In November last year, I predicted that Israel would struggle to maintain an advantage in narrative warfare the longer combat operations in Gaza lasted. By its very nature, intense urban warfare in densely populated Gaza was bound to cause high civilian casualties, and as those casualties have mounted, alongside widespread damage to buildings and infrastructure, and the worsening conditions of Palestinians caught in the crossfire, it has grown increasingly difficult for Israel to maintain a favourable impression on the world stage.
According to former US special forces operator Paul Cobaugh, ‘Narrative warfare’ is ‘a war of influence with narrative at its core’. Cobaugh further explains that ‘In a war of influence, the object is to use all available means to trigger predictable behaviour favourable for your side.’ In the context of the ongoing Gaza conflict, Israel must maintain international support for the narrative that military operations in Gaza are a justified response to the terrorist attacks conducted by Hamas on 7 October.
Israel’s increasing diplomatic isolation
In recent weeks, however, Israel has suffered several diplomatic blows indicating that its ability to influence other actors on the world stage is slipping.
The decision of International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan to request arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in May, was arguably the starkest blow to Israel’s international diplomatic standing since the war in Gaza begun. The charges refer to war crimes and crimes against humanity alleged to have been committed by Israel in Gaza, and includes specific actions cited to both Netanyahu and Gallant.
Khan also requested arrest warrants for top Hamas leaders like Yahua Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh, on war crime charges. Yet, in the grand schemes of things, these arrest warrants issued for Hamas leaders are strategically irrelevant since Hamas is already designated as a terrorist organisation by key players on the international stage. Simply put, any implication that Israel is a guilty party is a win for Hamas in the competition to control the narrative. Hamas is already largely considered a pariah on the world stage, whereas Israel is not. If top Israeli officials are implied to be war criminals by international organisations like the ICC, it is clear that Israel is facing the looming threat of diplomatic isolation.
Israel’s troubles with the ICC were followed shortly after with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that ‘Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part’. According to Professor Yossi Mekelberg, writing for Chatham House, ‘The wording of the ICJ’s ruling is more a reiteration of how the war should be conducted than a judgment on its legality.’ Nevertheless, the ICJ’s ruling is hardly a glowing endorsement of Israel’s military activities, and it is becoming increasingly harder for Israel to pursue its tactical and strategic objectives via military means without incurring the disapproval of certain sections of the international community.
Another blow for Israel came in May when Ireland, Norway, and Spain officially recognized Palestine as a separate state. That same month, Spanish Defence Minister Margarita Robles claimed that the conflict in Gaza is a ‘real genocide’. In response, Israel recalled its ambassadors from the three European capitals and stated that their decision amounted to a ‘reward for terrorism’. For Israel, growing European scepticism of the validity of its military operations is especially concerning, since Israel’s closest allies are Western.
Consequences
What these recent setbacks for Israel may indicate is that the internationally accepted narrative – as far as there is any agreement – is shifting against Israel. In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 7 October, the focus was largely on the horror Hamas inflicted on Israel. This gave Israel a window of opportunity wherein it could conduct military operations in Gaza with a fairly muted international backlash. However, as the war has progressed, the narrative has shifted to focus more heavily on the plight of Palestinian civilians, which has made it much harder for Israel to bat away the criticisms of its adversaries and maintain the unwavering support of its allies.
Israel’s principal ally, the US, has remained its firm supporter, but mounting international and domestic pressure is making it more difficult even for allies like Washington to continue supporting Israel without some form of blowback.
Prior to the Israel Defence Forces’ (IDF) expanded operations in Rafah, US President Joe Biden said that he had told Netanyahu, ‘If they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities, to deal with that problem.’ In other words, a major ground offensive in Rafah by the IDF was a red line for Washington. Israel has subsequently conducted military operations in Rafah, which it says are necessary for defeating Hamas. However, the US government has not withheld weapons from Israel and has instead argued that the IDF’s military operations in Rafah do not amount to a ‘major offensive’.
Nevertheless, the fact that the Biden Administration tried to attach conditionality to the continued provision of weapons and munitions does suggest that the US government is growing increasingly ill at ease with the means Israel is using to achieve its objectives. As international pressure continues to mount against Israel, its allies may find it more difficult to maintain a supportive stance without incurring diplomatic headaches of their own. This could result in greater diplomatic and legal trouble for Israel, but also in less military support.
Even if Israel is militarily successful in Gaza, it may be the long-term loser of the conflict. The outcomes of wars are inherently political in nature which means that perceptions matter. Humans tell stories to understand the world around them which means that seizing the narrative is crucial ground for the belligerents in any conflict. If the story that the international community tells about Israel casts it as the villain, it will incur heavy diplomatic, political, economic, and security costs. With the stakes this high, the contest to control the narrative will continue even after the last shots in Gaza are fired.
