On Rising Lions and Waiting Tigers: Contemplations on the Israeli-Iranian War

Amid the escalating Israeli-Iranian conflict of June 13, 2025, and in the wake of the October 7th massacre and the ensuing Israel-Hamas war, a redefining moment unfolded for both the West and the Middle East.

In cities like Berlin, Toronto and New York, Kurdish and Iranian groups started to appear in public waving the Israeli flag alongside banners of the Shah and the Kurdish Peshmerga. On social media, Mizrahi Israeli influencers challenged dominant narratives portraying Jews as “white colonizers.” They amplified the often-overlooked experiences of Mizrahi Jews—those from Middle Eastern and North African backgrounds—whose history and dispersion, such as after the Farhud in 1941, have long been marginalized in Israeli mainstream discourse.

In the wake of the Iran–Pakistan conflict, symbolic narratives emerged aligning Iran with Israel—representing, in this imaginary, the West—while positioning Pakistan alongside Palestine, symbolizing the Global South and the Muslim world. The core issue in these unfolding dynamics lies in the significant meaning associated with the narratives and statements made by policymakers, statesmen and journalists.

Following the escalation on Jun. 17 between Israel and the Islamist regime in Tehran, the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU) remarked that Israel would undertake the West’s “dirty work.” The varied responses, including from Kurdish activists, reflect a deeper crisis: How we in the West speak about the Middle East, and whose voices we choose to omit or include, is not merely a matter of foreign policy rhetoric, but a reflection of our own democratic convictions. This crisis of political language ultimately falls back on us, shaping not only our understanding of global affairs but also our ability to cultivate a more resilient, inclusive and self-aware democratic society.

There are two examples that illustrate the need for a shift in our current narratives. Here, I demonstrate how an unconscious application of an “imagined Israel” and “imagined Palestine” promotes an exclusive rhetoric, which can inadvertently legitimize both extreme forms of revisionist left- and right-wing extremism. By recognizing that these tropes of political rhetoric are conceptual rather than direct reflections of lived experiences, we can create space for a more nuanced and democratic dialogue on “Western values.” The representation of various European, Arab, and Persian Muslim and non-Muslim groups within Middle Eastern discourse helps to counter binary, postcolonial frameworks and include non-Judeo-Christian narratives within the European frame.

Recognizing the Diversity of Real and Imagined Israels and Palestines

This metaphorical use of Israel and Palestine has a long tradition in Western discourse. Both tropes often reflect idealized notions of the nation-state or are used to project internal societal critiques—be it of nationalism, militarism, or religious identity. In this framing, the “Israeli” and the “Palestinian” become abstract figures, often stripped of historical, cultural or ethnic specificity. The framing erases not only Jewish diversity but also the realities of Muslim, Christian, Druze, and non-Abrahamic groups within Israel, as well as Christian and non-Muslim groups in Palestine.

Within many left-wing circles, Israel is often discussed through a simplified post-colonial lens. It becomes a proxy in broader struggles—climate justice, gender equality, pacifism—used to critique global power structures. Yet this reductive framework reinforces an oppressor-vs-oppressed binary that inadvertently legitimizes neo-fascist Islamist regimes by erasing the complexity of the region itself, as seen at so-called pro-Palestine demonstrations where politicians of the left joined demonstrators waving IS-flags in Berlin this past June.

Yet it’s not only the left that engages in symbolic politics. Right-wing and revisionist actors also deploy an “imagined Israel” to support nationalist or isolationist agendas. Figures like Nigel Farage have framed Israel’s military actions as victories for “Western civilization,” using the existence of Israel to oppose European integration and immigration from Arabic nations.

To genuinely understand the Middle East, we must first acknowledge the divergence between the imagined forms of Israel and Palestine and the existing forms of these nations.

In all these cases, an “imagined Israel” and an “imagined Palestine” becomes a canvas for global ideological battles. But this symbolic role obscures the real, diverse and complex Israeli and Palestinian society. To genuinely understand the Middle East, we must first acknowledge the divergence between the imagined forms of Israel and Palestine and the existing forms of these nations. Following this, we need to change how we talk about Israel and Palestine—not as a symbol, but as a nation of people with distinct, intersecting identities.

New Muslim Rhetorics and the Inclusion of Non-Muslim Groups

European Muslim groups exemplify a growing movement to redefine Muslim discourse in Europe. They challenge pan-Arabic Islamist narratives and advocate for a pluralistic Middle East that includes non-Arab, non-Muslim voices such as Baháʼís, Yezidis, Zoroastrians and more. These voices support Palestinian self-determination while rejecting the legitimacy of Islamist regimes like Hamas and warning against alliances with Iranian-sponsored groups that suppress reform-oriented voices. These statements challenge the homogenization of “Muslim nations” and urge us to recognize intra-religious and inter-ethnic complexities.

European Muslim groups exemplify a growing movement to redefine Muslim discourse in Europe.

Predominantly European Muslim nations like Azerbaijan, with their own complex ethnic compositions, are aligning their politics and subscription to the “Western Sphere” with Israel—through both symbolic gestures and strategic actions like arms deals. Azerbaijan, for instance, notably refrained from condemning Israel’s attack on Iran. Such developments suggest the emergence of a European Islam that is democratic and pluralistic. Acknowledging this evolution could endorse the integration of diverse migrant communities in a way that acknowledges, not flattens, their complexity and supports their subscription to shared liberal values.

Conclusion: A Call for Rhetorical Recalibration

To better understand the Middle East and safeguard democracy we must first listen to the voices we’ve historically overlooked: Mizrahim, secular Muslims, non-Muslim minorities, and rising diasporas in the West. Neither Israel nor Palestine are metaphors, but recognizing their internal diversity opens the door to a more nuanced understanding of the region and ourselves and thus eventually to new alliances.

Julia Pohlmann, PhD, is a historian from the University of Aberdeen, specializing in Jewish and Intellectual History. Her forthcoming book, “A Multitude of Western Traditions: The Imagined Jew in Europe and the North American Sphere from 1700 to the Present,” will be published later this year.