Reshaping the Narrative: Words and Terminology in the Israel-Gaza War

It has been 18 months since the horrific events of October 7th. As the war between Israel and Gaza enters a new phase, the language we employ carries increasingly important implications. Words matter—not just within narrative wars shaping public opinion, but for diplomatic, jurisprudential, and historical reasons. Using the wrong words deepens the crisis; finding the right words could end it sooner.

The prevailing global narrative casts Israel as the instigator while overlooking a crucial fact: Gaza through its leadership, Hamas, initiated this war through a coordinated attack on military and civilian targets on October 7th, 2023. This attack was a premeditated “casus belli”—a deliberate provocation that formally triggered an “International Armed Conflict” governed by “International Humanitarian Law.”

This war is not between Israel and Hamas, but between Israel and the territory of Gaza. As Gaza’s designated authority, Hamas acts on behalf of its people. Hamas positions itself as fighting for the freedom of their community, but they’ve been in authority in Gaza since 2007. Their war goal is control territory outside of their jurisdiction, which they have not rescinded since October 7th 2023, prolongs thereby prolonging the conflict in Gaza.

Israel is not at war with Gazan civilians or with Palestinians writ large. Gaza represents two million of the 15 million people who identify as Palestinian worldwide. When the war is framed as a struggle for all Palestinians, it is a dangerous call to expand the conflict well beyond Gaza.

While many in the West hear ‘Free Palestine’ as a cry for justice, the slogan often fuels Hamas — a militant organization that thrives on continued conflict. ‘Free Palestine’ and ‘River to the Sea’ are not an anti-war message, and serve as rallying cries for the expansion of war.

It’s essential to separate support for the dignity and safety of people living in Gaza from language and actions that empower those who seek Israel’s destruction. I believe it’s possible to advocate for the lives and rights of Palestinians without threatening the lives and safety of Jews.

Hamas operatives have been labeled ‘terrorists’. Although Hamas is designated as a terror organization by many countries, referring to them as ‘terrorists’ absolves their actions of full accountability according to  international law. Terrorism typically refers to individuals and small groups acting on an ad hoc basis. What happened on October 7th was a meticulously planned military operation ordered by Gaza’s governing authority and overseen by its military command. It involved hundreds of highly trained military personnel. Whatever justification they give for these actions, it makes them fully accountable for crimes of war. It was not an isolated act of terrorism.

When viewed as a ‘casus belli’ — the cause for war —the goals of October 7th were not limited to attacking Israeli military bases, but also killing and kidnapping ordinary Israelis. The civilian victims in Israel weren’t secondary to the war objective—they were the war objective. Hamas may claim that civilians were not the target because it counters their religious beliefs, but proof lies in the human carnage that their own armed military left behind.

As Gaza’s ruling government, what remains of Hamas’ leadership bears individual responsibility for these crimes of war. While Gaza’s precise legal status remains contested and International Criminal Court jurisdiction unclear, those who ordered and executed attacks targeting civilians may well face charges in due course.

The suffering in Gaza is immeasurable. Yet devastation continues partly because those fighting alongside Hamas, or volunteering as human shields, make daily choices prolonging the conflict. The protests recently heard on Gaza’s streets need to grow louder. Civilian rejection of Hamas is the best foundation for Gaza’s future.

A term we rarely hear in mass media reporting—but one that would have the most immediate humanitarian impact—is surrender. Calling for Hamas’s surrender is the clearest and most humane demand right now. It is the fastest path to returning hostages, stopping the bombing, and getting aid into Gaza. This message needs to be heard loudly and consistently by anyone who truly wants to stop the suffering. And our message should not be “bring them home,” which implies the burden is on us, but “send them home,” which places responsibility where it belongs.

However much demand there is within Israel for its government to do more, the return of the hostages is not Israel’s ultimate responsibility. The responsibility for this war crime lies squarely with Gaza and its leadership.

Gaza, under Hamas, has not surrendered and repeatedly states its intention to attack Israel again. In such circumstances, Israel’s right to self-defense remains justified until its enemy rescinds its threats and capitulates.

In the meantime, Israel remains accountable to international humanitarian law, especially as Israel announces its widening war goals.  The recent shooting of Red Crescent aid workers adds emphasis to the need for accountabilty, not withstanding the fog of war that surrounds such incidents.  Gaza must be held to the same standards. Taking hostages is a war crime. Calls for a ceasefire before hostages are returned implicitly legitimizes hostage-taking as an acceptable act of war. It is not.

Eighteen months into this terrible war, choosing our words has never been more important. “Surrender and send them home”says it all, and gets it done.

Stephen D. Smith is CEO of Memory Workers and Executive Director Emeritus of USC Shoah Foundation.