Israeli historian Ilan Pappé recently put it, the dehistoricization of the October attacks by Hamas
is helping Israel “to pursue genocidal policies in the Gaza Strip”. It also serves as a pretext for
international powers, including the US and European countries, to allow the violation of
“democratic freedoms in the name of a new ‘war on terror’”.
By trying to convince the public opinion that the attacks on October 7th were random
terrorist attacks, Israel has been trying to frame its brutal response to such offensive in path
dependence terms. Within this framework, the attacks by Hamas are conceived as a critical
juncture, which set in motion an inevitable retaliation – in a similar way as the invasion of Iraq
was framed by several Western countries following the 9/11 attacks. This inevitability also
suggests a lack of agency by the Israeli government which, in turn, leads to a lack of accountability
for its actions. Moreover, this type of framing implies a lock-in or irreversibility within the new
path of increased warfare. Thus, when framed in these terms, the conflict in Gaza has very
pessimistic prospects.
This is why, now more than ever, it is paramount to introduce emplotment, or a logical
connection between events, in our view of the war. Framing the October attacks and the war that
unfolded as process sequencing, instead of path dependence, would allow us to see how those
attacks were firmly rooted in previous events. In addition, this approach does not imply a
unidirectional path following an initial juncture, but rather allows for the reversal in trajectories.
This implies a greater role of agency, as decisions can be taken to reverse the course, and therefore,
a greater accountability for these decisions. This model, then, would provide some hope for a
change of course, in the form of an effective ceasefire or a de-escalation, of the conflict in Gaza.
While Israel will likely continue immersed in its War of Time, aiming to win the battle of
narratives, it remains to be seen which of these two approaches will prevail in the international
community’s framing of the war in Gaza. And, even if the process sequencing model imposes
itself, with a greater focus on Israel’s accountability, Israel may play the card of using time as a
strategy of exhaustion. If the conflict becomes protracted, the international attention – including
news media – may eventually get “tired” of it and look for a more newsworthy event somewhere
else, as it sadly happened with the war in Syria, and more recently with Ukraine.
Time, however, while potentially malleable, is not a tamable force of nature. As the ancient
Roman philosopher Seneca once said, ultimately, “time discloses the truth”. Thus, even if Israel
wins this battle of narratives, facts will sooner or later come to light. It is only a matter of time.