The Battle for Gaza: How One Narrative Dominates Through Action, Not Words 

The article presents three competing narratives about Gaza’s future: the Trump administration’s transactional “peace plan” that avoids commitment to Palestinian statehood; the Palestinian/Arab narrative grounded in international law and a two-state solution; and Israel’s narrative of domination, which is the only one being aggressively enacted through policy. This third narrative is realized via concrete actions like settlement expansion funded with hundreds of millions of dollars, legislative pushes for the death penalty against Palestinians, and explicit government rejection of a Palestinian state. The central argument is that this Israeli narrative, backed by force and creating irreversible facts on the ground, dominates because the international community fails to enforce accountability through tangible legal and economic pressure, leaving pro-Palestine narratives as unenforced principles rather than actionable realities.

The Battle for Gaza: How One Narrative Dominates Through Action, Not Words 

The struggle over Gaza’s future is a contest of ideas. On one side are visions of peace through diplomacy or international law; on the other, a vision being realized daily through concrete, aggressive policy. This clash isn’t theoretical—it’s a live demonstration of how narrative becomes reality when backed by decisive action. While world leaders debate frameworks and principles, one party is rapidly creating facts on the ground that may prove irreversible. 

The Three Competing Visions for Palestine 

1. The Trump Administration’s Transactional Vision

This U.S.-centric narrative presents former President Donald Trump and his advisors as the architects of a new Middle East order . It’s characterized by transactional diplomacy and a notable dismissal of international legal consensus, positioning American approval as the ultimate measure of legitimacy . This approach was exemplified when Trump declared the Gaza conflict “over” and promoted a “peace plan” that strategically sidestepped any firm commitment to Palestinian statehood . The effectiveness of this narrative is increasingly questioned as implementation stalls, with key aspects like Hamas’s disarmament remaining unresolved . 

2. The Palestinian and Global South Vision of Legal Rights

Championed by Arab nations and much of the Global South, this narrative grounds itself firmly in international law and humanitarian principles . Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty has articulated this position clearly, stating that the two-state solution is “the only way to achieve security and stability” and warning that discarding international law would allow “the law of the jungle to prevail” . This vision relies on diplomatic channels, United Nations resolutions, and international courts to advance its goals. 

3. The Israeli Vision of Domination and Control

This is the only narrative currently being translated into consequential, tangible action . It advances through sustained military operations, legislative maneuvers, and explicit government declarations rejecting Palestinian sovereignty. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated unequivocally: “There will not be a Palestinian state. It’s very simple: it will not be established” . This narrative is backed by significant financial commitments, including an unprecedented $843 million allocation to expand West Bank settlements over five years . 

The table below summarizes these competing visions: 

From Words to Action: How Policy Creates Irreversible Facts 

The critical distinction lies in implementation. While diplomatic visions remain in the realm of negotiation, the Israeli narrative progresses through definitive policy. 

Settlement Expansion as De Facto Annexation Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s $843 million settlement fund represents more than construction—it’s a systematic formalization of control . The funding is specifically earmarked to relocate military bases, establish clusters of mobile homes, and create a dedicated land registry, directly extending Israeli governmental authority into occupied territory . This approach is described by officials as advancing “practical sovereignty,” creating facts that make a future Palestinian state geographically impossible . 

Legislative Measures Targeting Palestinian Rights The proposed death penalty legislation represents a profound shift. The bill, which passed its first Knesset reading in November 2025, would allow Israeli military courts to impose mandatory death sentences on Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis on nationalistic grounds—and do so with a simple majority vote rather than unanimity . National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir underscored this intent by wearing a noose-shaped pin in parliament, stating it represented “just one of the options” for execution . 

Palestinian legal experts view this as an attempt to strip away protected status under international humanitarian law. “The Israeli Knesset, dominated by the far-right, is working to turn killing into official legislation,” said Hassan Breijieh of the Wall and Settlements Resistance Commission . The bill systematically removes judicial safeguards while conspicuously applying only to acts against Israelis, not to violence committed by Israelis against Palestinians . 

Security Policy with Settlement Implications Statements from senior officials further blur lines between temporary security and permanent control. Defense Minister Israel Katz stated in December 2025 that the Israeli military would “never leave all of Gaza,” suggesting plans to station Nahal military units—historically involved in establishing Israeli communities—in northern Gaza . Though he later clarified there was “no intention of establishing settlements,” such remarks contribute to a pattern of creating strategic ambiguity about long-term intentions . 

The Accountability Gap: Why Words Alone Cannot Counter Actions 

The Failure of International Mechanisms Despite numerous UN resolutions and proceedings at both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (ICC), tangible consequences for Israeli policies remain elusive. The ICC has taken significant steps, issuing arrest warrants for Israeli officials including Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity . However, these efforts face direct opposition, most notably from the United States, which has imposed sanctions on ICC officials . 

This assault on international justice has global repercussions. Sanctions against the ICC “have affected civil society actors in multiple situation countries—including Afghanistan, Palestine, Sudan, and the Philippines—restricting their engagement with the ICC, limiting access to international support, and delaying justice for victims,” notes a statement from over 220 civil society organizations . 

The Arms Trade: Economic Interests Trump Human Rights A crucial factor enabling this impunity is strategic dependency through defense partnerships. Israel is a global arms export leader, with sales reaching a record $14.8 billion in 2024 . Europe alone accounts for more than half of these exports . Major democracies like Germany rely on Israeli technology, such as the Trophy Active Protection System for their Leopard 2 tanks . 

This creates a powerful economic disincentive for meaningful pressure. As one analysis notes, “Countries that rely on Israeli systems for national security hesitate to jeopardise those relationships, whilst Israel leverages these links to secure strategic goodwill” . This “arms diplomacy” insulates Israel from the comprehensive sanctions faced by other nations accused of grave violations. 

Historical Patterns of Unchecked Expansion Current events follow a historical pattern where Palestinian concessions have not led to Israeli restraint. During the 1948 Nakba, historian Ilan Pappé notes that operational orders for the depopulation of Palestinian villages “did not exempt any village for any reason,” regardless of whether they resisted or surrendered . Similarly, after Palestinian forces withdrew from Lebanon in 1982 under a U.S.-brokered agreement, Israeli-backed forces proceeded to carry out the Sabra and Shatila massacre . 

Today, the West Bank—where organized armed resistance is minimal and the Palestinian Authority cooperates on security—experiences relentless settlement expansion and violence. Between October 2023 and late 2025, over 1,000 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank, with thousands more injured and approximately 10,000 arrested . This pattern challenges the notion that Israeli actions are merely responses to immediate security threats. 

The Path Forward: From Symbolic Gestures to Concrete Pressure 

The fundamental imbalance stems from one narrative possessing both the will and the means to act, while others rely on instruments—like international law—that lack enforcement mechanisms. As long as this disparity persists, the creation of irreversible facts will continue. 

Breaking this cycle requires moving beyond condemnation to consequences that alter strategic calculations. This includes: 

• Targeted sanctions on officials involved in settlement expansion and rights violations 

• Arms embargoes that acknowledge how weapons commerce fuels impunity 

• Unwavering support for independent international justice mechanisms like the ICC 

• Conditioning trade and diplomatic relations on compliance with international law 

The three narratives cannot indefinitely coexist. One is actively shaping the land, the law, and the future, while the others remain largely aspirational. Without a decisive shift toward enforcing accountability, the facts being created today will determine the reality of tomorrow, rendering other visions for Gaza and Palestine irrelevant. The ultimate question is whether the international community will find the political will to match principled statements with meaningful action before the last opportunities for a just resolution disappear.