The Israel-Palestine conflict is considered one of the most serious conflicts of our century, not only because of the difficulty in finding a satisfactory solution, but also due to its international outreach. The escalation of fighting in the summer of 2014, followed by intervals of information stifling in media, raised questions of potential political influence, and thus media bias. If information can be stifled, then surely it can also be regulated, altered and modified, resulting in a general distrust of objective reporting on international events. In accordance with the Appraisal framework, drawing on Critical Discourse Analysis and selected concepts from media research, the aim of this thesis is to investigate the use of explicit and implicit evaluations revealed through linguistic features in the reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict in The Times and The New York Times. Furthermore, the thesis considers whether the conflict portrayal aligns with the policies of the respective countries in which these newspapers are distributed, namely the UK and the US. The investigation is based on hard news, from the time around the Six-Day War in 1967, and the recent escalation in 2014. A comparison of the findings from the two newspapers reveals both explicit and implicit attitudes, echoing the respective governments policies and interests. Changes were also noted between the portrayals in 1967 and 2014, suggesting a more negative portrayal of Israel in 2014, compared to the material from 1967.