Introduction
Since the October 7 atrocities, Israel has faced not only a military and diplomatic war, but also a war of words. Hamas and Iran’s proxies - Hezbollah, the Houthis, and a network of ideological allies - have perfected the use of language as a weapon. Their words are chosen not to convey truth, but to manipulate Western perception.
In Europe, the United Nations, and American universities, their vocabulary has been adopted by the unsuspecting and the sympathetic alike. Each term sounds reasonable to Western ears, yet its intended meaning within Hamas’s or Tehran’s ideology is entirely different - often the opposite.
This linguistic warfare is not accidental. It is part of a coordinated psychological and political campaign to delegitimize Israel, erode its moral standing, and recast its self-defense as aggression.
The following terms illustrate how the same words can mean peace to one audience and destruction to another.
The Occupation: In Western vocabulary, “occupation” refers to Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria (aka the 'West Bank') or Gaza. Yet Israel withdrew entirely from Gaza in 2005. What Hamas calls “the occupation” is not about the 1967 borders; it’s about 1948 - the very existence of Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Be’er Sheva. Their “liberation” is not about territory, but about erasing Israel from the map. This word is intentionally chosen to trigger moral outrage in Western audiences, invoking memories of European colonialism and apartheid. It reframes indigenous Israel not as a state under attack but as a foreign oppressor - a reversal of victim and aggressor that shapes UN resolutions, campus protests, and European policy debates.
Resistance: The term “resistance” evokes moral heroism to Western ears. In Hamas’s lexicon, it means terrorism - the murder of civilians, rocket fire into cities, and massacres like October 7. By calling terror “resistance,” they transform atrocity into virtue. The word carries the emotional legacy of the French Resistance during World War II, lending undeserved legitimacy to acts of barbarity. Western journalists and academics often repeat it uncritically, unaware that Hamas’s “resistance” aims not to end oppression but to end Israel’s existence.
The Two-State Solution: To diplomats, this phrase suggests coexistence and compromise. To Iran’s proxies, it’s merely a phase - a strategic pause before the “one-state solution,” which envisions a world without Jews. Their goal is not peace beside Israel, but victory in its place. This semantic trick comforts Western leaders, who interpret the words through their own liberal lens. Yet every time “two-state solution” is uttered by Hamas or Tehran, it signals not peace but patience - a pause until the next opportunity to strike.
Peace: In Western thought, peace means reconciliation and stability. For the Tehran-Hamas axis, peace means a temporary ceasefire - a lull for rearming, rebuilding tunnels, and preparing for the next war. Their concept of peace is not coexistence, but intermission. Throughout Middle Eastern history, similar “truces” (hudnas) were declared to buy time, only to be broken once the balance of power shifted. To Western diplomats, peace is an end state; to Hamas, it is merely a tactic.
Martyrdom: In Western tradition, a martyr dies for faith or freedom. In Hamas’s culture, martyrdom sanctifies suicide bombers and human shields. Death becomes an instrument of political theater, glorified as divine service. This cult of martyrdom is taught in schools, broadcast on television, and painted on murals. It dehumanizes life itself, ensuring that every child’s death becomes another headline - a propaganda tool to weaponize sympathy abroad.
Ceasefire: While diplomats hear a humanitarian gesture, Hamas hears an operational advantage - a pause to restock weapons, reposition fighters, and recast itself as a victim in front of sympathetic cameras. Every ceasefire becomes part of the long war. The moment Israel stops defending itself, Hamas fills the airwaves with stories of victimhood, resets its military infrastructure, and resumes attacks once the world’s attention drifts.
Freedom Fighters: A phrase that once honored those who resisted tyranny now masks jihadists whose charter calls for Israel’s annihilation. The “freedom” they seek is the freedom to destroy. This distortion is especially dangerous in academia, where moral equivalence turns murderers into revolutionaries. When terror groups are labeled as “fighters,” their victims disappear - linguistically and politically.
Humanitarian Aid: To Western donors, it means relief for civilians. To Hamas, it means supplies for its fighters - food for combatants, fuel for rockets, and concrete for tunnels. Civilians are left hungry to serve as props for foreign media. Reports from Gaza repeatedly show aid warehouses seized by Hamas and medical supplies stored in military tunnels. Yet the West continues to send assistance without demanding transparency, inadvertently sustaining the cycle of war.
"Right of Return": Framed as justice, it’s demographic warfare. The demand to “return” millions of descendants of 1948 refugees into Israel is not about fairness - it’s about dissolving the Jewish state from within. This slogan is perhaps the most effective demographic weapon ever devised. It disguises the intent to destroy Israel as a moral plea for fairness - a linguistic Trojan horse that turns compassion into policy.
Occupation Forces: To Hamas, “occupation forces” include every Israeli, anywhere. Even Tel Aviv is “occupied land.” The very word “Israel” is illegitimate in their narrative. This rhetorical weapon ensures that any Israeli soldier, police officer, or even civilian is a targeted “combatant.” It transforms every defensive action into a war crime and every terrorist into a “freedom fighter.”
Apartheid: Perhaps the most cynical distortion. Israel’s Arab citizens vote, hold seats in the Knesset, preside over courts, and head hospitals. To call this “apartheid” cheapens the word and weaponizes morality to delegitimize Israel’s very right to exist. The apartheid libel thrives because it borrows the moral authority of South Africa’s history. It simplifies a complex reality into a moral cartoon, erasing Israel’s diversity and shared institutions. It’s not criticism - it’s character assassination.
Genocide: Another moral inversion. Israel issues warnings, opens humanitarian corridors, and treats Gazan civilians in its hospitals. Hamas, meanwhile, hides behind those same civilians and celebrates death. Accusing Israel of genocide is not just false - it’s projection by those who preach it. The term has become the rallying cry of activists who understand its emotional power. It equates defense with extermination and turns Israel’s restraint into guilt. It is today’s modern blood libel, repackaged for global audiences.
War Crimes: Applied selectively and stripped of context, the term becomes propaganda. Israel’s self-defense is condemned while Hamas’s massacres are excused as “resistance.” When everything Israel does is a war crime, the word itself loses meaning. This rhetorical inflation cheapens international law. It transforms the legal vocabulary of justice into a political weapon, used not to uphold morality but to undermine one country’s right to survive.
Conclusion
Hamas and Iran’s proxies have discovered that words can achieve what weapons cannot. Every phrase is engineered to manipulate Western emotion and reverse moral polarity - to turn defenders into villains and aggressors into victims. The West must learn to translate these terms honestly - to hear not what is said, but what is meant. Only then can truth reclaim the ground that words have surrendered.
Dr. Avi Perry is a former professor at Northwestern University, a former Bell Labs researcher and manager, and later served as Vice President at NMS Communications. He represented the United States on the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Standards Committee, where he authored significant portions of the G.168 standard. He is the author of the thriller novel 72 Virgins and a Cambridge University Press book on voice quality in wireless networks, and is a regular op-ed contributor to The Jerusalem Post and Israel National News.