MADRID – The recent editorial published by the Wall Street Journal, attributed to Yasser Abu Shabab—a local leader in Gaza linked to a militia associated with ISIS and, according to various critical reports, armed by Israel to fight Hamas—does not represent an autonomous analysis or a genuine voice of the Palestinian reality. Rather, it is a statement constructed under the influence of colonial forces seeking to justify systematic violence and the ongoing genocide in Gaza, while simultaneously facilitating internal fragmentation and control through tactical alliances with local actors.

Far from reflecting a legitimate perspective or an authentic voice of the Palestinian people, the editorial is a political communiqué built within a framework of colonial instrumentalization—one that aims to normalize violence and deepen internal division. By giving a platform in a major media outlet to a figure of this nature—a “leader” of an armed group tied to foreign interests—the article engages in a media whitewashing strategy meant to legitimize Gaza’s silent genocide and displace unified resistance narratives with portrayals of division and functional complicity with the occupier.

Yasser Abu Shabab: Local actor, regional pawn

The figure of Abu Shabab illustrates both Gaza’s internal complexity and the instrumentalization of fragmented groups for social control and fragmentation. According to reports, Abu Shabab—born in Rafah in 1993 and a member of the Tarabin Bedouin tribe—transitioned from petty crime, including drug trafficking allegations, to leading a militia that dominates certain areas of Gaza as part of a broader armed network directly supported by Israel.

This support includes the provision of weapons and tactical privileges designed explicitly to weaken Hamas and control the civilian population in a context of war. Rather than representing an organic or legitimate expression of Palestinian resistance, his role is clearly subordinated to colonial interests that utilize marginal actors to entrench disintegration and justify massive military operations.

By publishing editorials of this nature, outlets like the Wall Street Journal contribute to amplifying a functional narrative that replaces the complex nature of the conflict with oversimplified portrayals that justify occupation and social cleansing.

Barbarism begins with language: Necropolitics and dehumanization

The extreme violence unleashed on Gaza does not occur in a vacuum. Before bombs fall and civilian lives are erased, the discursive ground is laid by a politics of language that strips the other of their status as a political and human subject. In this context, the text attributed to Abu Shabab functions as a discursive prelude to barbarism—portraying certain local armed actors, controlled by or functional to Israel, as a “pragmatic alternative” while erasing and minimizing the ongoing context of occupation, blockade, and apartheid imposed on Gaza.

Such discourse belongs to a necropolitical inventory: the normalization of mass extermination and suffering as “necessary collateral damage” that politically legitimizes indiscriminate violence, the destruction of society, and the impossibility of dignified life. To dehumanize and fragment is the first step toward material genocide.

The West’s explicit media complicity

By publishing such communiqués and offering space to figures like Abu Shabab, the Wall Street Journal follows a broader pattern of Western media complicity in the Palestinian crisis. Far from fulfilling its critical role, mainstream media reproduces and amplifies biased narratives that legitimize Israel’s strategy of extermination, depict Palestinian resistance as dysfunctional or terrorist, and construct a version of reality aligned with U.S. and Israeli foreign policy interests.

This media behavior not only silences the legitimate voices demanding justice and recognition, but also helps build and maintain a hegemonic narrative of dehumanization and delegitimization—one that is indispensable to sustaining colonial and violent structures.

Iran in Western narratives: Distorted reasoning and persistent Orientalism

Within this discursive machinery, Iran holds a central place as the quintessential “external enemy,” portrayed in simplistic, monochromatic terms as irrational, fanatical, and belligerent. This discursive gesture—which numerous critical thinkers in the region have rigorously analyzed—belongs to a long tradition of Orientalism in which the Middle East is framed through two exclusive lenses: “enemy” or “irrational other.”

This systemic imaginary has distorted political understandings of the Iranian state and obscured its strategic and diplomatic logic—logic that includes political rationality, national security concerns, and legitimate aspirations within the regional order. Mainstream media representations fail to acknowledge these elements, instead promoting a reductionist narrative that justifies sanctions, blockades, and military actions with devastating humanitarian consequences.

Iran thus becomes a rhetorical figure that supports exclusionary and violent policies, obstructing any pragmatic possibility for regionally led dialogue or integration. This approach contributes to a permanent state of escalation and prolongs cycles of conflict.

Structural silencing and the cost for Gaza

This media dynamic results in the explicit silencing of voices that denounce occupation, apartheid, and the blockade—while legitimizing the “war on terror” narrative as sufficient explanation for the systematic destruction of infrastructure, basic services, and civilian lives.

The immediate result is impunity for international crimes and the perpetuation of an unbearable humanitarian situation, where death and destruction are reduced to tolerable statistics for Western audiences, captivated by a racist narrative that serves entrenched power agendas.

Toward a necessary critique and discursive shift

To confront this necropolitical and imperial logic, critique must focus on how barbarism begins in language: stripping the other of their humanity and legitimizing their extermination through discourse is the first step toward physical violence. Denouncing the continuity of Orientalism and dismantling the stereotyped images of Iran and the region is a necessary condition for opening more honest spaces of dialogue and effective political resistance.

This approach demands recognition of Hamas as a legitimate political actor within the Palestinian cause, acknowledgment of Iran’s strategic rationality, and a deeper understanding of the complex web of transregional interests and resistance—beyond the Manichaean dichotomy of friends and enemies.

Conclusion

The editorial attributed to Yasser Abu Shabab in the Wall Street Journal is not an independent analysis but another instrument in the Israeli and Western media machinery used to whitewash the ongoing genocide in Gaza. By amplifying voices that serve the occupier and systematically demonizing Iran, the editorial contributes to fragmenting the Palestinian population and legitimizes extermination policies backed by media complicity.

Gaza’s reality demands a critical narrative—one that exposes media instrumentalization, challenges prevailing Orientalism, and promotes regional sovereignty and human rights. Only an approach that combines analytical rigor, historical honesty, and respect for pluralism can provide a foundation to resist necropolitical violence and move toward a just resolution.