Iran-Israel war diverting attention from Gaza catastrophe
https://arab.news/2bzak
As the world turns its eyes to the explosive confrontation between Iran and Israel, another tragedy continues to unfold — largely amid international silence. Israel's war on Gaza, already one of the most destructive military campaigns in recent history, is now becoming a footnote in the global news cycle. Airstrikes, famine and mass displacement have not ended, they have merely been pushed out of the spotlight. This shift in attention is not merely coincidental — it is politically convenient. The question we must ask is: at what cost?
The Iran-Israel conflict, which has drawn in regional actors and sparked fears of a wider war, is undoubtedly significant. It has serious implications for global oil markets, international security and the delicate balance of power in the Middle East. But while diplomats scramble to contain this geopolitical wildfire, a slower, deadlier burn continues in Gaza — one that threatens the lives of millions, especially children, trapped in a war zone with no escape, no food and little hope.
Since the start of the Gaza war in October 2023, more than 55,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to local health authorities. Entire neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble, hospitals have been bombed and the Strip's already fragile infrastructure has collapsed under the weight of a sustained siege. The World Food Programme and other agencies have repeatedly warned of an impending famine, exacerbated by Israel's restrictions on humanitarian aid and targeted destruction of civilian resources.
And yet, with missiles now flying between Iran and Israel, the human catastrophe in Gaza is being relegated to the margins of global diplomacy. The shift is palpable: once-vocal international condemnation has softened into diplomatic murmurs. UN debates on war crimes and humanitarian aid have slowed, while the coverage from major Western news outlets has thinned dramatically. We are witnessing, in real-time, how one conflict can serve as a smokescreen for another.
The shift is palpable: once-vocal international condemnation has softened into diplomatic murmurs
Hani Hazaimeh
This diversion is not just a matter of journalistic bandwidth — it is a calculated political maneuver. As Israel frames itself once again as a victim under existential threat from a regional rival, it reclaims a position of moral high ground in Western narratives. The Iran confrontation allows Israel to recast its military aggression in Gaza as part of a broader defensive strategy against a hostile axis, linking Hamas, Hezbollah and Tehran under a single 'terror' umbrella. In doing so, it deflects international criticism and stalls momentum for accountability, including mounting allegations of war crimes.
Moreover, the Iran-Israel escalation has proven a convenient excuse for Washington and its European allies to delay or downplay tough decisions on Gaza. Calls for a ceasefire, arms embargoes or investigations into violations of international law are being drowned out by appeals for 'regional de-escalation' and the need to prevent 'a wider war.' But for the people of Gaza, the war is already wide enough. Their suffering does not pause simply because the West is worried about oil prices or the Strait of Hormuz.
The timing of Israel's intensified military operations in Gaza often appears to coincide with moments of high international distraction. In recent months, several large-scale offensives, particularly in Rafah and northern Gaza, have been launched just as global attention veered toward diplomatic flashpoints involving Iran. Whether this is by design or not, the result is the same: reduced scrutiny, minimal outrage and a delay in any form of international pressure.
This diversion also has devastating consequences on the ground. Humanitarian organizations have reported significant delays in aid delivery due to shifting political priorities among donor states. Media outlets that once dispatched special correspondents to Gaza have now redeployed them to Tel Aviv or Beirut. Even social media algorithms, driven by trending topics, have contributed to a sharp decline in visibility for Gaza-related content.
The timing of Israel's intensified military operations in Gaza often appears to coincide with moments of high international distraction
Hani Hazaimeh
But this is not just a failure of media or politics — it is a moral failure. The world cannot afford to normalize genocide simply because something more 'geopolitically urgent' has arisen. The scale of suffering in Gaza demands sustained, focused international attention. It is not a side note. It is not a collateral issue. It is a core crisis that reflects the failure of the international system to uphold the very principles it claims to defend: the protection of civilians, the rule of law and the universal value of human life.
To ignore Gaza now is to send a dangerous message — that some lives are more dispensable than others. That justice can be paused. That impunity is acceptable if the perpetrator is powerful enough or the timing is convenient. We must resist this logic. Civil society, journalists and humanitarian advocates must redouble their efforts to keep Gaza in the public consciousness. The same institutions and voices that were courageous enough to speak out months ago must not go silent now.
Furthermore, governments must stop using the Iran-Israel war as a diplomatic excuse. They must continue to support investigations into violations of international law in Gaza, push for unimpeded humanitarian access and condition military support on adherence to human rights. The conflict with Iran cannot become a moral fig leaf for the obliteration of Gaza.
Political convenience or media attention spans should not constrain the human capacity for empathy and justice. If we truly care about peace, stability and human dignity in the Middle East, then we must care about Gaza — no matter what else is burning.
The road to peace in the region cannot be paved over mass graves in Gaza. And until the world reclaims its moral clarity and refuses to be distracted by the convenient theater of geopolitics, the suffering will continue — silently, but no less tragically.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
19 injured in Israeli port after Iran missile barrage
JERUSALEM: At least 19 people were injured in the northern Israeli port city of Haifa as Iran fired a fresh barrage of missiles on Friday afternoon, authorities has been launching daily missile salvos at Israel for the past week since a wide-ranging Israeli attack on its nuclear and military facilities triggered projectile slammed into an area by the docks in Haifa on Friday afternoon where it damaged a building and blew out windows, littering the ground with rubble, AFP images foreign ministry said it struck 'next to' the Al-Jarina locations of missile strikes in Israel are subject to strict military censorship rules and are not always provided in detail to the public.A spokesman for Haifa's Rambam hospital said 19 people had been injured in the city, with one in a serious condition.A military official said that 'approximately 20 missiles were launched toward Israel' in the latest Iranian than 450 missiles have been fired at the country so far, along with about 400 drones, according to Israel's National Public Diplomacy directorate added that the country's tax authority had received over 25,000 claims linked to damage caused to buildings during the launched a massive wave of strikes on June 13, triggering an immediate retaliation from areas in both countries have suffered, while Israel and Iran have traded accusations of targeting least 25 people have been killed in Israel by Iranian missile strikes, according to said on Sunday that Israeli strikes had killed at least 224 people, including military commanders, nuclear scientists and civilians. It has not updated the toll since.
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Targeting Iran's supreme leader is madness
The idea resurfaced last week that Israel may try to assassinate Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as if he were just another easy military target in the fierce war between Israel and Iran, which may soon involve the US. President Donald Trump made it clear he opposed Israel's move and did not support it. This issue is far more serious than just another military objective: it could become a matter of ideology and trigger deeply dangerous cycles of revenge. There have been times in history when warring parties refrained from targeting leaders and symbolic figures for reasons beyond direct military calculation. For example, Emperor Hirohito of Japan was a ruler and a sacred symbol. Documents confirm that he authorized his military leaders to go to war, invade Manchuria, and carry out the attack on Pearl Harbor, which led to America's entry into the Second World War. But during the war, and on the recommendation of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the US government decided not to target him. He was also excluded from the list of Japanese leaders prosecuted after the allied victory and the occupation of Tokyo. That decision paved the way for reconciliation between the US and Japan, and helped the Japanese people accept the Americans. Hirohito remained emperor and respected until his death, living for another 45 years. There have been times in history when warring parties refrained from targeting leaders and symbolic figures for reasons beyond direct military calculation. Abdulrahman Al-Rashed Ayatollah Khamenei is a spiritual leader, and any harm inflicted on him would cause wounds that may never heal — regardless of how decisive the Israeli or American victories are on the battlefield. The supreme leader is a lifelong authority, not a president. He would play a vital role in bringing about peace, just as Ayatollah Khomeini did in 1988, when he unilaterally announced an end to the war with Iraq — a war we thought would end only with the complete destruction of one or both countries. We remember that no one in the Iranian regime at that time dared to call for a ceasefire with Iraq — except the supreme leader. Some people get carried away by the intoxication of war, blinded by overwhelming military power and temporary victories, only to create hatred that could last for decades or even centuries when they could have achieved victory without doing so. There is no doubt that the Israelis possess superior intelligence capabilities and overwhelming destructive power, which allow them to penetrate deep into Iran and reach its leadership's hideouts, as they have done in Lebanon and Gaza. But Iran's supreme leader cannot be equated with Hezbollah's secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah, who was assassinated last year. The difference in symbolic weight is enormous, and the consequences of a miscalculation are grave. Ayatollah Khamenei is a spiritual leader, and any harm inflicted on him would cause wounds that may never heal. Abdulrahman Al-Rashed And even if the comparison isn't entirely accurate, the execution of Saddam Hussein on Eid Al-Adha in 2006 — though he was a Baathist and not a religious or tribal leader — came at a heavy price. US generals later attempted to reconcile with Sunni forces, but failed. Washington still suffers the consequences of that event, especially with half the Iraqi population. That grave mistake could have been avoided, and the resulting rift healed, after their military victory. Israelis are capable of stunning military victories, as they achieved in 1967 and again last year — but that doesn't mean they win the larger war. We are truly on the brink of a new and critical chapter of history that will reshape what we've known and lived through over the past half century. What's needed now is the threat of force without reaching for its maximum limits — to bring about change through consensus, as much as possible. That would benefit everyone, including Israel, the US, Iran, and all the nations in the region. Both winners and losers share an interest in reducing tensions and achieving a collective peace. • Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a Saudi journalist and intellectual. He is the former general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published. X: @aalrashed
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Deconstructing the language of war in Gaza
In the dense urban landscapes of Gaza, where homes, schools, hospitals and humanitarian offices blend into the same war-ravaged blocks, a chilling narrative has taken root: the justification of civilian deaths through the term 'human shields.' It is a phrase that, with calculated frequency, surfaces in military briefings and international news coverage — offered up as explanation, defense or even absolution for airstrikes that leave families buried beneath the rubble. But what does it mean to accuse an entire population of serving as human shields, and who benefits from this framing? This terminology has become a central rhetorical device in the ongoing war in Gaza. Israel, backed by several Western allies, repeatedly claims that Hamas embeds itself within civilian infrastructure, using hospitals, schools and densely populated areas as cover. These claims are used to justify strikes that result in high civilian casualties and the destruction of critical infrastructure, including the deaths of aid workers and UN personnel. Yet, to critically assess this narrative, we must examine not only its implications but its very foundations. International humanitarian law prohibits the use of civilians as human shields. It also mandates that all warring parties distinguish between combatants and noncombatants and take every possible precaution to avoid harming civilians. But the invocation of 'human shields' creates a dangerous legal gray zone — one that permits the reclassification of civilian-heavy areas as legitimate military targets, even in the absence of transparent evidence. In effect, the accusation of 'human shields' becomes a post hoc shield for military action, not a verified truth Hani Hazaimeh This ambiguity is often exploited. When a missile strikes a refugee camp, or when a humanitarian convoy is targeted, the fallback explanation is often a vague claim of militant presence in the vicinity. Rarely are these claims independently verified and often they are retroactively provided. In effect, the accusation becomes a post hoc shield for military action, not a verified truth. This language erodes accountability. It transforms war crimes into tactical necessity and leaves civilians in Gaza with no safe haven — not even within the walls of a UN school or beneath the tents of an aid organization. Labeling civilians as human shields does more than justify their deaths — it dehumanizes them. It subtly shifts blame from the aggressor to the victim, implying that civilian suffering is not only inevitable but strategic. This framing creates a moral detachment, desensitizing the world to scenes of bloodied children and shattered homes. It also reinforces a false dichotomy: that the people of Gaza are either combatants or collaborators, shields or threats. This dichotomy ignores the basic truth that the majority of Gaza's population are children, mothers, elders and aid workers — people who have nowhere to flee and nothing to shield but their families. Nowhere is the cost of this language more tragically evident than in the rising death toll among aid workers. The UN Relief and Works Agency, Doctors Without Borders and other humanitarian organizations have seen their staff killed while delivering food, administering medical care or sheltering refugees. These are not military operations. They are lifelines. Yet when these convoys or compounds are hit, the same justification often resurfaces: alleged militant proximity. This deflects outrage and inhibits meaningful investigations. More importantly, it contributes to the breakdown of humanitarian corridors and the paralysis of relief operations — leaving an already besieged population even more vulnerable. Nowhere is the cost of this language more tragically evident than in the rising death toll among aid workers Hani Hazaimeh Words matter. They shape public opinion, influence international policy and determine whether tragedies are investigated or ignored. The language used to describe the war in Gaza must reflect the reality on the ground — not political agendas or military talking points. The international media must rigorously interrogate claims of human shields being used and resist the urge to parrot official narratives without evidence. Human rights organizations must push for independent investigations into all strikes that result in civilian deaths, particularly those targeting or affecting aid agencies. Governments and international bodies must hold all parties accountable to the standards of international law — not selectively or symbolically, but consistently and transparently. And most of all, we must remember that beneath the euphemisms and geopolitical calculus are real people — families that grieve, children who fear and communities that endure trauma that no terminology can justify. The people of Gaza are not shields. They are human beings. And their suffering should not be rationalized — it should be stopped. • Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh
