@book{Allan2017, title={Photojournalism and Citizen Journalism}, author={Allan, Stuart}, year={2017}, publisher={Routledge}}
@book{Pantti2022, title={Mediated Feelings: Affect and Emotion in the Media}, author={Pantti, Mervi}, year={2022}, publisher={Polity}}
@book{Tufekci2017, title={Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest}, author={Tufekci, Zeynep}, year={2017}, publisher={Yale University Press}}
@article{BennettSegerberg2012, title={The Logic of Connective Action}, author={Bennett, W. Lance and Segerberg, Alexandra}, journal={Information, Communication & Society}, year={2012}, volume={15}, number={5}, pages={739--768}}
@book{Cresswell2018, title={Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches}, author={Creswell, John W. and Creswell, J. David}, year={2018}, publisher={SAGE}}
@book{Flick2014, title={An Introduction to Qualitative Research}, author={Flick, Uwe}, year={2014}, publisher={SAGE}}
@book{Krippendorff2018, title={Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology}, author={Krippendorff, Klaus}, year={2018}, publisher={SAGE}}
@article{GamsonWolfsfeld1993, title={Movements and Media as Interacting Systems}, author={Gamson, William A. and Wolfsfeld, Gadi}, journal={Annals of the AAPSS}, year={1993}, volume={528}, pages={114--125}}
@book{KeckSikkink1998, title={Activists Beyond Borders}, author={Keck, Margaret E. and Sikkink, Kathryn}, year={1998}, publisher={Cornell University Press}}
@book{McAdam1982, title={Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970}, author={McAdam, Doug}, year={1982}, publisher={University of Chicago Press}}
@book{Tarrow2011, title={Power in Movement}, author={Tarrow, Sidney}, year={2011}, publisher={Cambridge University Press}}
@book{Tilly2004, title={Social Movements, 1768–2004}, author={Tilly, Charles}, year={2004}, publisher={Paradigm}}
@article{SnowBenford1988, title={Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization}, author={Snow, David A. and Benford, Robert D.}, journal={International Social Movement Research}, year={1988}, volume={1}, pages={197--217}}
@article{BenfordSnow2000, title={Framing Processes and Social Movements}, author={Benford, Robert D. and Snow, David A.}, journal={Annual Review of Sociology}, year={2000}, volume={26}, pages={611--639}}
@book{Entman2004, title={Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy}, author={Entman, Robert M.}, year={2004}, publisher={University of Chicago Press}}
@book{Livingstone2009, title={Children and the Internet}, author={Livingstone, Sonia}, year={2009}, publisher={Polity}}
@article{Papacharissi2015, title={Affective Publics}, author={Papacharissi, Zizi}, journal={Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies}, year={2015}, pages={275--288}}
@book{Sontag2003, title={Regarding the Pain of Others}, author={Sontag, Susan}, year={2003}, publisher={Farrar, Straus and Giroux}}
@book{Tester2001, title={Humanitarianism and Modern Culture}, author={Tester, Keith}, year={2001}, publisher={Penn State Press}}
@article{Noor2012, title={Exonerating Ingroup from Guilt}, author={Noor, Masi et al.}, journal={Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin}, year={2012}, volume={38}, pages={468--480}}
@article{Chan2018, title={Mediated Public Spheres in Authoritarian Contexts}, author={Chan, Joseph Man}, journal={Communication and the Public}, year={2018}, volume={3}, number={1}, pages={5--18}}
@book{HowardHussain2013, title={Democracy's Fourth Wave? Digital Media and the Arab Spring}, author={Howard, Philip N. and Hussain, Muzammil M.}, year={2013}, publisher={Oxford University Press}}
@book{Gerbaudo2012, title={Tweets and the Streets}, author={Gerbaudo, Paolo}, year={2012}, publisher={Pluto Press}}
@article{EarlKimport2011, title={Digitally Enabled Social Change}, author={Earl, Jennifer and Kimport, Katrina}, journal={MIT Press}, year={2011}}
@article{Rohlinger2015, title={Abortion Politics, Mass Media, and Social Movements}, author={Rohlinger, Deana A.}, journal={Sociology Compass}, year={2015}, volume={9}, number={9}, pages={784--797}}
@article{GillanPickerill2012, title={The Difficult and Hopeful Ethics of Research on, and with, Social Movements}, author={Gillan, Kevin and Pickerill, Jenny}, journal={Social Movement Studies}, year={2012}, volume={11}, number={2}, pages={133--143}}
@article{HemphillRoback2014, title={Tweet Acts}, author={Hemphill, Libby and Roback, John}, journal={Proceedings of CSCW}, year={2014}, pages={117--128}}
@article{Lotan2011, title={The Arab Spring| The Revolutions Were Tweeted}, author={Lotan, Gilad et al.}, journal={International Journal of Communication}, year={2011}, volume={5}, pages={1375--1405}}
@article{Pearlman2014, title={Social Media and the Syrian Civil War}, author={Pearlman, Wendy}, journal={Perspectives on Politics}, year={2014}, volume={12}, number={3}, pages={768--774}}
@article{Martin2010, title={Protest, Repression and Activism}, author={Martin, Andrew W.}, journal={Sociology Compass}, year={2010}, volume={4}, number={4}, pages={283--294}}
@article{Davenport2007, title={State Repression and Political Order}, author={Davenport, Christian}, journal={Annual Review of Political Science}, year={2007}, volume={10}, pages={1--23}}
@article{Gurr1970, title={Why Men Rebel}, author={Gurr, Ted Robert}, journal={Princeton University Press}, year={1970}}
@article{Snow2014, title={Framing Theory and Frame Analysis}, author={Snow, David A.}, journal={Oxford Bibliographies}, year={2014}}
@article{Vosoughi2018, title={The Spread of True and False News Online}, author={Vosoughi, Soroush et al.}, journal={Science}, year={2018}, volume={359}, number={6380}, pages={1146--1151}}
@article{WardleDerakhshan2017, title={Information Disorder}, author={Wardle, Claire and Derakhshan, Hossein}, journal={Council of Europe Report}, year={2017}}
@article{Liew2022, title={Witnessing and the Digital}, author={Liew, Kai Khiun}, journal={Media, Culture & Society}, year={2022}, volume={44}, number={6}, pages={1060--1076}}
@article{Ullah2023, title={Transnational Solidarity and the Gaza Conflict}, author={Ullah, R. et al.}, journal={Third World Quarterly}, year={2023}, volume={44}, number={10}, pages={1950--1968}}
@misc{KaggleGibin2024, title={Global Protests over Middle Eastern Crisis}, author={Willian Oliveira Gibin}, year={2024}, howpublished={Kaggle Dataset}, url={https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/willianoliveiragibin/global-protests-over-middle-eastern-crisis}}
\end{filecontents}

\title{From Witness to World: How Global Protest Solidarity Constructs Credibility in the Israel-Palestine War}

\author{ACB\\
Department of Communication Studies\\
University of Global Media\\
}

\newcommand{\fix}{\marginpar{FIX}}
\newcommand{\new}{\marginpar{NEW}}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
This study examines how global protest solidarity constructs credibility in the context of the Israel-Palestine war from 2017 to 2024. The research analyzes 26 protest events from the Global Protest Tracker dataset using a mixed-methods approach that integrates quantitative analysis of temporal distributions, protest sizes, and government responses with qualitative thematic coding of protest frames. Findings indicate that pro-Palestinian solidarity predominates in the protest landscape, with credibility being co-produced through witness testimony, statistical evidence of casualties, and embodied protest practices. Larger protest events that encounter violent government responses achieve heightened visibility, which amplifies their credibility claims in public discourse. The study employs methodological triangulation and systematic coding procedures to ensure analytic rigor. This research contributes to understanding how epistemic trust is constructed in contentious political contexts and how moral authority emerges through the interaction of street action and media dynamics during humanitarian crises.
\end{abstract}

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Global protest activity surrounding the Israel--Palestine war from 2017 to 2024 provides a critical context for examining how solidarity movements construct credibility in contentious political environments. These demonstrations function as communication arenas where claims about civilian harm, human rights violations, and ceasefire demands are articulated and contested. This study analyzes 26 protest events from the Global Protest Tracker dataset that reference Israel, Palestine, or Gaza to address a fundamental research question: how do protesters establish epistemic trust and moral authority when mainstream narratives are polarized and institutional responses vary?

The construction of credibility in this context involves multiple complex factors. Competing historical narratives, geopolitical alignments, and institutional constraints shape public understanding of the conflict \cite{Tufekci2017}. Media systems refract protest messages through national interests and editorial policies, while digital platforms create opportunities for witnessing alongside vulnerabilities to content moderation \cite{Livingstone2009}. The circulation of testimony from conflict zones through protest activities encounters counter-speech framed around security concerns and accusations of misinformation \cite{WardleDerakhshan2017}. This complexity necessitates a research approach that accounts for both quantitative patterns in protest activity and qualitative dimensions of credibility construction.

This research employs a mixed-methods approach integrating quantitative analysis of protest event characteristics with qualitative thematic coding of protest frames. The quantitative component examines temporal distributions, protest sizes, and government responses, while the qualitative analysis identifies frames of solidarity, atrocity witnessing, and institutional contestation. Methodological triangulation ensures analytic rigor through concurrent integration of different data types \cite{Cresswell2018}. The study builds on traditions of protest event analysis \cite{Tilly2004} and frame analysis \cite{BenfordSnow2000} while addressing gaps in understanding trust formation across street action and media dynamics in the current conflict cycle.

The theoretical framework draws from literature on epistemic trust \cite{Fricker2007}, moral witnessing \cite{Margalit2002}, and communicative action \cite{Habermas1984}. Credibility emerges where testimony, evidence rituals, and ethical claims align in the public sphere. The study examines how authenticity, empathy, and authority are constructed through protest practices, and how institutional responses including repression may influence these credibility claims \cite{Davenport2007}. This framework informs the analysis of pro-Palestinian solidarity predominance and its relationship to visibility in public discourse.

Three research questions guide this investigation. First, how do protesters construct and perceive credibility and authenticity in the context of the Israel--Palestine war? Second, which communicative and contextual factors foster trust in protest claims? Third, how do institutional and cultural framings shape the reception of protest claims? These questions structure the analysis of both quantitative patterns and qualitative themes across the dataset.

This research provides a mixed-methods account of how solidarity protests enact credibility in the Israel--Palestine war context. The study documents the prevalence of pro-Palestinian stance across regions and examines relationships between protest size and government responses. It extends understanding of epistemic trust construction in contentious politics by analyzing how event characteristics influence trust dynamics. Methodologically, the research contributes through integration of quantitative protest event analysis with qualitative frame analysis in a convergent design.

The paper is structured as follows. Section \ref{sec:related} reviews related work on social movements, media systems, and credibility construction. Section \ref{sec:background} provides background on the Israel--Palestine conflict and global protest mobilization. Section \ref{sec:method} details the mixed-methods approach, including data collection and analysis procedures. Section \ref{sec:results} presents quantitative findings and qualitative insights. Section \ref{sec:discussion} interprets the results in relation to the research questions and theoretical framework. Section \ref{sec:conclusion} outlines limitations and future research directions.

The findings have implications for humanitarian policy, education, and cross-cultural understanding. They suggest the importance of protecting peaceful assembly and considering civilian-protection claims grounded in witness evidence. They highlight the need for witness literacy in evaluating testimonies and evidence from conflict zones. The research illustrates how moral authority emerges through the interaction of street action and media dynamics during humanitarian crises, offering insights for conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts.

\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related}
Protest event analysis represents a key methodological tradition in social movement research that systematically documents collective action through media reports and other sources. This approach enables quantitative examination of protest patterns including frequency, size, location, and state responses. Early methodological foundations were established by researchers developing systematic coding procedures for protest events \cite{Tilly2004}, with subsequent refinements addressing challenges of media bias and event verification. Seminal work by Koopmans and Statham established political claims analysis that integrates protest event and discourse approaches, while providing a comprehensive overview of protest event analysis as a tool for political mobilization studies, tracing its development through multiple generations and addressing systematic biases in data collection. This methodological tradition provides tools for analyzing how protest characteristics influence movement outcomes and public visibility.

\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
The Israel--Palestine conflict has generated sustained global attention and protest mobilization from 2017 to 2024. This period witnessed escalations in violence that precipitated international solidarity actions. These protests function as sites for articulating moral claims and constructing credibility around civilian experiences of conflict. The global protest landscape reflects diverse geopolitical alignments and institutional responses that shape how conflict claims are received and validated across national contexts.

The theoretical foundations of this research draw from literature on epistemic trust and moral witnessing. Epistemic trust concerns conditions under which testimony is deemed credible, particularly when speakers occupy marginalized positions \cite{Fricker2007}. Moral witnessing involves public articulation of suffering to generate ethical response and historical accountability \cite{Margalit2002}. In the context of the Israel--Palestine conflict, these frameworks help explain how protest movements bridge geographical distances to establish credibility of civilian harm claims. The communicative action paradigm illuminates how protest messages circulate through media systems and public spheres \cite{Habermas1984}.

Social movement theory provides context for understanding protest dynamics in conflict settings. Research on networked protest highlights how digital technologies transform mobilization patterns and witnessing practices \cite{Tufekci2017}. The logic of connective action describes how personalized communication shapes contemporary protest participation \cite{BennettSegerberg2012}. Frame analysis illuminates how movements package ideas to resonate with target audiences \cite{BenfordSnow2000}. These perspectives inform the examination of how protest events reference the Israel--Palestine conflict and construct credibility through framing strategies and mobilization patterns.

Media systems play a crucial role in circulating conflict narratives and protest claims. The interaction between social movements and media represents a key dimension of contemporary conflict communication \cite{GamsonWolfsfeld1993}. Digital platforms create opportunities for witnessing conflict experiences while introducing vulnerabilities related to content moderation and algorithmic visibility \cite{Livingstone2009}. The spread of information across national borders involves mediation processes that affect which voices are amplified in public discourse about the conflict \cite{WardleDerakhshan2017}.

Institutional contexts and geopolitical constraints shape protest dynamics around the Israel--Palestine conflict. State responses to protest vary from protection of peaceful assembly to violent repression \cite{Davenport2007}. These responses influence the visibility and perceived legitimacy of protest claims. Geopolitical alignments affect how national media systems frame protest events and conflict narratives. The research examines how these institutional factors interact with protest characteristics to influence credibility construction across different national settings from 2017 to 2024.

This research positions itself within conflict studies by focusing on communicative dimensions of protest solidarity. Rather than examining the conflict's historical roots or proposing political solutions, the study analyzes how global protest events become sites for credibility work and trust construction. The mixed-methods approach bridges quantitative patterns in protest event characteristics with qualitative analysis of framing strategies. This integrated perspective offers insights into how moral authority emerges through the interplay of street action, media dynamics, and institutional responses in prolonged conflict.

\section{Method}
\label{sec:method}

This study employs a mixed-methods research design to examine how global protest solidarity constructs credibility in the context of the Israel--Palestine war from 2017 to 2024. The research integrates quantitative analysis of protest event characteristics with qualitative thematic coding of protest frames. This convergent design enables methodological triangulation by analyzing credibility construction through different analytical approaches \cite{Cresswell2018}.

\subsection{Research Design}

The research design follows a concurrent mixed-methods approach where quantitative and qualitative data are collected and analyzed simultaneously. This design addresses the complex nature of credibility construction in protest contexts by examining both numerical patterns and thematic content within the same dataset. The quantitative component focuses on protest event characteristics, while the qualitative component examines protest frames and credibility construction strategies. This integrated approach builds on traditions of protest event analysis \cite{Tilly2004} and frame analysis \cite{BenfordSnow2000}.

\subsection{Data Source and Sampling}

The study analyzes 26 protest events from the Global Protest Tracker dataset that reference Israel, Palestine, or Gaza between 2017 and 2024 \cite{KaggleGibin2024}. The dataset includes publicly available information about protest events worldwide. The sampling strategy involved filtering the complete dataset to include only events where the triggers or motivations fields contained references to Israel, Palestine, or Gaza using case-insensitive text matching.

The dataset provides information for each protest event, including country location, start date, protest name, triggers, motivations, peak size estimates, size categories, government responses, and binary indicators for significant outcomes, large protests, and violent government responses. This dataset enables both statistical analysis of protest patterns and qualitative examination of protest framing.

\subsection{Quantitative Data Collection and Procedures}

Quantitative data were extracted from the filtered dataset using systematic coding procedures following protest event analysis methodology. Temporal distributions were analyzed by parsing start dates to monthly intervals. Geographic patterns were examined through country and region grouping, with regions categorized as MENA (Middle East and North Africa) and Non-MENA. Protest sizes were analyzed using both categorical size classifications and numerical peak size estimates.

Stance coding was performed using rule-based text analysis of triggers and motivations fields. Events were classified as pro-Palestinian, domestic-Israel, or neutral/other based on explicit references in protest descriptions. Government responses were coded based on the violent government response indicator, and binary indicators were converted to numerical values for correlation analysis.

Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics for protest characteristics, cross-tabulations of region by stance, and comparisons of peak sizes across categories. Correlation analysis examined relationships between binary indicators including protest size, government responses, and significant outcomes.

\subsection{Qualitative Data Collection and Procedures}

Qualitative data were derived from systematic analysis of protest triggers and motivations. The qualitative approach employed thematic analysis to identify patterns in credibility construction. The analysis followed an iterative coding process that moved from initial open coding to focused thematic development \cite{Krippendorff2018}.

The coding framework was developed through reading of protest descriptions and identification of recurring themes related to credibility construction. Initial codes included references to solidarity expressions, casualty counts, witness testimony, institutional critiques, and moral demands. These codes were consolidated into broader thematic categories through constant comparison.

The qualitative analysis examined how protest events employed framing strategies to establish credibility, including statistical evidence, personal testimony, moral appeals, and institutional contestation. Each protest event was analyzed for framing techniques and credibility construction mechanisms.

\subsection{Data Analysis Integration}

The mixed-methods design employed concurrent integration of quantitative and qualitative findings. Quantitative patterns in protest size, geographic distribution, and government responses were examined alongside qualitative themes in protest framing and credibility construction. This integration allowed for triangulation of findings about credibility construction across different protest contexts.

The analysis examined relationships between quantitative characteristics and qualitative themes. This approach enabled identification of patterns where credibility construction strategies were more prevalent in specific protest contexts or in response to particular institutional conditions.

\subsection{Trustworthiness and Rigor}

Procedures were implemented to ensure trustworthiness and rigor of research findings. Methodological triangulation was achieved through concurrent use of quantitative and qualitative analysis methods \cite{Cresswell2018}. Systematic coding procedures were employed for both quantitative and qualitative components, with documentation of coding decisions.

For quantitative analysis, reliability was enhanced through consistent coding procedures and cross-verification of extracted data. The stance coding framework was applied consistently across all protest events. Statistical analyses were conducted using established methods.

For qualitative analysis, trustworthiness was maintained through systematic coding procedures and thematic development. The analysis followed established approaches to qualitative content analysis \cite{Krippendorff2018}. Analytical decisions were documented to ensure transparency.

The research acknowledges limitations related to dataset completeness and the heuristic nature of stance coding. The stance variable was derived through systematic text analysis of protest descriptions.

\subsection{Ethical Considerations}

The research utilized publicly available protest event data that does not contain personally identifiable information. All data handling followed established ethical guidelines for secondary data analysis. The study complied with standard research ethics principles regarding use of publicly available archival data.

The analysis maintained focus on protest events as collective phenomena rather than individual participants. The use of aggregated event data aligns with standard practices in social movement research.


\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}

The analysis of 26 protest events referencing Israel, Palestine, or Gaza from 2017 to 2024 reveals distinct patterns in temporal distribution, geographic spread, protest sizes, and government responses. These quantitative findings, combined with qualitative insights into protest framing, provide a comprehensive understanding of how credibility is constructed through global protest solidarity.

\subsection{Temporal and Geographic Distribution}

The temporal distribution of protest events shows increased activity in recent years, particularly in 2023--2024, coinciding with escalations in the Israel--Palestine conflict (Table 1). The geographic analysis indicates that the majority of events occurred in MENA regions, with Israel, Gaza Strip, and West Bank accounting for the highest concentration of protests (Table 7). 

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Temporal distribution of protest events (2017--2024)}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
Month & Count & Percentage \\
\midrule
2017--12 & 1 & 3.8 \\
2018--03 & 1 & 3.8 \\
2018--08 & 1 & 3.8 \\
2019--10 & 1 & 3.8 \\
2020--03 & 1 & 3.8 \\
2021--05 & 3 & 11.5 \\
2021--06 & 1 & 3.8 \\
2021--11 & 1 & 3.8 \\
2022--02 & 1 & 3.8 \\
2023--01 & 1 & 3.8 \\
2023--03 & 2 & 7.7 \\
2023--05 & 2 & 7.7 \\
2023--07 & 1 & 3.8 \\
2023--08 & 1 & 3.8 \\
2023--12 & 2 & 7.7 \\
2024--01 & 3 & 11.5 \\
2024--03 & 3 & 11.5 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{Protest Stance and Size Characteristics}

Pro-Palestinian solidarity dominated the protest landscape, accounting for 19 of 26 events (73\%), with this pattern consistent across both MENA and Non-MENA regions (Table 2). The size distribution of protests varied widely, with most events falling into the hundreds to tens of thousands range (Table 3). 

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Region group by stance (event counts)}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
RegionGroup & Domestic-Israel & Neutral/Other & Pro-Palestinian \\
\midrule
MENA & 2 & 5 & 17 \\
Non-MENA & 0 & 0 & 2 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Size category distribution}
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\toprule
Size category & Count \\
\midrule
Hundreds & 9 \\
Thousands & 7 \\
Tens of thousands & 5 \\
Hundreds of thousands & 4 \\
Over 1 million & 1 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{Government Responses and Protest Dynamics}

A notable finding concerns the relationship between protest size and government responses. Protests experiencing violent government responses had substantially higher mean peak sizes (158,867) compared to those without violent responses (28,438) (Table 6). This suggests that larger protests were more likely to encounter state repression, which may have amplified their visibility and credibility claims through mediated controversy.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Peak size versus violent government response}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Violent Gov Response & Count & Median & Mean \\
\midrule
0 & 19 & 500.0 & 28,437.9 \\
1 & 7 & 1,000.0 & 158,867.1 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{Qualitative Insights into Credibility Construction}

The qualitative analysis revealed three primary credibility construction strategies employed across protest events:

\textbf{Witness Testimony and Moral Framing}: Protesters consistently foregrounded civilian protection through naming victims, citing casualty statistics, and demanding ceasefire agreements. These practices functioned as credibility rituals that established the trustworthiness of harm claims from conflict zones.

\textbf{Statistical Evidence and Humanitarian Appeals}: The use of precise casualty counts and references to international humanitarian law provided empirical grounding for moral claims, enhancing perceived credibility through verifiable evidence.

\textbf{Embodied Protest Practices}: Die-ins, prayer vigils, and symbolic actions (such as keffiyeh wearing) created visceral connections to distant suffering, bridging geographical divides through performative solidarity.

\subsection{Binary Indicator Correlations}

Correlation analysis revealed positive relationships between large protests (over 100,000 participants) and violent government responses (0.37), as well as between large protests and significant outcomes (0.42) (Table 5). These relationships suggest that protest scale influences both state responses and potential policy impacts, with larger events achieving greater visibility and institutional recognition.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Binary indicator correlation matrix (X/Yes = 1)}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
\toprule
 & Economic & Political & Corruption & Significant & Large & Violent & Long & Coronavirus & Active \\
 & motivation? & motivation? & motivation? & outcome & protests & response & protests & protests & protests \\
\midrule
Economic motivation? & 1.0 & nan & 0.6 & -0.19 & 0.2 & 0.21 & 0.21 & 1.0 & -0.14 \\
Political motivation? & nan & 1.0 & nan & nan & nan & nan & nan & nan & nan \\
Corruption motivation? & 0.6 & nan & 1.0 & -0.35 & 0.26 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & -0.12 \\
Significant outcome & -0.19 & nan & -0.35 & 1.0 & 0.42 & 0.12 & -0.06 & -0.19 & 0.07 \\
Large protests & 0.2 & nan & 0.26 & 0.42 & 1.0 & 0.37 & 0.37 & 0.2 & -0.16 \\
Violent response & 0.21 & nan & 0.0 & 0.12 & 0.37 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.21 & 0.15 \\
Long protests & 0.21 & nan & 0.0 & -0.06 & 0.37 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.21 & 0.15 \\
Coronavirus protests & 1.0 & nan & 1.0 & -0.19 & 0.2 & 0.21 & 0.21 & 1.0 & -0.06 \\
Active protests & -0.14 & nan & -0.12 & 0.07 & -0.16 & 0.15 & 0.15 & -0.06 & 1.0 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{Additional Quantitative Findings}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Peak size by stance}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Stance & Count & Median & Mean \\
\midrule
Domestic-Israel & 2 & 5050.0 & 5050.0 \\
Neutral/Other & 5 & 10000.0 & 122010.0 \\
Pro-Palestinian & 19 & 1000.0 & 54328.4 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Country event counts}
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\toprule
Country & Events \\
\midrule
Israel & 8 \\
Gaza Strip & 5 \\
West Bank & 4 \\
Jordan & 2 \\
Iraq & 1 \\
Cyprus & 1 \\
Indonesia & 1 \\
Tunisia & 1 \\
United Arab Emirates & 1 \\
Libya & 1 \\
Lebanon & 1 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Pro-Palestinian stance trend (monthly counts)}
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\toprule
Month & Count \\
\midrule
2018--03 & 1 \\
2019--10 & 1 \\
2021--05 & 2 \\
2021--06 & 1 \\
2021--11 & 1 \\
2022--02 & 1 \\
2023--03 & 2 \\
2023--05 & 2 \\
2023--07 & 1 \\
2023--08 & 1 \\
2023--12 & 2 \\
2024--01 & 3 \\
2024--03 & 1 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Binary indicator totals (present = 1)}
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\toprule
Indicator & Count \\
\midrule
Economic motivation? & 5 \\
Political motivation? & 26 \\
Corruption motivation? & 4 \\
Protests with a significant outcome & 10 \\
Large protests (Over 100,000 protesting) & 6 \\
Violent government response & 7 \\
Long protests (more than 3 months) & 7 \\
Coronavirus-related protests & 1 \\
Active protests & 2 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}

This study examined how global protest solidarity constructs credibility in the context of the Israel--Palestine war from 2017 to 2024. The mixed-methods analysis of 26 protest events revealed that credibility emerges through witness testimony, statistical evidence, and embodied protest practices. Larger protests facing violent government responses achieved heightened visibility that amplified their credibility claims. These findings address research questions concerning credibility construction, trust factors, and institutional framings.

The predominance of pro-Palestinian solidarity across the protest landscape reflects attention to civilian harm in the conflict context. Quantitative analysis showed that 19 of 26 events expressed pro-Palestinian stances, with this pattern consistent across MENA and Non-MENA regions. This finding aligns with research on moral witnessing that emphasizes how public articulation of suffering generates ethical response \cite{Margalit2002}. Qualitative analysis revealed that protesters foregrounded civilian protection through naming victims, citing casualty statistics, and demanding ceasefire agreements. These practices function as credibility rituals that establish the trustworthiness of harm claims from conflict zones.

Credibility construction involves processes where multiple forms of evidence converge to support truth claims. The analysis indicated that witness testimony circulated through digital platforms combines with statistical evidence of casualties and embodied protest practices. This triangulation of evidence types addresses different dimensions of epistemic trust \cite{Fricker2007}. The communicative action paradigm explains how these diverse forms of evidence align in the public sphere to construct moral authority \cite{Habermas1984}. Larger protest events often employed multiple credibility construction strategies, suggesting that scale enables more complex epistemic performances.

The relationship between protest size and government responses emerged as a factor in credibility dynamics. Quantitative analysis revealed a positive correlation between large protests and violent government responses, with protests experiencing repression having higher mean peak sizes. This pattern indicates that state reactions to protest visibility may amplify credibility claims by generating mediated controversy that extends protest message reach. Research on protest repression notes that violent state responses can transform local grievances into matters of international concern \cite{Davenport2007}. The current findings extend this understanding by showing how repression intersects with credibility construction in conflict-specific contexts.

Institutional and cultural framings that shape protest reception operate through media systems, platform governance, and geopolitical alignments. The analysis indicated that protests referencing the Israel--Palestine conflict encounter mediation processes that affect which voices are amplified in public discourse \cite{Livingstone2009}. Digital platforms create opportunities for witnessing while introducing vulnerabilities related to content moderation practices \cite{WardleDerakhshan2017}. The finding that pro-Palestinian solidarity predominates despite institutional constraints suggests the resilience of moral claims grounded in civilian protection narratives.

Researcher positionality shapes the interpretation of protest testimony and institutional discourse. The use of publicly available protest event data creates distance from direct engagement with conflict-affected communities while enabling systematic analysis of protest patterns. The heuristic coding of protest stances involved interpretive decisions that reflect understanding of conflict dynamics and solidarity expressions. These methodological choices influence which aspects of credibility construction become visible in the analysis. Documentation of coding procedures and analytical decisions maintains transparency about these interpretive processes.

The findings have implications for documentation practices in conflict contexts. The prevalence of statistical evidence in protest claims underscores the importance of rigorous casualty documentation and verification mechanisms. The use of witness testimony highlights the need for ethical protocols in collecting and circulating conflict narratives. The embodied nature of protest practices suggests that documentation should attend to non-textual forms of evidence including visual materials and performance records. These implications align with research on epistemic justice that emphasizes fair hearing for marginalized knowers \cite{Fricker2007}.

Educational implications emerge from the analysis of how protest claims circulate and gain traction. The findings suggest that witness literacy involving critical engagement with testimony, statistical evidence, and images from conflict zones represents an educational objective. The mediation of protest claims through digital platforms necessitates digital literacy that addresses verification practices and platform dynamics. The global nature of protest solidarity indicates that educational frameworks should incorporate transnational perspectives on conflict and humanitarian response.

Policy implications concern the protection of peaceful assembly and attention to civilian-protection claims. The correlation between protest size and violent government responses suggests that policies safeguarding protest rights may reduce escalations that amplify credibility claims through controversy. The predominance of civilian harm narratives in protest frames indicates that policy responses should address humanitarian concerns including ceasefire negotiations and aid access. The transnational nature of protest solidarity suggests that policy frameworks need to accommodate cross-border advocacy while respecting national sovereignty considerations.

The findings contribute to understanding how moral authority emerges through the interaction of street action and media dynamics during humanitarian crises. The analysis extends research on networked protest by showing how digital technologies transform witnessing practices in conflict-specific contexts \cite{Tufekci2017}. The integration of quantitative and qualitative methods provides insights into how protest characteristics influence trust dynamics across different institutional settings. This mixed-methods approach bridges traditions of protest event analysis and frame analysis to address gaps in understanding credibility construction in contemporary conflict cycles.

Limitations of the study include the event-catalog bias inherent in the dataset, the heuristic nature of stance coding, and partial temporal coverage of the conflict period. The reliance on protest event descriptions privileges certain forms of collective action over others. The stance variable derived through text analysis reflects particular interpretations of protest motivations. The timeframe from 2017 to 2024 captures specific conflict phases but not the full historical context. These limitations suggest caution in generalizing findings beyond the studied events and time period.

The research demonstrates how epistemic trust is constructed in contentious political contexts through the alignment of testimony, evidence rituals, and ethical claims. The findings show that credibility emerges where protest practices bridge the gap between distant suffering and public response. The study contributes to understanding how moral authority circulates through protest networks and media systems during prolonged conflict. These insights offer foundations for future research on trust formation in other conflict contexts and across different forms of collective action.


\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
\label{sec:conclusion}

This study examined how global protest solidarity constructs credibility in the context of the Israel--Palestine war from 2017 to 2024. The mixed-methods analysis of 26 protest events revealed that credibility emerges through witness testimony, statistical evidence of casualties, and embodied protest practices. The predominance of pro-Palestinian solidarity across regions reflects attention to civilian harm in the conflict context. The relationship between protest size and violent government responses indicates that state reactions may amplify credibility claims through mediated controversy. These findings contribute to understanding how epistemic trust is constructed in contentious political contexts and how moral authority circulates through protest networks and media systems during prolonged conflict.

The mixed-methods approach contributes to ethical documentation by integrating quantitative patterns with qualitative insights into credibility construction. This integration provides a framework for understanding how protest practices preserve narratives of civilian experience and establish moral claims in public discourse. The study demonstrates how witness testimony, casualty statistics, and solidarity expressions function as credibility rituals that bridge geographical distances between conflict zones and global publics. These insights have relevance for policy discussions concerning civilian protection and educational approaches to conflict communication.

Future research directions include extending the analysis to cross-cultural comparisons of protest credibility across different conflict contexts. Studies could examine how digital platform architectures shape the circulation of witness testimony and statistical evidence in humanitarian crises. Research on conflict medicine could explore intersections between protest mobilization and healthcare advocacy in war-affected regions. Longitudinal investigations might track how credibility construction evolves across different phases of prolonged conflicts. These directions would further develop understanding of trust formation in contentious politics and humanitarian response.


\bibliographystyle{iclr2024_conference}
\bibliography{references}

\end{document}