TEHRAN – More than three years after the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, the Palestinian cause has seen internal and external shifts.

The changes have been far-reaching, affecting Palestinians, Israelis, the Arab and Islamic worlds, and the world at large. One of the most important consequences has been the impact on public awareness.

The battle for hearts and minds has become as important as the fighting on the ground. It is being waged through military force, political pressure, economic measures, psychological warfare, media, social media, and artificial intelligence. 

Governments and other actors are investing enormous resources in shaping public opinion and controlling the story people hear. Even more than three years later, this battle remains far from over.

Breaking the Palestinian will or strengthening it?

In the early days of Al-Aqsa Flood, Palestinians from across the political spectrum expressed pride, joy, and support for the operation. The response brought together people inside Palestine and in the diaspora, including supporters and opponents of the Palestinian Authority and different political factions.

For a brief period, political divisions appeared to fade. A shared sense of national identity brought Palestinians together in a manner that had become increasingly rare.

But this unity did not translate into a common political strategy or coordinated action on the ground. It largely remained an expression of solidarity and anticipation of what the operation might achieve.

From the Israeli perspective, the renewed sense of Palestinian national unity posed a serious threat. The October 7 attack had shattered the regime’s sense of security and raised fears that similar attacks could take place on other fronts. Tel Aviv understood that the return of a strong collective Palestinian identity could have consequences far beyond the battlefield.

The regime’s leadership appeared to believe that military victory alone would not be enough and that the Palestinian will to resist, along with the support of its allies, would also have to be broken.

The ultimate goal was to inflict such a decisive defeat that the Palestinians would be forced to formally surrender. This policy has been reflected in Israeli statements and actions throughout the genocidal war, which pointed to a central problem: even overwhelming military force cannot guarantee that the Palestinian desire for resistance will disappear.

The war over the narrative

From the first hours of Al-Aqsa Flood, the regime sought to link the attack to Nazism. This was not only an attempt to shift global public opinion against the Palestinians or justify the Gaza genocide. It was also part of a broader effort to prepare Israeli society for a long and costly campaign.

By presenting the genocidal war as an existential struggle against an absolute evil and non-humans, the regime sought to build public support for a campaign that would continue until Palestinian resistance forces and their allies had been completely defeated.

The wider ambition was to use the genocidal war to establish greater Israeli control over the region, backed by unconditional U.S. support. The collective sense of dignity that initially brought many Palestinians together has also been tested by the scale of human suffering. 

A region increasingly wary of Tel Aviv

Across the Arab and Muslim worlds, Israel’s regional ambitions have become harder to ignore. Its approach combines military occupation and aggression with political pressure, psychological warfare, threats, and efforts to spread fear. The aim, as critics see it, is to make regional countries accept Israeli dominance, either because they feel they have no alternative or because they believe cooperation with this regime will serve their interests.

More than three years of genocidal war, however, have produced mixed results. On one side, the aggression has not weakened the strategic resolve of Palestinian resistance forces as much as the regime had hoped. On the other, it has exposed growing tensions among countries that have established or pursued diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv.

Relations that once appeared stable have come under pressure, while divisions among the camp still supporting normalization have become more visible. Despite these differences, a broader concern has taken root across the region: the regime is increasingly seen as a serious threat to regional peace and security.

This viewpoint is not limited to countries or movements that support armed resistance. It can also be found among those that maintain relations with Tel Aviv or seek to remain neutral in regional disputes.

The Israeli image abroad 

On the international stage, the regime has suffered a serious setback in the battle for public opinion. The damage has gone beyond criticism from ordinary people. It has also been reflected in official positions, diplomatic tensions, and growing unease over Israeli conduct in Gaza.

The sight of delegates walking out of the UN General Assembly during Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech offered a striking example of this shift.

For decades, Israel worked to present itself to Western audiences as a liberal democracy with a strong moral foundation. It also sought to portray itself as the only democracy in the region. That image has been very badly damaged. The anti-Semitism card has also struggled to silence criticism.

The result is a growing gap between the image that the regime spent decades building and the way many people now view its conduct. Repairing that damage will be extremely difficult. The consequences could last for a vast number of years.

Three competing views of al-Aqsa flood

The genocide that followed Al-Aqsa Flood has produced three broad and sharply different ways of understanding what happened and what it means.

The first view emphasizes resistance, dignity, and resilience. Those who hold this position argue that Al-Aqsa Flood showed that the Israeli regime can be challenged and the fronts of confrontation are wider than the regime had assumed. They believe the battle remains unresolved and that its long-term strategic effects may become clearer only in the years ahead.

The second view focuses on the cost of the operation and its consequences. For those who hold this position, the scale of death and destruction has overshadowed any claims of achievement. They see Al-Aqsa Flood as a grave miscalculation that triggered devastating wars, strengthened the regime’s hand, and brought even greater suffering to the Palestinian people.

The third view comes from those who have consistently opposed Palestinian resistance forces. This group opposed armed resistance before Al-Aqsa Flood, during the operation, and in the years that followed. Its position has remained largely unchanged. 

Yet one point deserves attention: all sides have been deeply affected by the battle over public perception. Their confidence, credibility, and ability to influence others have all been tested. None has emerged entirely untouched, and all are still trying to recover, rebuild their standing, and regain a sense of direction.

The final battle has yet to be won

Three years of fighting have produced neither a decisive military settlement nor a clear acknowledgment of defeat by any of the main parties.

The Zionist regime has suffered serious damage to its global image. Palestinian society has endured devastating losses but continues to struggle over its future. Across the region, concerns about Israeli ambitions have grown, while divisions within Israeli society have become harder to ignore.

Yet the final outcome remains uncertain. The battle for hearts and minds has not been won by any side. Each continues to defend its own narrative, challenge its opponents, and seek support at home and abroad.

Three years after Al-Aqsa Flood, one lesson stands out: overwhelming force can change the course of a war, but it cannot guarantee control over its meaning or its final outcome. The fighting may determine who controls the battlefield. The battle for hearts and minds will help determine what comes next.