Stereotypes

Confronted with the vast complexity of the world, ‘we do not first see, and then define, we define first and then see’, as Lippmann famously observed (Lippmann Reference Lippmann1922). Our perception, he argued, is shaped in advance by cultural templates, so that ‘we tend to perceive that which we have picked out in the form stereotyped for us by our culture’. He illustrated this with the case of a French statesman who, in assessing postwar Germany, did not see the Germans of 1919, but instead interpreted them through the lens of a stereotyped German he had internalized since the Franco-Prussian War. This example underscores Lippmann’s conception of stereotypes as durable cultural schemata often rooted in historical representations that shape perception in advance of experience. Following this introduction, a rich and diverse conceptual and empirical literature on stereotypes developed across academic disciplines.

In sociology, stereotypes have often been understood as socially constructed beliefs shaped by culture and power. Classic work by Adorno et al. (Reference Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson and Sanford1950) linked stereotyping to authoritarian thinking and underlying prejudice, showing how dominant groups use broad generalizations to justify the marginalization of others. Later scholars expanded this view by showing how stereotypes work as tools of ideology, reinforced through media narratives (Entman and Rojecki Reference Entman and Rojecki2000) and institutional structures (Sidanius and Pratto Reference Sidanius and Pratto1999; Glaeser Reference Glaeser2005). While this approach effectively explains harmful stereotypes that justify inequality (Steele Reference Steele2010), it has been criticized for overlooking evidence that some stereotypes reflect modest but measurable group differences (Judd and Park Reference Judd and Park1993; Jussim et al. Reference Jussim, Crawford and Rubinstein2015). This limitation becomes particularly apparent when examining neutral or even flattering generalizations that resist explanations as tools of oppression (Schneider Reference Schneider2004).

Cognitive psychology, on the other hand, understands stereotypes as mental shortcuts that help people make quick judgements in complex situations (Fiske and Taylor Reference Fiske and Taylor2013). This perspective is grounded in dual-process models of thinking, which distinguish between fast, intuitive responses and slower, more reflective reasoning, with stereotypes typically emerging from the former, allowing people to rely on familiar traits to simplify social judgements (Tversky and Kahneman, Reference Tversky and Kahneman1983). Cognitive psychology recognizes that while stereotypes function as such shortcuts, they are inevitably shaped by the social and cultural contexts in which they form, reflecting both individual cognition and broader societal influences.

Related to this is therefore a cultural cognitive approach (DiMaggio Reference DiMaggio1997), which foregrounds that stereotypes should not primarily be understood as culturally acquired associations shaped by repeated exposure to patterns in one’s social environment (Hinton Reference Hinton2016, Reference Hinton2017). These associations reflect the shared representations that inform cultural narratives. It is such a cultural-cognitive view on stereotypes that I adopt in this study – understanding them as culturally acquired associations shaped by repeated exposure to socially patterned meanings. This understanding closely aligns with Lippmann’s original conception of stereotypes as internalized cultural frameworks that structure perception, and connects with later notions of collective memory, particularly in its more implicit and diffused expressions (Erll Reference Erll2022) as the shared cultural background through which the past continues to shape the present.

Media research has extensively examined stereotypes, particularly their role in reinforcing negative portrayals of marginalized groups, from ethnic and religious minorities to women and the Global South (Allport et al. Reference Allport, Clark and Pettigrew1954; Seiter Reference Seiter1986; Pickering Reference Pickering1995). These studies have shown how media narratives perpetuate prejudicial schemas, shaping public perception through repeated exposure (Entman and Rojecki Reference Entman and Rojecki2000; Yang Reference Yang2015). In journalism especially, stereotypes serve as interpretive shortcuts, lending coherence to complex events or unfamiliar groups (Tanikawa Reference Tanikawa2018). Once embedded in media discourse, they become part of audiences’ cognitive frameworks, activating latent associations that may persist even in the absence of explicit bias (Ramasubramanian Reference Ramasubramanian2007). While their efficiency in streamlining information and priming biased interpretations is well documented, comparatively less attention has been paid to how stereotypes operate outside overtly harmful contexts, particularly in relation to the broader cultural and historical frameworks that sustain them within media discourse.

Taken together, these perspectives show that stereotypes function both as cognitive shortcuts and as culturally embedded associations. This dual character makes them closely tied to collective memory, where they condense cultural-historical representations into readily available associations that guide how groups perceive and interpret one another.

Collective memory and intergroup representations

Cultural narratives are fundamental to how societies make sense of the world. They shape collective identity, transmit knowledge, and reinforce social norms (Bruner Reference Bruner1990). As interpretive frameworks, they influence how people perceive events, behave, and derive meaning from their experiences. These narratives also shape how societies remember the past. Collective memory builds on cultural narratives by preserving and transmitting shared knowledge, symbols, and stories across generations. These elements structure how groups remember their pasts, construct identities, and interpret present realities (Zerubavel Reference Zerubavel1995; Wertsch Reference Wertsch2002; Erll Reference Erll2011).

Bar-Tal (Reference Bar-Tal1997) established the critical link between stereotypes and collective memory by arguing that ethnic and national stereotypes are formed and reshaped through their interaction with a group’s historical consciousness. Stereotypes are not static; they evolve in response to changing socio-historical conditions, institutional transmission, and individual cognitive processes. Central to this evolution is collective memory, which serves as a reservoir of historical narratives and intergroup experiences that shape and sustain stereotypes over time (ibid). Expanding this perspective, Klein et al. (Reference Klein, Licata, Van der Linden, Mercy and Luminet2012) demonstrate how collective memories and stereotypes are co-constructed through the moralized dimensions of intergroup conflict. In their Belgian case, linguistic and autonomy disputes activate competing justice principles, which in turn structure group narratives and the content of stereotypes. These collective memories legitimize contemporary claims and identities, anchoring stereotypes in historically framed moral evaluations. Winiewski and Bulska (Reference Winiewski and Bulska2019) further show how collective memory shapes stereotypes by analysing regional variations in Poland. Their findings indicate that historical intergroup relations continue to influence contemporary perceptions of Jews and Germans. These stereotypes reflect enduring power dynamics and past conflicts, highlighting how cultural memory preserves and transmits biased representations across time. The research underscores the extent to which deeply embedded historical narratives continue to shape present-day prejudices.

In this sense, narratives contain collective memory, which in turn sustains stereotypes, simplified, culturally transmitted templates that shape present perceptions through inherited stories. These stereotypes persist even when direct experience or explicit bias is absent, as they are continuously activated by familiar cultural cues and shared historical references.

While collective memory is often associated with official commemorations and national mythmaking (Zerubavel Reference Zerubavel1995; Ben-Yehuda Reference Ben-Yehuda1996), it also operates through more subtle, diffuse channels. Schudson (Reference Schudson1997, Reference Schudson, Zelizer and Tenenboim-Weinblatt2014) emphasizes that collective memory frequently persists through non-commemorative forms, such as laws, institutional practices, and everyday language, that carry the imprint of the past without explicitly invoking it. Building on this, Erll (Reference Erll2022) introduces the concept of implicit collective memory to describe latent mechanisms, for example, frames, schemata, and narrative templates, through which historical experience continues to shape perception and meaning without conscious recall.

These insights clarify how collective memory operates not only through deliberate acts of remembrance but more often through subtle, habitual processes, offering a crucial lens for understanding how stereotypes persist and evolve within journalistic discourse as part of the broader cultural narratives through which foreign groups are perceived.

Collective memory and journalism

Journalism serves as a pivotal institution for recording and remembering, affirming a group’s shared identity and worldview (Carey Reference Carey1989; Zelizer Reference Zelizer1992; Bird and Dardenne Reference Bird, Dardenne, Wahl-Jorgensen and Hanitzsch2009) both in relation to official collective memory and as a site for the exchange of implicit collective memories (Erll Reference Erll2022). According to Zelizer (Reference Zelizer2008, p. 82), journalists’ treatment of the present often includes a treatment of the past that is as ‘variable, malleable, and dynamic as other kinds of memory’. While research had increasingly explored the relationship between media and memory, Zelizer and Tenenboim-Weinblatt (Reference Zelizer and Tenenboim-Weinblatt2014) noted the potential in examining collective memory specifically within journalism, an idea that has since gained traction. Having demonstrated how journalism plays an authoritative role in shaping collective memory and constructing narratives on national events, Zelizer (Reference Zelizer1992, Reference Zelizer2008) emphasized the importance of recognizing journalism as a key agent of memory work. Edy (Reference Edy1999) observed that news media often recall historical analogies and contexts to provide interpretive frames, making stories more comprehensible, whereas Tenenboim-Weinblatt (Reference Tenenboim-Weinblatt2013) found that news media shape collective future-oriented memories by bridging past events with current agendas. Berkowitz (Reference Berkowitz2011) further demonstrated how collective memory aids journalists in offering resonance to news stories by tying present events to past narratives.

A significant body of research focuses on commemorative journalism, which examines how the press marks national anniversaries and remembrance days to shape and reaffirm collective memory. Zandberg (Reference Zandberg2010), in his study of Israeli Holocaust Memorial Day coverage, shows how journalistic authority is established through multiple overlapping sources, biographical, institutional, and cultural, and how these are used to legitimize particular memory narratives. His analysis demonstrates how commemorative journalism does not merely recount historical events but constructs ideologically charged frameworks, often privileging redemptive and nationalistic tropes while marginalizing dissenting or non-hegemonic voices. Similarly, Yusufov and Meyers (Reference Yusufov and Meyers2024) analyse Israeli journalism around the country’s 70th anniversary, highlighting how journalistic commemorative practices reinforce dominant narratives and selectively silence others.

Schudson (Reference Schudson, Zelizer and Tenenboim-Weinblatt2014), however, stresses that commemorative reporting or coverage of remembrance events is not the primary means through which journalism engages with collective memory. Rather, he emphasizes journalism’s role in sustaining non-commemorative memory – the subtle yet pervasive ways in which the past permeates news narratives without being the explicit subject of remembrance. In this view, journalism routinely draws on history not to memorialize it, but to explain, contextualize, and evaluate current events.

Complementing these perspectives, Zelizer (Reference Zelizer2008) categorizes journalism’s engagement with memory into three distinct practices: necessitating memory when historical context is essential (eg, during commemorations), inviting memory when current events are framed through past analogies, and indulging memory when references to the past are used incidentally to enrich a story.

Together, these practices illuminate how journalism not only documents but actively shapes how the past is perceived and understood within contemporary news discourse.

Working definition and propositions

Integrating the reviewed literature, I conceptualize CMBS as culturally shared associations that are shaped by historical narratives and remembered collective experiences. These stereotypes are embedded elements of collective memory, functionally linking past understandings with present interpretations. Like other stereotypes, they operate as heuristic devices that simplify perception and enable quick judgements, yet their distinctiveness lies in how they are anchored in memory. Following work that treats stereotypes as cultural images that pre-shape perception (Lippmann Reference Lippmann1922), and as culturally acquired associations reinforced through repeated exposure (Hinton Reference Hinton2016, Reference Hinton2017), CMBS capture how such shortcuts become sedimented through collective memory and transmitted across generations. In the case of foreign groups, they condense remembered pasts into readily available associations that can be immediately activated when new events are encountered. Activating a CMBS thus invokes not only a familiar trait but also the broader cultural narratives through which the past informs the present. Operating as cognitive shortcuts anchored in historical narratives, CMBS predispose perceptions of foreign groups before any direct engagement.

Conceptually, CMBS are also related to but distinct from frames and narratives. Frames provide interpretive structures through which issues are made sense of, drawing on cultural values, tropes, and schemata to render events meaningful. Narratives, in turn, arrange events into temporal and causal order. CMBS differ in that they consist of historically sedimented associations rooted in intergroup memory. They supply associative content that frames can mobilize and narratives embed. In this sense, CMBS operate as the mnemonic repertoire that gives interpretive patterns their resonance when foreign groups are represented.

These stereotypes import rich, historically embedded meaning into journalistic discourse, shaping and organizing cultural narratives as mnemonic frames. Through their activation, CMBS cast current developments in light of historical precedents, attributing motives, causes, and moral evaluations (Entman Reference Entman1993), and thereby reinforcing culturally resonant ways of perceiving and representing the foreign other. These CMBS manifest in journalistic discourse through two main processes. First, story selection tends to privilege events that align with culturally sedimented understandings of the outgroup, making such events more likely to be taken up in coverage. Second, as interpretive frameworks that offer narrative templates for explaining and contextualizing the present. As Zelizer suggests, journalism may require memory when history is central, invite it when past associations enrich the story, or indulge it when memory lingers in tone or imagery. Building on this, I argue that such engagements often take stereotyped form – reactivating collective memory through simplified, culturally familiar templates.

The following propositions emerge from this conceptualization:

1. 1) CMBS shape journalistic coverage by acting as standing premises – mnemonic structures that predispose how certain foreign nations are perceived and evaluated in the news. Specifically, they do so through two interrelated processes as below:

   1. a) story selection tends to privilege events that align with culturally sedimented understandings of the outgroup, thereby reactivating shared historical associations;

   2. b) stereotypes function as mnemonic frames – discursive templates that shape how events and actors are interpreted, contextualized, and morally evaluated in the news.

2. 2) Through selection and framing, journalistic practice continuously recalibrates CMBS – amplifying, attenuating, or reframing inherited associations in response to current events and developments – and thereby actively renegotiates collective memory.

This framework clarifies how such stereotypes are expected to operate as cultural structuring devices – emerging from embedded memory schemas to shape media representations, while being simultaneously updated through those very representations. The analytical focus remains on how these systems of meaning render complex intergroup relations into culturally intelligible narratives, deliberately bracketing questions of empirical correspondence to foreground their operative cultural work.

To explore these propositions, I turn to the case study examining Israeli media coverage of Polish-Israeli relations.

Polish-Israeli relations

The relationship between Israel and Poland provides an instructive lens for examining how stereotypes are embedded in collective memory as the two groups share a complex, millennium-long history. Before the Holocaust, Poland was home to Europe’s largest Jewish community, numbering over three million in 1939. Diplomatic relations established between Poland and Israel after World War II were severed in 1967 and restored in 1990 following the end of the Cold War. A key moment occurred in 1991, when Polish President Lech Wałęsa visited Israel and delivered a speech emphasizing the deep but complicated historical bond between Poles and Jews. He expressed pride in Polish assistance provided to Jews during the Holocaust, while also humbly seeking forgiveness for the wrongs committed by Poles. Wałęsa highlighted Poland’s role as a place where Jewish culture historically flourished, urging Israelis to recognize that the Polish people had also endured profound suffering under Nazi occupation, though incomparable to the Holocaust. His request – ‘I ask you for a fair trial in your memories; remember also the good things we shared’ (Wałęsa Reference Wałęsa1991) – foreshadowed how contested memory would become central in shaping Polish-Israeli relations. Throughout the 1990s, Polish-Israeli ties improved significantly, characterized by growing economic cooperation and collaborative efforts in Holocaust commemoration, even as underlying historical tensions periodically resurfaced. These interactions laid the groundwork for increasingly robust political and cultural exchanges. By the 2000s, bilateral ties were further strengthened, exemplified by cultural initiatives such as the 2008–2009 Polish Year of Culture in Israel (Cebulski Reference Cebulski2021). However, tensions re-emerged in 2018 when Poland’s government endeavoured to criminalize accusations of Polish complicity in the Holocaust, followed by a contentious property restitution law in 2021, which would also end Jewish claims. These disputes – rooted in conflicting historical interpretations – led Israel to suspend student trips to Polish Holocaust sites, underscoring persistent challenges in reconciling divergent narratives.

Poland in Israeli memory

Israeli collective memory of Poland is shaped by a tension between narratives of persecution and coexistence. While the Holocaust remains central, earlier historical periods – from the relative tolerance of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Hundert Reference Hundert2004) to rising antisemitism in the interwar years (Mendelsohn Reference Mendelsohn1983) – also influence contemporary memory. Postwar events, notably the 1946 Kielce pogrom (Engel Reference Engel1998) and the antisemitic campaign in 1968 reinforced the perception of Poland as inherently hostile to Jewish life. Yet, counter-narratives persist through recognition of Polish people who helped Polish Jews during the Holocaust – over 7,000 of whom are honoured as Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem (Tec Reference Tec1987) – and scholarship highlighting pre-war Jewish cultural flourishing (Gutman and Reinharz Reference Gutman and Reinharz1989).

Institutionally, negative perceptions are reinforced by Israel’s state-sponsored Holocaust education trips to Poland. Feldman (Reference Feldman2008) describes these trips as a form of ‘civil religion’, systematically foregrounding sites of Jewish destruction and Polish antisemitism while marginalizing histories of positive Polish-Jewish interaction. Students frequently arrive with preconceived notions of Polish hostility (Feldman Reference Feldman2002, p. 96), and positive interactions with Poles are often avoided, perpetuating stereotypical views (pp. 96–97).

These educational practices align with broader trends in Israeli memory politics, where Holocaust commemoration has been strategically deployed to strengthen national identity. Although Zertal’s (Reference Zertal2005) analysis of Israeli ‘martyrology’ focuses on how Holocaust trauma is instrumentalized for nation-building, her assertion that ‘the dead do not belong solely to the past’ (p. 3) helps illuminate why Poland – so central to Holocaust memory – continues to carry emotional weight in Israeli collective narratives.

Recent surveys further underscore these perceptions. In a 2024 survey, 47 per cent of Israeli respondents agreed that ‘the Polish people are responsible for their Jewish neighbours being destroyed in the Holocaust – exactly like the Germans’, thus equating Polish responsibility with German culpability (Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2024). Although historically inaccurate given Poland’s own occupation by Nazi Germany, such results highlight how stereotypes shape perceptions of Poland within Israeli collective memory, thus suggesting that Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany and subject to its totalitarian rule.

Nevertheless, Israeli memory of Poland remains pluralistic. Alternative representations emerge through youth exchange programmes (eg, the POLIN Museum initiatives) and cultural efforts documenting prewar Jewish life (Kirshenblatt and Kirshenblatt-Gimblett Reference Kirshenblatt and Kirshenblatt-Gimblett2007). The growing field of ‘roots tourism’ (Lehrer Reference Lehrer2013) further demonstrates how individual memory practices complicate and enrich dominant national narratives. These experiences often include learning about efforts by non-Jewish Poles to revive Jewish life and culture, as well as visits to thriving Jewish community centres (Lowe and Goettig Reference Lowe and Goettig2014; Ornstein Reference Ornstein2018).

Ultimately, Israeli collective memory sustains two competing yet interconnected stereotyped perceptions of Poland: as a land defined by pervasive antisemitism, and simultaneously as a place of historical Jewish flourishing and rescue. Regardless of their accuracy, exaggeration, or simplification, these stereotypes function as culturally embedded shortcuts tied to broader historical narratives.

Sites of inquiry and sample

The study examines how Poles and Poland are represented in Israeli news coverage between 2001 and 2024, tracing developments after the normalization of bilateral relations. It focuses on periods marked by normalization, heightened contact, and diplomatic or mnemonic conflict. For Haaretz and Yedioth Ahronoth, three key phases are analysed: 2001–2003, 2008–2010, and 2018–2021. Since Israel Hayom was founded only in 2007, it is excluded from the earliest phase. Due to archival gaps for 2008–2010, that period had to be dropped for this outlet, leaving only 2018–2021. Instead, 2014–2016 (a phase of pragmatic cooperation) and 2023–2024 (renewed normalization) were additionally selected for Israel Hayom to enable diachronic comparison. While the sample periods vary by outlet, each includes moments of conflict and conciliation, as well as routine reporting, allowing for the identification of long-term representational patterns.

To compile the sample, I used broad search terms in Hebrew: ‘Poland’, ‘Poles’, and ‘Polish’. For Haaretz, I used a scraper to retrieve all articles containing these search terms within the first two sampled periods. For Yedioth Ahronoth, I accessed their official archive, while for Israel Hayom in all periods and Haaretz in the last period, I relied on the Hebrew media database Ifat Digger to search for relevant content. After each search, I compiled the full list of hits, including headlines and leads, into separate documents. I then read all headlines and leads to inductively identify the variety of coverage categories, which guided the next step. To ensure broad representation, I selected 50 articles from each outlet, covering the most salient categories identified in the previous step. These were foreign news, culture, finance, the Polish-Jewish past, and, for each outlet, additional articles on other topics that do not fall within these categories (eg, humoristic articles). Sports coverage was explicitly excluded. The selected categories were not always mutually exclusive; for instance, an article about finance might also discuss cultural developments, or an article on Polish politics might reference the Polish-Jewish past. To capture explicit editorial perspectives, I also included opinion articles and editorials written by staff writers. Although sometimes labelled as ‘opinion’ or ‘commentary’, these texts represent editorial journalism and provide critical insights into journalistic agency. Including these pieces enhances understanding of how journalists frame Poland and Poles within their editorial stance.

Analytical strategy

The analytical process followed a multi-step approach, departing from classic grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin Reference Strauss and Corbin1990). I began with open coding of five articles from each outlet to develop an initial set of categories, which were then refined through Entman’s (Reference Entman1993) framing model, which distinguishes between problem definition, causal attribution, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation. Through the confluence of inductively recognized themes and their respective functions in regards to representations of Poland and Poles, I distilled a systematic coding grid to ensure consistency across the sample.

Each article was coded for topics and issues discussed; representations of Poles or Poland (explicit or implicit); references to Israeli perceptions of Poles; contextualization of Poland; and attributed motivations, sentiments, or behaviours. I also coded causal explanations, moral or emotional evaluations, relevant lexical choices, and references to the Polish-Jewish past when applicable. Finally, I identified the dominant frame, as well as any other existing but not central frames related to Poles or Poland, within each article (eg, for coded articles, see Supplementary Appendix A). To enhance reliability, I validated emerging patterns against existing knowledge of Poland’s place in Israeli culture and applied abductive reasoning throughout the process (Timmermans and Tavory Reference Timmermans and Tavory2012). This iterative approach allowed for the refinement of coding categories, including the later addition of ‘how Israeli perceptions of Poles are represented’. After article-level coding, I conducted an inductive analysis across the dataset to identify broader patterns in story selection. This involved clustering recurring topical emphases and establishing eight overarching story types. Within each of these story types, I then identified the overarching frames used to represent Poles and Poland. These were conceptualized using Van Gorp’s (Reference Van Gorp2007) constructionist framing approach, which situates frames as culturally embedded schemata shaped by shared narratives and values. While Entman’s model structured the article-level analysis, Van Gorp’s approach helped identify the cultural logic informing journalistic selection and resonance. Combining the two enabled both micro-level discursive analysis and macro-level insight into the operation of CMBS.

The final analytical phase examined how discourse at the article level aligned with larger representational trends. It assessed diachronic patterns across time and outlets to identify shifts in how Poles and Poland were framed in Israeli media discourse in response to current events.

Patterns in stories on Poland

The first stage of the analysis identified recurring story types in Israeli media coverage of Poland across time periods and outlets. The coverage clusters around eight story types, with most relating directly or indirectly to the legacy of the Polish-Jewish past. While news values typically emphasize cultural proximity and relevance (Galtung and Ruge Reference Galtung and Ruge1965; Shoemaker and Vos Reference Shoemaker and Vos2009), my analysis shows how these values intersect with collective memory in shaping international coverage, such that story selection tends to privilege events that align with culturally sedimented understandings of Poland. Antisemitic incidents, Holocaust memory disputes, symbolic gestures, and accounts of cultural revival dominate the agenda. The frequent repetition of recurring story types documents how stereotypes, as historically sedimented cultural associations, inform how representations of the foreign other are seen as meaningful – bridging past perceptions with current news logic.

Within each type of coverage, distinct frames emerge that give shape to how the events are interpreted. Each story type serves not only as a recurring theme but as a structural container for a set of mnemonic frames. As Van Gorp’s (Reference Van Gorp2007) constructionist framing theory helps understand, culturally embedded frame packages shape not only how events are framed but also which events are selected for coverage. In this context, CMBS form part of the interpretive schemata that structure journalistic attention, guiding both the selection and the narrative rendering of stories related to Poland.

The following story types and associated frames were identified across all coverage. When relevant, contrasting or alternative frames within the same story type are also described to capture the diversity in framing within a given story type. However, the following analysis focuses on overarching story types. Outlet-specific differences will be addressed separately in the following section, together with the propositions.

Poland as a land of antisemitism

The most salient story type depicts Poland as a site of antisemitism – interwar hostility, Holocaust-era collaboration, and contemporary incidents are often framed as historically continuous. As such, the dominant framing presents antisemitism as structural and deeply rooted. For example, Yedioth Ahronoth’s 2021 article ‘A Land of Antisemitism’ (Plocker Reference Plocker2021), a far-right rally is introduced with: ‘Here it is again: extreme antisemitic chants—‘Death to the Jews!’—of a kind unheard in Europe since the end of World War II’. The word ‘again’ signals recurrence, invoking collective memory without naming it, while the headline frames Poland as a perennial locus of antisemitism. The event is absorbed into a broader cultural template of moral failure.

Reinforcing the frame through moral indictment, a Haaretz editorial (Aderet Reference Aderet2018b) highlights the silencing of local violence in a joint Israeli-Polish declaration: ‘No mention of Jews burned alive in barns; no reference to ‘Jew-hunting’ in fields or selling Jews to Germans for a bottle of beer’. These vivid references reactivate a mnemonic repertoire of local violence, reinforcing the stereotype of Poland as a society of complicity, antisemitism, and denial.

A less frequent framing treats such incidents as isolated, emphasizing Polish efforts to protect Jewish heritage and respond to antisemitism. An Israel Hayom article (Yalon Reference Yalon2016) titled ‘Poland: Guards to Be Placed at Vandalized Jewish Cemetery’ reports that the event ‘aroused widespread outrage in Poland and anger over the fact that the Jewish cemetery was not protected’. It highlights civic responses and the mayor’s determination to prevent recurrence. This framing resists the dominant narrative by casting the incident as a deviation and underscoring institutional engagement.

Poland as a locus of righteous acts

This story type, which contrasts with the framing of endemic antisemitism, highlights Poles who risked their own and their families’ lives to save Jews during the Holocaust. These stories foreground individual acts of heroism, recalling the Polish-Jewish past not solely through the lens of horror and complicity but also through the memory of the Righteous Among the Nations. For example, Haaretz (Aderet Reference Aderet2018a) reports the story of a diplomat who saved 800 Jews by providing forged passports during the Holocaust. The article describes a memorial established in Switzerland 60 years after his death. The article emphasizes that he is now ‘finally’ commemorated – attesting to a historical reckoning with the forgotten acts of moral courage of individual Poles. Such stories activate a counter-stereotypical frame, foregrounding moral courage and solidarity, and framing Poles through acts of rescue and ethical commitment.

Polish reckoning and moral responsibility

This story type covers Polish efforts to confront antisemitism and express remorse – through apologies, educational initiatives, official visits, memory work, and moral acts, and thereby intrinsically linking to the image of Poland as inherently antisemitic. These stories often function as moral counterpoints, portraying Poland as seeking historical accountability while registering the weight of inherited stereotypes. Motives behind Polish gestures are, however, regularly questioned, expressing either journalistic scepticism or anticipating reader doubt, thus framing reckoning while foregrounding historical mistrust. A pertinent example is Yedioth Ahronoth’s ‘When Warsaw Wept’ (Klieger Reference Klieger2008), published during President Peres’s state visit. While noting concerns about ongoing antisemitism, the article emphasizes emotional gestures by Polish leaders and ordinary citizens. It ends with: ‘And if there are Poles like these, can we not believe that there is hope for a ‘different Poland’?’ – suggesting cautious optimism. Similarly, Haaretz’s ‘Why Does Łódź Suddenly Want to Commemorate the Jews?’ (Barkat Reference Barkat2003) profiles Mayor Kropiwnicki’s commemoration efforts. The article’s ambivalence appears in the quote by an Israeli engaged in Jewish memory and life in Poland: ‘We Jews should be the first to oppose stereotypes’, acknowledging how inherited perceptions shape reactions. It is through this lens that the mayor’s actions are interpreted – framed as sincere, yet still filtered through the residue of longstanding associations. Positive gestures, in this framing, are never quite free of the weight of the past.

Poland as a Place of Jewish Heritage and Revival

Tied to the previous is a story type centred on Jewish revival in Poland – not only in terms of heritage and memory but also renewed Jewish life. These reports cover stories of restored synagogues and cemeteries, museum openings, Jewish community centres, festivals, and other cultural initiatives, often emphasizing non-Jewish Poles’ engagement with a nearly lost Jewish world. Poland is depicted not only as a site of historical trauma but as a space where Jewish presence is being actively reclaimed. In doing so, they counter the dominant stereotype of Poland as uniformly antisemitic or indifferent, offering images of curiosity and cultural involvement. Israel Hayom’s ‘The Dybbuk of Krakow’ (Lachmanovitz Reference Lachmanovitz2014), for example, describes Krakow’s Jewish Culture Festival through young non-Jewish volunteers restoring synagogues and learning Hebrew songs. One explains: ‘Jewish culture is painfully absent in Poland. Volunteering is our non-Jewish way of reclaiming it’. The framing shows Poles as engaged participants in reviving a lost connection. Yet, this revival is also at times met with scepticism. A case of this is Haaretz’s ‘Inventing a Jewish Grandmother’ (Bronowski Reference Bronowski2001), describing it as a post-Communist trend, led by children of former elites embracing stylized, Americanized Jewish identities. Here, Jewishness appears both as rediscovery and cultural manner. This shows how journalistic portrayals of revival can activate a counter-stereotypical frame, presenting Poland as a site of renewed Jewish engagement – while also demonstrating how such narratives remain conditioned by suspicion of whether it is genuine.

Poland as a moral and identity symbol

Stories of past horrors on Polish soil frame Poland as formative to Israeli identity, especially in coverage tied to Holocaust remembrance days and special editions. Poland becomes a symbolic landscape of Jewish suffering and collective mourning – linked to death, destruction, and moral reckoning. In ‘Dad Froze When He Realized Where I Had Been’ (Yedioth Ahronoth, Etzion Reference Etzion2021), an Israeli defence official visits a Polish arms factory, only to learn from his Holocaust-survivor father that his parents had been forced labourers there. Poland is thus portrayed not as passive geography, but as terrain saturated with historical weight, where personal memory and national identity converge. Attempts that complicate this framing often appear within the same discursive field. In ‘You Can Dance in Warsaw Too’ (Yedioth Ahronoth, Shapira Reference Shapira2008), the journalist reports on Polish initiatives to promote a contemporary, culturally vibrant image, yet frames them through enduring Israeli associations with Holocaust trauma. This is underscored through a quoted remark by a Polish cultural envoy: ‘Israelis can go to a disco in Berlin or Munich, but they don’t think of Poland as a normal country’. By selecting and foregrounding this quote, the article shows how such initiatives are narrated through – and constrained by – the memory-laden context in which they appear. This framing illustrates how journalistic discourse not only reflects but reproduces Poland’s symbolic function in Israeli memory, with contemporary representations filtered through emotionally charged associations that anchor Polish space to inherited narratives of Jewish trauma and identity.

The other side of Poland

This category frames Poland as a vibrant cultural destination, shifting focus from historical trauma and Jewish memory to contemporary life. These stories highlight food, architecture, youth culture, and travel, presenting Poland as a site of sensory and aesthetic experience. Traces of the past may surface, but collective memory functions as a muted backdrop – acknowledged but not guiding interpretation. An Israel Hayom article titled ‘A Glimpse at Poland’s Other Side’ (Israel Hayom 2019) notes Poland’s association with Holocaust-related school trips and cheap shopping but redirects attention to spa towns, ski resorts, and boutique hotels. Kraków’s Jewish quarter is depicted as a nightlife hub, and the surrounding region as a wellness destination. Though Jewish history is visible in street names and restored buildings, it remains in the background of a narrative centred on comfort and mobility. In ‘Warsaw Is Not What You Thought’ (Yedioth Ahronoth, Koren Reference Koren2003), the journalist urges readers to ‘leave all stereotypes – those fed to us by Mosheonov, Kushnir and Glickman in their imitations of the ‘Polish trio’ – at Ben Gurion Airport’. These refer not to Holocaust associations but to familiar Israeli caricatures of Polish-Jewish culture. The article replaces them with images of cosmopolitan Warsaw: fashion, food, jazz cafés, libraries, and Chopin concerts. While wartime destruction and the absence of Jewish life are mentioned, they are not central. Poland is rendered familiar and accessible – its meaning shaped less by memory than by contemporary experience. Similarly, a Haaretz article on the Europe Theater Prize (Handelsaltz Reference Handelsaltz2009) highlights Poland’s role in European theatre and creative experimentation. Rather than invoking historical trauma, it emphasizes performance, sophistication, and intellectual vitality – contributing to a broader pattern in which Poland is represented through present-day cultural life.

Poland as a renewed opportunity

This story type shifts focus from symbolic memory to present-day economic and political alignment. Articles frame Poland as a regional success – highlighting its post-communist transformation, pro-Western stance, and growing ties with Israel. The Jewish past serves as background for economic familiarity, where historical knowledge facilitates investment rather than caution. In ‘The Israelis and the Polish Miracle’ (Yedioth Ahronoth, Plocker Reference Plocker2003), Israeli business ventures are linked to Poland’s liberalization, with projects like the Mokotów Business Park symbolizing bold entrepreneurship. Cooperation is framed as historically grounded yet future-oriented. Other articles omit history altogether, such as an Israel Hayom piece (Yaakobi-Handelsman Reference Yaako bi-Handelsman2018) about the Polish brand Reserved entering Israel, which focuses solely on consumer culture and market expansion. These narratives sideline CMBS either by recasting the past as cultural familiarity or excluding it entirely, portraying Poland as a pragmatic and trustworthy partner.

Poland as a routine foreign actor and site of mnemonic activation

The final type of coverage treats Poland like any other foreign country – applying standard journalistic conventions without references to shared trauma or cultural intimacy. Reports on European Union (EU) policies, judicial reforms, or protests against abortion legislation typically proceed without mention of Holocaust memory or Jewish heritage, simply because no associative trigger is present. However, when culturally resonant cues emerge – such as references to Jewish identity – these associations can quickly become part of the journalistic framing. A case in point is a 2010 (Frister Reference Frister2010) article in Haaretz, titled ‘Poland May Have Its First Jewish First Lady This Year’. Reporting on the potential presidential candidacy of Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, the article notes that if elected, his wife Anne Applebaum – an American Jewish journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner – would become the first Jewish First Lady in Poland’s ‘thousand-year history’. While the main focus is political, this historical reference reframes the story as a symbolic moment within a longer trajectory of Jewish marginalization and re-entry into Polish public life. In doing so, the article transforms a conventional political update into a culturally charged narrative, showing how rooted memory structures are reactivated when prompted by associative cues. This pattern highlights how CMBS are not continuously present but remain latently available, surfacing selectively in journalistic discourse when triggered by culturally salient associations.

Stereotypes, Framing, and the Mnemonic Function

According to Proposition 1, CMBS shape journalistic coverage by acting as standing premises – mnemonic structures that predispose how certain foreign nations are perceived and evaluated in the news. More specifically, CMBS shape both (a) story selection by privileging events that align with culturally sedimented understandings of the outgroup, thereby reactivating shared historical associations; and (b) framing, where stereotypes function as mnemonic frames – discursive templates that shape how events are interpreted, contextualized, and morally evaluated.

This expectation is confirmed by the empirical findings. Israeli media coverage of Poland largely clusters around recognizable story types shaped by collective memory. For instance, stories that present Poland as a Land of Antisemitism or as a Moral and Identity Symbol centrally rely on historically rooted associations and affective tropes. These patterns demonstrate how CMBS serve both as filters of relevance (1a) and as interpretive frames (1b) that structure narrative form and moral meaning.

Within most story types, journalists draw – often implicitly – on collective memory to frame contemporary developments in ways that resonate with familiar historical associations. These stereotypes appear in the form of causal links (eg, framing Polish actions as rooted in longstanding antisemitism), moral evaluations (such as praise for redemptive gestures or criticism of perceived denial), or cautious optimism tied to conditional trust. This interpretive work is especially salient in articles dealing with Holocaust remembrance, Jewish heritage, or restitution, where collective memory provides not just background but a central lens. By contrast, when stories focus on Polish domestic politics or EU affairs and lack culturally resonant cues, they typically follow standard foreign news conventions, with no activation of memory-based associations. This contrast underscores the contingent character of mnemonic activation: stereotypes are not automatically mobilized, but triggered by specific associative prompts embedded in the narrative.

When stories do activate CMBS – typically in coverage of antisemitism, restitution, or Jewish cultural revival – they rely on sedimented templates that frame Poland as hostile, redemptive, complicit, helpful, or evolving. These templates function as mnemonic frames: they link present developments to familiar cultural meanings, lend coherence across time, and generate emotionally resonant narratives. Notably, multiple and even contradictory frames may coexist within a single article, reflecting contingent activation and journalistic negotiation in response to shifting cues and audience expectations.

Zelizer’s distinction between memory that is required, invited, or indulged further clarifies this variation. In stories about Holocaust commemoration, restitution, or the Righteous Among the Nations, memory is structurally embedded – required for the story to unfold. In contrast, stories on tourism, consumer culture, or routine political coverage may invite memory through selective allusion, imagery, or symbolic geography. Few stories indulge memory in the sense Zelizer defines – referring to the past merely to enrich tone or atmosphere. However, the analysis shows that even in non-memorial contexts, memory is often implicitly invoked when culturally charged elements – such as Jewish identity, Holocaust sites, or familiar historical tropes – enter the narrative. Building on Zelizer, the analysis suggests a further insight: invited memory often activates not just affective or symbolic resonance but specific narrative templates that guide interpretation. That is, memory enters journalistic discourse in patterned, schematized ways that reflect deeper mnemonic framings. These stereotyped forms become especially visible when journalists play with inherited associations – acknowledging or subverting them when current developments diverge from expectation. This dynamic illustrates how journalism continues to structure representations of other nations through culturally resonant mnemonic frames. Within the Israeli media field, journalists operate from a shared narrative repertoire that connects the present to a layered historical imagination.

Journalists’ Role in Shaping CMBS

Proposition 2 posits that stereotypes rooted in collective memory are dynamic, continually reconfigured through journalistic practice in response to shifting political and cultural contexts. Coverage across two decades shows fluctuations aligned with periods of diplomatic tension and rapprochement. During diplomatic conflicts, critical coverage intensified, highlighting instances of antisemitism and perceived distortions of Holocaust memory, while portrayals of Poland as a tourist destination, site of Jewish revival, or strategic partner receded. Conversely, periods of rapprochement showed a wider range of story types, blending critical reports with affirmative or routine depictions. In these contexts, memory was more frequently invited rather than required, enabling flexible mobilization of historical associations. When journalists portrayed Poland as open or welcoming to Jewish life – thus contradicting dominant negative associations – they often acknowledged the gap between current realities and inherited stereotypes. In such cases, the stereotype became a visible reference point to be questioned, refuted, or reframed. By contrast, when Polish developments aligned with entrenched negative associations – such as antisemitic incidents or Holocaust memory disputes – stereotypes operated tacitly, serving as familiar narrative scaffolding. As the engagement with CMBS is shaped by journalistic intent and editorial positioning, outlets engage CMBS differently, shaped by their editorial stance, audience, and political context.

Haaretz, known for its cultural focus, highlighted Polish cultural initiatives during non-conflict periods – such as coverage of Polish cinema or literature – framing Poland as a land of cultural richness. During diplomatic crises, its coverage shifted towards critical editorials on restitution and Holocaust memory laws, aligning with its broader opposition to Netanyahu’s alliance with Poland’s Law and Justice party.

In Israel Hayom, an article aligned with Netanyahu, portrayals of Poland shifted with the political climate. While Netanyahu was out of office (2021–2022), the article echoed critical rhetoric, emphasizing Polish antisemitism and Holocaust distortion. When he returned (from late 2022), the tone became more conciliatory. For example, Kahana (Reference Kahana2023) described Poland as ‘one of the most progressive countries in Holocaust remembrance’, countering the stereotype of endemic antisemitism. By contrast, Greenwood (Reference Greenwood2021) – published while Netanyahu was not in power – reported on a Polish man accused of unlawfully keeping Jewish-owned silver artefacts while being nominated for an award honouring Jewish-heritage preservation; rather than offering redemptive closure, that narrative implicitly reactivated the stereotype of appropriation and incomplete accountability.

Yedioth Ahronoth, occupying a more centrist position, showed no consistent partisan engagement in the memory conflict or in Netanyahu’s diplomacy with Poland. Still, during periods of heightened tension, the conflict influenced its broader coverage. Alongside routine reporting, the article increasingly highlighted stories of Polish antisemitism and betrayal, implicitly linking current disputes to longstanding mnemonic perceptions. For example, the 2018 survivor series ‘This Is What the Poles Did to Me’ (Yedioth Ahronoth [to locate this series of articles, search for זה מה שהפולנים עשו לי in the Yedioth Ahronoth Archive]) featured testimonies responding to Poland’s Holocaust law by recounting experiences of Polish collaboration, violence, and indifference. These testimonies do more than recall personal histories – they evoke culturally familiar images of Poland as a land of antisemitism, reinforcing that perception in light of contemporary denial.

These diachronic and outlet-specific patterns support Proposition 2: CMBS are not static but continually negotiated within journalistic discourse. Their salience shifts in response to political developments, diplomatic events, and editorial agendas. While certain mnemonic frames remain latently available, their activation, emphasis, or contestation depends on how well current events resonate with them.