TEHRAN – The Israeli regime’s approach to the Palestinian Nakba has shifted from denying it happened to using indiscriminate force as a deliberate policy tool.

After 1948, the Zionist regime built a story that pushed Palestinian memory to the margins.

The first level of denial targeted identity itself. Early Zionist narratives often claimed the land lacked a distinct Palestinian nation. By questioning or dismissing Palestinian national identity, the occupation regime avoided recognizing that a people had been uprooted. 

If there were no acknowledged nation, then there would be no national Palestinian catastrophe. This framing reduced mass displacement to a side effect of war rather than the destruction of a society.

The second level denied the nature of what happened. Within the Zionist regime’s official account, 1948 was solely a war of independence. The ethnic cleansing of more than 700,000 Palestinians and the destruction of hundreds of villages were portrayed as unintended consequences of the conflict. 

The word Nakba was rejected as a political exaggeration. Over time, this version of history became deeply embedded in public Zionist discourse, education, and political rhetoric. 

Together, these two levels of denial shaped decades of policy and public understanding, limiting space for Palestinian testimony and claims.

Why denial was important

There were clear political reasons behind this approach.

First, admitting the Nakba would have raised serious moral questions about how the occupation regime was established. Recognition of mass displacement would challenge the image of a defensive and liberating Palestinian struggle.

Second, acknowledgment could have opened the door to legal and political consequences. Palestinian demands for the right of return, compensation, or official apology would carry greater weight if responsibility were formally accepted. By denying the Nakba, the Israeli regime protected itself from those claims.

From denial to open force

After Hamas’s October 7, 2023, operation, many observers argue that the regime’s position shifted. Instead of denying catastrophe, it began imposing it openly as part of military strategy.

A leaked recording attributed to former military intelligence chief Aharon Haliva reflects this policy. In the recording, he says that inflicting heavy casualties in Gaza was necessary to restore deterrence and that Palestinians must “feel the price.” 

Such statements are evidence of collective punishment becoming normalized.

Expanding the Dahiya doctrine

This strategy builds on the doctrine outlined by former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot after the 2006 Lebanon War.

Known as the Dahiya Doctrine, it called for overwhelming and disproportionate force against areas linked to resistance movements, including widespread destruction of infrastructure.

What was applied in parts of Lebanon in 2006 has been vastly expanded across Gaza. Airstrikes, artillery, and ground invasions have destroyed the levelled the entire Strip.

Homes, schools, hospitals, and basic services have been severely damaged. Palestinians were displaced routinely throughout the genocide. For many, these scenes recall the original Nakba: families forced from their homes, communities scattered, and uncertainty about return.

Goals and consequences

The goals for the Zionist regime are clear: restore deterrence, reassert dominance, and send a message that resistance to occupation carries unbearable civilian costs. By imposing massive destruction, the regime aims to reshape Palestinian public opinion.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described the Gaza genocide as a “Second War of Independence” and a “War of Revival,” presenting it as necessary for survival and renewed strength.

Yet history shows that heinous levels of force have not erased Palestinian identity. Despite decades of displacement and occupation, Palestinian national consciousness has endured.

The Nakba did not eliminate the Palestinian people in 1948, and renewed aggression has not erased their demands for freedom, return, and self-determination. The shift from denial to doctrine marks a change in method, but not an end to the Palestinian struggle.