“The current Gaza war is not like its predecessors,” we hear again and again. It is not. The war has put us in a position we had not expected to find ourselves in, facing the challenge of another war over hearts and minds that will be fought for years, not weeks or months.
We are now in the heart of the most severe cultural, political, and media battle of minds we have faced since the crime of September 11, 2001.
In a previous column for this newspaper, I wrote that politics, in the third decade of this century and beyond, will revolve around the question of peace. In the two decades that preceded, we were consumed by the War on Terror (2001-2010) and the Arab Spring (2010-2020).
The most recent war, with the scale of the destruction that it has engendered, Hamas’ bloody violence that sparked it, and the emotional and political upheaval and frenzied mobilizations associated with it, have hardened my conviction that the battle of the minds will be far bigger than those of the past.
If we look at how the media has covered the development, especially the coverage of broadcasters whose narrative for the future of the region contradicts that of Hamas and the general “axis of resistance”, we find that vast segments remain captive to the logic of covering conflicts as they had been covered for many years. It capitalizes on the emotional charge generated by seeing heart-wrenching images of devastation and death, especially that of children.
This is, of course, not a call for looking away from the horrific human costs of wars, nor I am encouraging anyone to make light of human dignity, especially not of those who have had no say in their fate. Rather, I am cautioning against falling into the trap of this coup that Iran is leading, firstly through war itself, in opposition to peace, and secondly by reviving sweeping narratives about truth, justice, evil, the good, and the struggle of angels and demons, regarding everything unfolding around us now.
This immense pressure reinforced by simplistic narratives, seeks to split our humanity geographically, inviting us to politicize our sentiments and values. It lays the groundwork for a political investment in generating a consciousness that hates the other first and the societies and governments who have taken a different political view from that put forward by the axis of resistance, be it on Israel, Palestine, or resistance.
If the goal of the coverage, in its current form, is to shed light on the horrors of war, agony can be found in two places: in Gaza, which is being destroyed by Israel’s enraged machine, and in Israel, whose defenseless citizens Hamas egregiously assaulted in their homes and villages. Otherwise, the media turns into an extension of a skewed, one-sided narrative devoid of context and history that is against us before being against Israel.
The mission of the media, our media, in the battle of minds born of the Gaza war, is to provide the political and ethical contexts of the opposing views on this war. It must go beyond how the war is presented by those directly involved, namely Hamas and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. We need “contextual media” rather than real-time media seeped in exploiting sentiment and the parroting of slogans or aphorisms, like “what was taken by force cannot be retrieved without force” or “what has peace gotten us?”
We are now faced with an event that reflects a broader ideological chasm. Accordingly, the media plays an immense role in shaping the narrative, influencing how the public perceives it and the paths that will be taken politically, especially given how closely the news is now being followed after we had been complaining that this had not been the case.
For this reason, the “contextual media” has become more prominent. It is a crucial requisite for presenting developments from an angle that goes beyond the live scenes of the victims and places it within a broader social, political, and historical context that gives viewers an informed political view of what is going on.
Let us take, for example, the protest in London held a few days ago, which demonstrates the scale of international sympathy for Hamas as a resistance movement and will be remembered as such; it will become a knife used to stab “the Arab elites failing to support the resistance”... However, were we told or told that the Muslim Brotherhood has an extremely strong presence in London, leading us to our next question: where are the protests in other European capitals? This is just one example of how stories can be told and reformulated to create awareness that serves a particular agenda.
In this sense, “contextual media” is a bulwark against misinformation that fuels more accurate and comprehensive dialogue instead of rhetoric that reinforces divisions and fortifies an environment of hatred and mutual destruction.
The Gaza test is a test of our ability to overcome the media traditions that some outlets have solidified. I do not advocate for this because of the allure of innovation. Rather, I propose that we make this change because we are caught up in practices that unintentionally give credence to a political discourse, embraced by Iran and the so-called Axis of Resistance, that is opposed to sensible and moderate Arab politics. It will be a long and complicated battle that requires a strong degree of intellectual courage and a willingness to venture into unpopular intellectual territory with the aim of creating a political narrative that is not tainted by prevalent and ready-made biases.
The war will end. Its conclusion will raise difficult and existential questions about our political future. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which Hamas could be part of the future of any Palestinian political process. The war will probably destroy its military infrastructure and ensure it has no political future, even if the idea cannot be liquidated.
What will be the political future of Gaza? Who will take control and represent the interests of the Palestinians? How will the Israelis overcome the wave of anger and revenge to start preparing for the pursuit of peace once again? How can we overcome all this death, destruction, resentment, and hatred to put forward a post-conflict proposal, reopen paths to a political settlement, and redefine Israeli-Palestinian relations?
These are not the types of questions that can be answered with the naivety of absolute righteousness and maximalist demands on the Palestinian side, nor the arrogance of the Israeli right, whose bet on Hamas allowing it to do away with the peace project has blown up in its face.
So, it is a battle that must be fought here and there.
The battle that has prevailed today is, to a large extent, a battle of hearts and sentiments taking us in the wrong direction. We need to wage a battle of minds that we do not have the luxury of delaying; we must expand its reach and invest in its infrastructure.
