Conflict Narratives: How Narratives Impacted the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas Conflicts

Narratives are the root of nearly everything we think and do. They are the way to tell a story, and, if crafted correctly, sway an audience to a desired opinion. They are selective, only including the information that contributes to their desired effect’s theme and thrust. Furthermore, narratives are the synthesis of information and are the outcome of the different ways information is processed. Foundational cultural narratives can impact the effectiveness of stories and other forms of communication, especially if they have a foundational narrative similar to that of the audience. In the case of the Russia-Ukraine War, the narrative put out by Ukraine resonates with most of the Western world, with the United States at the forefront. When utilized in a conflict, a master-narrative – narratives at the heart of a society that determine how the majority of that society gives meaning to events – can heavily sway an audience to one side, impacting the outcome of both smaller battles within a war and the overall outcome of the conflict itself.

Narratives are the root of nearly everything we think and do. They are the way to tell a story, and, if crafted correctly, sway an audience to a desired opinion.

The next layer of a narrative is a metanarrative, which is defined as the following:

“…created by global media as the prism through which the international community views the situation and it determines how conflicts are perceived and how events and actors are understood. It does this by selecting which aspects of the conflict are emphasized, which topics are highlighted and which actors are identified, and how motivation is assigned to the actors.”

Understanding metanarratives can be highly advantageous for an actor in conflict, as will be shown by Ukraine’s immediate harnessing of the narrative – global news outlets ran with the narrative that Ukraine had been wrongly invaded by a larger, hostile, neighboring country. This narrative will build upon the West’s existing metanarrative of Russia that has existed since the Cold War.

This essay will focus on the conflict narratives surrounding the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas conflicts, looking at how the master- and metanarratives around the world impacted the global support (or lack thereof) that the four major actors received. This article will also provide background information and historical evidence to illuminate the master- and metanarratives of the major actors, but also for the rest of the world. In the contemporary world, where globalization has increased connectivity, greater potential for shifting narratives exists. That dynamic can significantly impact conflicts, not just between international armed conflict (IAC), but also between IAC and non-international armed conflict (NIAC).

Russia-Ukraine versus Israel-Hamas – Fundamental Differences

One of the key differences between the two conflicts is that one conflict (Russia-Ukraine) is an international armed conflict (IAC) consisting of two state actors, while the other (Israel-Hamas) is a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) consisting of one state actor and one non-state actor. The International Committee of the Red Cross, a humanitarian aid organization, explains some of the humanitarian differences between IAC and NIAC. First, there is no definitive answer as to whether nonstate armed groups are bound to human rights laws. Due to their limited resources, nonstate armed groups may not be able to comply with the more complex aspects of obliging to human rights laws during armed conflicts. Second, state actors have an obligation to protect the human rights of both the people living in their territory, as well as the people living under nonstate armed groups. As state actors, Russia, Ukraine, and Israel have an obligation to protect the human rights of the people on both sides of the conflict while there is no definitive answer as to whether Hamas must oblige to those same rules, which can drastically change the conflict’s landscape. This will affect the Israel-Hamas conflict narrative in an important way. Assuming the general public does not know about this caveat, Israel could push a narrative that it is protecting human rights while Hamas is not and potentially sway public support its direction. Furthermore, in following the definitions outlined in The Strategies of Terrorism by Andrew Kydd and Barbara Walter, it can be argued that the October 7 attack was a provocation strategy employed by Hamas to provoke extreme violence and turn public perception in their favor. This is where Hamas truly employed social media, and the narrative began to shift. They began to be seen as a legitimate entity instead of a terrorist organization and non-state actor.

The conflicts between Russia and Ukraine can be classified as conventional warfare while the Israel-Hamas conflict can be described as irregular warfare. According to the Modern War Institute, the definition of irregular warfare has expanded beyond its original definition of “a violent struggle among state and nonstate actors for legitimacy and influence over relevant populations.” The definition now highlights two of the main tactics nonstate armed groups utilize: (1) mixing into and hiding among the civilian population and (2) perpetrating small-scale attacks in areas with a large population in order to cause significant damage. In the case of the Israel-Hamas conflict, a nonstate actor (Hamas) is struggling for legitimacy as the leader of Palestine and is advocating for a Palestine without Israeli occupation. However, that same nonstate actor has, like many other nonstate groups, hidden within the civilian population, most notably using hospitals and other civilian locations from which to wage war. This also has the potential to affect the narrative of any state actor versus terrorist group conflict. In the Israel-Hamas conflict, Hamas hiding among the civilian population and perpetrating attacks in areas with a large population pose a challenge for the state actor it is fighting. In the Israel-Hamas conflict narrative, Israel has been framed as a state actor that is targeting civilians and violating human rights of Palestinian citizens. What that conflict narrative fails to mention is that terrorist groups such as Hamas tend to hide within the civilian populations and wage its wars from there. State actors have a to strike a delicate balance in protecting the civilian population while fighting the nonstate actor, and that is not a straightforward mission.

In an increasingly interconnected, globalized world, wartime actions can quickly be spread globally through the news, the internet, and social media. When photos and videos of those actions – whether good or bad – are shared, the conflict narrative can shift. It is this capability to share images and stories around the globe that has reshaped the conflict landscape. The Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas conflicts are a contemporary example of how a narrative can shift a conflict.

From the Cold War to Crimea – Russia-Ukraine Background Summarized

Before discussing the current narrative surrounding the Russia-Ukraine War, it is important to look at their history. When it comes to narratives, history plays a large role. Ukrainian sentiments regarding Russia will, most often, be based on their countries’ histories and each person’s experiences. The conflict is not a result of contemporary issues finally coming to a head; instead, it is the result of a history of issues being brought to the surface by contemporary issues. Ukraine declared independence from the USSR in 1991, which ultimately led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Council on Foreign Relations states that “[s]ome experts view the Russia-Ukraine war as a manifestation of renewed geopolitical rivalry between major world powers,” and it very well could be. The United States’ support of Ukraine indicates a potential proxy war against Russia. However, the struggle between Russia and Ukraine was renewed in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. One critical piece of the Western metanarrative surrounding these events is missing: With Russia already in control of the peninsula, the Crimean parliament voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia, and when the Crimean people voted, 97% voted in favor of joining Russia. However, it is important to note that Crimea was under Russian occupation at that time, and that election was considered by many to be a show of false democracy to reframe a conflict narrative similar to the one Ukraine is currently utilizing.

Over the years, tensions continued to escalate as Ukraine became more Westernized, working with the U.S. and its allies and petitioning to join NATO. They adopted a democratic government and began to form their own identity, independent of the identities of the Soviet Union and, in looking back even further, the identity of the “medieval Kyivan Rus commonwealth” that encompassed Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. The Russian narrative surrounding the Westernization and subsequent invasion of Ukraine is starkly different from the narrative being spread in the West. In a March 2022 speech, Putin emphasized that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, and highlighted his administration’s goal of ending the anti-Russia narrative created by the West that he believed had spread into Ukraine and led them away from Russia. This speech aligns with past incidences where Putin has expressed the belief that those “who all trace their origins to the medieval Kyivan Rus commonwealth—and suggesting that the modern states of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus should share a political destiny both today and in the future.”

Russia-Ukraine Conflict Narrative

Understanding metanarratives can be highly advantageous for an actor in conflict.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine quickly took control of the Western conflict narrative. Ukraine created a narrative centered on freedom and independence. In their narrative, they emphasized that they had not instigated anything with Russia; they were a small country, shifting towards Western values and ideals, who had unjustly been invaded by the autocratic superpower from which they declared independence. For the United States, the Ukrainian narrative echoed a master narrative ingrained deep in American society – the valiant fight for freedom, and a revolutionary war. The narrative painted Ukraine as an unprovoking, small country who was invaded by a large and powerful country in order to take control of the area. For the U.S., this narrative digs deeply into a master narrative that is framed around freedom. The United States fought their Revolutionary War to free themselves from oppressive British rule. They intervened in World War II when attacked by another powerful state, and they fought to liberate the countries Germany and Japan had invaded. It is not just the U.S.; the freedom-revolution narrative is ingrained in the history of many Western countries who fought for their independence in some way, shape, or form. Whether it was the Jacobite Rebellion in Scotland in 1715, the American Revolution in 1775,  the French Revolution in 1789, or the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) and Northern Ireland during the Irish Troubles, each Western country has their own history that falls under a master narrative of fighting for freedom from an oppressive ruler. Ukraine continues to share pictures and videos that reinforce the narrative that they are fighting a righteous battle against a much larger, more powerful country.

In terms of global support, the Western metanarrative had Russia at a disadvantage from the start of the conflict. In part, due to the negative Western viewpoint of Russia that has persisted over the last 50 years, Russia is unable to take control of the narrative and gain large global support. However, it could be argued that they do not care about that Western support and only want to avoid the West intervening in the conflict. It is also important to note that Russia has not done much to counter the Western metanarrative that has existed about them. A considerable piece of evidence reinforcing the metanarrative is stories like the Russian forces’ massacre in Bucha in March 2022, in which they executed a variety of war crimes that included the death of 278 people (mostly civilians) between March 4 – 31. Russia went on the defensive, attempting to devise a counternarrative that instead felt more defensive than truthful: “The Russian Defense Ministry denied allegations that its forces killed civilians in Bucha, stating in a Telegram post on April 3 that “not a single local resident has suffered from any violent action” while Bucha was “under the control of the Russian armed forces,” and claiming instead that the evidence of crimes was a “hoax, a staged production and provocation” by authorities in Kyiv.” Any attempt Russia may make at a counternarrative, especially for the Western world, appears defensive and reactionary because it didn’t get ahead of Ukraine’s narrative. In an increasingly globalized world where a large number of the population have almost immediate access to news and information, it is highly important to get an impactful narrative out before your adversary. The first images and videos of a conflict resonate globally, but they don’t tell the full story on their own. The actor who harnesses those images and videos for its narrative first can relay its side of the story and significantly sway public opinion to its side.

The UN determined Russia has committed war crimes in Ukraine over the course of the conflict, which is coming upon its third year: “The Commission has documented violations, such as the illegal use of explosive weapons, indiscriminate attacks, violations of personal integrity, including executions, torture and ill-treatment, and sexual and gender-based violence. The UN also found that the rights of children have been violated.” These findings also feed into the conflict narrative, as the Western world does not take war crimes lightly. Additionally, with Finland finding Voislav Torden – the leader of a Russian paramilitary group – guilty of war crimes in Crimea in 2014, the narrative backing Russian war crimes continues to grow.

Balfour Declaration to the Second Intifada: Israel-Palestine History Summarized

Israel and Palestine have a long history of unrest. The current ongoing issues can be traced back to 1917, when the British Mandate declared former Ottoman territories, except Palestine, as free states. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 expressed the desire for Palestine to be established as a homeland for the Jewish people. Following the declaration from 1922 to 1947, large numbers of Jewish people immigrated into the country, with that number significantly rising in the 1930s as they escaped Nazism in Germany. In 1937, Arabs organized a rebellion in resistance to the influx of Jewish immigrants, which then led to violence from both Arab and Jewish sides. The UK gave Palestine to the UN in 1947, and the current conflict has persisted ever since. There was a significant shift in 1967, when Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and West Bank, igniting a war. The First Intifada occurred from 1987-1993, followed by the Oslo Accords that established Palestinian self-governance. The Second Intifada occurred from 2000-2005, and in 2005, Israel maintained control of Gaza while withdrawing its military presence.

Israel-Hamas Conflict Narrative

What happens when a foreign terrorist organization gains control of a conflict narrative before its state adversary can? The results are potentially dangerous…

The conflict narrative of the Israel-Hamas conflict will be different, based on the foundation that it is an NIAC. Given their long history, there were many master narratives at play from the start of this conflict. Hamas believes Palestinians should have a free state separate from Israel, and “claims its goal is to liberate Palestinians and view Israel as an occupying power as well as an illegitimate state.” The conflict has, in a way, escalated since Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in 2007. Using the Gaza Strip and the West Bank as their launching point, Hamas has repeatedly targeted Israel through terrorist attacks and rocket launches. The October 7 attack was a continuation of years of attacks and instability; however, it is the one that instigated Israel declaring war on Hamas. This attack was the largest attack Hamas had perpetrated on Israel in their years of conflict and instability, and the large number of deaths and hostages taken – including American citizens – helped bring this conflict onto the global scene.

What happens when a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) gains control of a conflict narrative before its state adversary can? The results are potentially dangerous – through globalization and ever-increasing interconnectedness, it is easier for FTOs to spread their ideologies and recruit potential members. In the case of the Israel-Hamas conflict, Hamas was able to gain control of the conflict narrative and sway public support. In a policy analysis conducted by The Washington Institute, it was determined that Hamas is working in Jordan to create a narrative that equates Palestinian rights to self-governance with supporting Hamas. Without Hamas in charge, Palestinians will not be able to obtain and maintain their self-governance. If that narrative is the goal in Jordan, it is likely the goal for the rest of the world. And, it appeared to work for them: “Beyond supporting the legitimate rights of Palestinians, polling and anecdotal evidence suggest the popularity of Hamas in the region has jumped significantly for the time being. Meanwhile, there is a notable lack of publicly expressed rejection countering their narrative.” We can see the narrative conflict at work in the U.S. There has been a large number of pro-Palestine – and, arguably, pro-Hamas – protests and demonstrations at various universities across the country. More protests and demonstrations have been organized at government buildings in Washington, D.C. Through the narrative that Palestinian self-determination is through Hamas, Hamas has also weaved a story that Israel is launching a full-scale war on Palestinian civilians. Palestinian civilians are innocent, yes, but the narrative was selective, leaving out the fact that Hamas has taken over control of the Gaza Strip. That’s where this conflict expands beyond the traditional “war on terror” narrative – the terrorist group has established itself as a governing body in a geographic area. Historically, the US and the West don’t legitimize terrorist groups or negotiate with them. If a terrorist group establishes itself as a governing body in a geographic area and attempts to legitimize itself as the area’s leader, this can complicate global relations and conflicts moving forward. If the West agrees to work with the terrorist group – therefore legitimizing them – it brings into question their historical policy of not working with terrorist groups. This can cause policy issues in the future – if the West recognizes this terrorist group now, can they refuse to recognize other groups in similar situations in the future? This concept can also shift a conflict narrative. If the West recognizes Hamas as the leader of Palestine, it shows the world that the terrorist group is a legitimate entity and muddies the conflict as a NIAC or an IAC.

A survey conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Research determined that “When [Palestinians were] asked if Hamas had committed the atrocities seen in the videos shown by international media displaying acts or atrocities committed by Hamas members against Israeli civilians, such as killing women and children in their homes. The overwhelming majority (89%) said it did not commit such atrocities, and only 8% said it did.” This suggests that Palestinians do not believe the negative videos and images being shown in Western media. Or, if they do believe the videos and images being shown by Western media, they may be too afraid to admit it. As is the case with many people living under terrorist regimes, there is an inherent risk in speaking out against those regimes. It is safer for the people to publicly agree than go against the narrative the regime puts out. Whether the people are scared or being truthful, the outcome is the same for most of the Western world. Due to existing meta narratives, many people in the West will assume the people are too afraid to speak against the terrorist regime, especially if there are narratives floating around of the regime’s mistreatment of the population. If this is the case with the Palestinians living under Hamas, there is no one with firsthand experience willing to counter the narrative that the group is heavily pushing to the rest of the world. In response to Hamas’s narrative, the United States’ public approval of Israel decreased over the course of 2024, with the percentage of Americans with little to no confidence in Netanyahu jumping 11% between March 2023 and October 2024.

One of the most interesting examples of narratives in the Israel-Hamas conflict was the competing narratives surrounding the death of Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader who was allegedly behind the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel and was killed by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in October 2024. While Hamas is praising Sinwar as the leader of Palestinian resistance and painting his death as martyrdom, Israel is working on elevating a counternarrative that sends a warning to other enemies and Hamas operatives:

“When the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced the killing of Yahya Sinwar last week, they released several photos and a video showing the Hamas leader during his last moments alive and after his death. It was meant to be proof that the man they said was one of the main architects of the October 7 terror attack was indeed dead, and a warning to Israel’s enemies that no matter where they hide, the IDF will eventually get them. But the decision to release the footage appears to have backfired, at least in part, as it has since been used to celebrate Sinwar for dying as a martyr and a resistance fighter. Now, Israel is in damage control mode, releasing older photos and videos of Sinwar hiding in tunnels with stashes of money in an attempt to portray the Hamas leader as a selfish man who only ever cared for himself.”

This example illustrates the competing narratives involved in the Israel-Hamas conflict and how narratives can be utilized to meet overall strategic objectives. Hamas shaped the narrative around Sinwar’s death around martyrdom, making his death a symbol of their cause. In contrast, Israel shaped their narrative of his death around their military abilities to send a clear message to adversaries: No one can outrun the IDF and Israel will get justice when it is attacked. However, this example also illustrates the complexity of narratives in modern conflict. This singular instance (Sinwar’s death) had multiple narratives arise out of it, and each of those narratives were shaped to competing strategic goals.

Conclusion

In an increasingly interconnected world, understanding conflict narratives is just as important as understanding all other facets of conflict and warfare.

The Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas conflicts are contemporary examples of how narratives can drastically shift public perception and, in turn, change the direction of a conflict. The conflict narratives of the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas conflicts play a large role in their global support. Due to existing Western master-narratives regarding Russia, it was unable to craft a successful counternarrative to the Ukrainian narrative that quickly dominated Western media. The United States and other Western nations quickly threw support behind Ukraine, in part based on an existing master-narrative that Russia is an adversary, a narrative that dates back to the Cold War. Ukraine’s ability to harness the narrative early in the conflict led to a bolstering their war efforts and making what Russia thought would be a quick, decisive battle, a years-long war. In contrast, Hamas, a designated FTO, has been able to harness social media to share their objectives and narratives globally. This increased interconnectedness has, for the first time, enabled a terrorist group to reshape its image by embedding itself in another, more noble narrative (Palestinian self-governance), and sway a significant amount of public perception towards their cause.

In summary, narratives are powerful and must be understood in the realm of conflicts. They have the potential to sway global and domestic opinion, and, therefore, garner support. Due to increasing globalization and interconnectedness, actors are able to share selective images and videos that promote their side of the cause, and this is a concept that needs to be understood by the masses. It is extremely important that both the public and governments understand how narratives are created and shared if they are to understand the roots of conflict. To succeed in a conflict, actors will need to understand how to combat narratives and craft their own narratives that resonate with the majority, especially if they need external support for their cause. Internal actors’ understanding of conflict narratives has the potential to significantly impact the outcome of a conflict, whether they succeed at garnering public support or the provision of resources by other countries, or the narrative fails to have an impact. In an increasingly interconnected world, understanding conflict narratives is just as important as understanding all other facets of conflict and warfare. State and non-state actors now have more accessibility than ever before to the rest of the world to share their objectives and narratives.