Gaza: After the military war comes the narrative war

To stand with the Palestinian people and condemn Israeli actions in Gaza, it is vital to reject violence for the sake of violence. Instead, a culture of diplomacy and peace must be pursued.

Gaza: After the military war comes the narrative war

Over three weeks ago, Hamas launched its Al-Aqsa Flood operation across Gaza’s border with Israel, plunging Palestine and the world into a renewed cycle of violence, bloodshed and death. It will reshape the Middle East's political landscape, not in a good way.

Israel, Iran, and their proxies are engaged in both military and diplomatic efforts to secure victories before a final ceasefire. It is crucial to recognise that some of the fiercest battles will be over control of the narrative of the war.

These narratives underpin the political initiatives involved and will influence the bloodshed that will be caused. The prevailing narrative will define any proposals to end it, obstruct potential remedies that deviate from it, and shape future confrontations.

The varying responses to the Hamas attacks reveal emerging faultlines reshaping global politics.

This pattern shows how the rise of political Islam upended a theory that the end of the socialist system, symbolised by the fall of the Berlin Wall, meant that democratic values and individual freedom – and the wider values of the West, such as liberalism, equality, free market economics and peace – would become globally accepted norms.

American political scientist Francis Fukuyama most famously expressed that idea in his book The End of History and the Last Man, published in 1992 but first published as an article in 1989.

The prevailing narrative will define any proposals to end it, obstruct potential remedies that deviate from it, and shape future confrontations.

The Axis of Resistance and the "end of history"

The 7 October attacks – orchestrated by Hamas and sponsored by Iran – show how Tehran and its allies in the so-called Axis of Resistance see the values Fukuyama thought had triumphed: foreign and inconsequential to the Islamic world.

Iran and its allies have portrayed Hamas's actions as heroic – within the context of divine justice and retribution against Israel and its right-wing government led by Benjamin Netanyahu – as they seek to control the narrative.

Notably, the attack coincided with the 50th anniversary of the 1973 October War — a rare moment of Arab victory, during which Egypt recovered occupied territories through military force, paving the way for peace talks and the signing of the Camp David peace accord.

Read more: October War: The surprise Arab victory that changed the region

But there are problems with Iran's framing of its version of events and the wider struggle for justice.  It begins with the rise of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power in Tehran. It attributes the primary role in resisting Israel and its main supporter, the US, to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and its Lebanese faction, Hezbollah.

Iran's version of events ignores the significant role of the non-sectarian Lebanese National Resistance Front in resisting the occupation, which did so without imposing foreign ideologies and a new way of life on the Lebanese and without trying to convince them that peace is unattainable.

Iran's narrative ignores the significant role of the non-sectarian Lebanese National Resistance Front in resisting the occupation, which did so without imposing foreign ideologies and a new way of life on the Lebanese.

Khomeini versus Arafat

Iran's current version of history suggests that the efforts of various Palestinian factions – including the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), led for so long by Yasser Arafat – were futile. Along with its allies, Iran sees any resistance aimed at achieving peace, as treasonous.

So Iran's narrative over Gaza deprioritises peace and pursues an unlimited obsession with the destruction of Israel and the United States, a fundamentally unrealistic aspiration.

Historically, resistance movements and revolutions have used violence to pursue noble goals, or objectives they describe as such. But when the need for armed conflict has passed, militias have transitioned to political struggle via non-violent ideas and means of reform.

This is certainly not the case in the Khomeini-inspired version of resistance, where bloodshed prevails, and weapons are seen as a means of channelling divine will, even when used against Arab citizens seeking a better life.

The freefall of Palestine and the region into a devastating war provides the Axis of Resistance with a coherent narrative that battle should have supremacy over political and economic reforms. This worldview prioritises violence above all else.

Al-Aqsa Flood and other violence orchestrated by Iran against the Arab world, particularly the Palestinians, aims to eliminate the PLO and the true political resistance which seeks to attain statehood.

It is also designed to transform the image of the Palestinian people from victims into aggressors, replacing the iconic image of Laila Khaled with a distorted portrayal reminiscent of the Islamic State (IS). This change is symbolised by the hostage-taking and killing of Israeli civilians at a concert in the Negev desert, most of whom were sympathisers to the Palestinian cause and protestors against the Netanyahu government.

Hamas' actions have cast the Palestinians in the same light as IS. Whether deliberate or not, this has given extremist Israelis a pretext to go on the offensive and perpetrate another Nakba.

The Khomeini-inspired version of resistance is one where bloodshed prevails, and weapons are seen as a means of channelling divine will, even when used against Arab citizens seeking a better life.

A narrative that serves Israeli interests

Crucially, Hamas did not differentiate between civilians and combatants. This raises questions over its true commitment to peace, the release of all Palestinian prisoners, and the future political leadership of Palestine.

The narrative of the Axis of Resistance frames Israel as the "little Satan" alongside the "great Satan" of the US. But in effect, it serves Israeli interests, either by accident or design. The Hamas attacks helped bring the Zionist movement out of a deep domestic crisis, just as it was threatened internally by the populism and corruption of Netanyahu.

The Israeli prime minister and his allies are on the opposite side of the Axis of Resistance – but both groups oppose any peace talks or moves toward a two-state solution over Palestine. The concept of diplomacy toward lasting peace threatens the Axis and the Zionists alike.

The 7 October attacks occurred shortly after a significant peace proposal from Saudi Arabia. It aimed to bring Palestine back to the negotiation table as a foundational step toward normalising relations with Israel. While other Arab countries sought peace to protect their security, Iran lacked any such vision for the region.

The narrative of the Axis of Resistance frames Israel as the "little Satan" alongside the "great Satan" of the US. But in effect, it serves Israeli interests, either by accident or design. The Hamas attacks helped bring the Zionist movement out of a deep domestic crisis, just as it was threatened internally by the populism and corruption of Netanyahu.

Axis of 'Resistance' hypocrisy 

And there is a striking display of hypocrisy from the Axis of Resistance on a wider basis: Its purported desire to liberate Palestine and the occupied Golan Heights comes as it simultaneously supports Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria.

This support resulted in the displacement of Palestinian refugees from the Syrian Yarmouk camp and hundreds of thousands of Syrians from the Qalamoun and Qusayr plains. These actions contradict their alleged goals and exacerbate the suffering of Syrian refugees in Lebanon.

And it is disconcerting that many Syrian and Lebanese individuals, some of whom I consider friends, have briefly embraced the narrative of resistance, which promotes excessive violence as a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In reality, movements like Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Baath Party, Hezbollah, and Israeli settler extremism have the ability to destroy each other. But they cannot guarantee the security and well-being of civilians.

The recent events in Palestine and Israel are a case in point.

To stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people and condemn the Israeli actions in Gaza, it is vital to reject the logic of violence for the sake of violence. Shedding innocent blood, whether Arab or Israeli, must not be tolerated.

 The Axis' purported desire to liberate Palestine and the occupied Golan Heights comes as it simultaneously supports Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria. This support resulted in the displacement of Palestinian refugees from the Syrian Yarmouk camp and hundreds of thousands of Syrians from the Qalamoun and Qusayr plains. 

A better path

Those who genuinely seek to free Gaza and end the Israeli blockade must refuse to turn the Arab Levant into a larger prison. Doing that would transform Beirut, Baghdad and Damascus into another Gaza.

The narrative over the 7 October spun by the Axis of Resistance is, when scrutinised, weaker than a spider's web. Human nature inherently seeks peace and life, not death, senseless violence, and murder.

Promoting violence and division only serves to further racist and anti-Arab agendas. The public sphere should not be surrendered to these dark narratives.

Instead, a culture of peace should be presented as the only way forward, even amid the chaos of falling bombs and the cacophony of hatred. Ultimately, no single idea or weapon can eradicate the notion of peace from the hearts of humanity.

font change