• When a belligerent uses the language of protection, of rescue, of corridor and ceasefire, it accrues legitimacy. When it then acts in contravention of those terms, the breach becomes part of the operation
• It is time to confront this reality: humanitarian language is now a weapon of war. The theatre is not incidental, it is part of the conflict. Those who wield the language shape the battlefield of perception, delay accountability

The author is a geostrategic analyst and freelance columnist on international affairs.

ISTANBUL

In the language of modern war, expressions once meant to signal relief or redemption now also serve as instruments of control. Words like "ceasefire," "humanitarian corridor," and "hostage diplomacy" can function as tactical devices. They are deployed not only in spite of the fighting, but at times as part of it. In the unfolding crisis in Gaza, the rhetoric of rescue and protection has, alongside its life-saving potential, become a theatre of violence in itself.

Consider the pattern in the Gaza ceasefire. It was proclaimed amid high expectations, aid corridors opened, hostages were exchanged. Then, very quickly, Israeli actions shift the rules of the game and the ceasefire unravels. The corridor becomes a strike zone, the release of hostages becomes leverage in a broader power bargain. What initially looks like progress is often turned by Israel into a tactical pause, as a way to reposition and consolidate advantage rather than a durable path to resolution, even as it provides real, if temporary, relief on the ground.

The ceasefire agreement brokered between Hamas and Israel under the auspices of the US, Türkiye, Egypt and Qatar was a breakthrough. Hostages and prisoners were exchanged, and the first phase took shape on paper. But the next stage [1] is proving far more fragile, as Israel's restrictions continue to leave the corridor of humanitarian access clogged. Reports show that Israel is blocking much of the agreed humanitarian aid under the ceasefire framework, while airstrikes continue [2] even as the rhetoric of pause remains.

Humanitarian vocabulary as strategic currency

What changed? The issue is not simply one of broken promises. It is the conversion of humanitarian vocabulary into strategic currency. When Israel uses the language of protection, of rescue, of corridor and ceasefire, it accrues legitimacy. When it then acts in contravention of those terms, the breach becomes part of the operation. The rhetoric can distract from the continuity of war, from occupation, from asymmetry. The instruments may change, but they often converge on the same target.

The media plays its role in this theatre too. Headlines herald ceasefires as victories. Lectures are given about corridors of relief. Yet the context is missing: who controls the corridor, who inspects the trucks, which side sets the routes, which side dictates the fine print. Coverage often presents these as neutral humanitarian milestones rather than negotiated instruments of power.

That leaves the public misled. Humanitarian language becomes neutralized, depoliticized. But in reality, it is highly charged. In Gaza, the architecture of this stage is visible. Promised assistance is delayed, aid trucks idled at borders, while the question of Gaza’s governance remains in limbo amid doubts over the Trump blueprint.

The next phase of the peace plan framed within Donald Trump’s "20-point" blueprint [3] envisions a multinational stabilization force and the disarming of Hamas. But Arab states, donors and even Israel question the blueprint's viability.

Reclaiming humanitarian language

In that vacuum, the language of rescue is exploited. Humanitarian corridors give the impression of depoliticized delivery, but they are negotiated access routes controlled by one or both parties. Hostage diplomacy presents release as moral progress, but increasingly it serves as a bargaining chip – not in the interest of relief but in the interest of leverage. It is time to confront this reality: humanitarian language is now a weapon of war. The theatre is not incidental; it is part of the conflict. Those who wield the language shape the battlefield of perception, delay accountability, fragment opposition and claim high moral ground while conducting operations that the language suggests they are opposing.

What must the global community do? First, it must stop treating humanitarian terminology as neutral. When a ceasefire is announced, ask: who defines it? Who inspects it? Who is bound by it? When a corridor opens, ask: who controls the checkpoints? Who decides the timing? When hostage releases occur, ask: what is the return in policy or territory or oversight?

Second, media outlets must provide context not just for the words but for the framework behind them. A ceasefire is not simply an abolition of violence. It is a pause on terms often set by the stronger party. A humanitarian corridor is not simply a relief path. It is an access line regulated by politics. Hostage diplomacy is not simply a moral rescue. It is often part of a larger strategic transaction.

Third, diplomatic actors must insist on transparency and mechanisms, not slogans. A ceasefire without verification, withdrawal routes without accountability, corridors without oversight all invite manipulation. Donor states, multilateral institutions and media must demand not just the promise of relief but the scaffolding that makes it robust, credible and enduring.

Finally, the public and international civil society must recognize that when war is fought in the name of humanity, the language may obscure rather than illuminate. The greatest risk now is that we become mesmerized by the theatre of compassion while the machinery of war continues underneath.

In Gaza, this looks less like a short-term failure of diplomacy and more like an illustration of how diplomatic tools themselves can be instrumentalized within the logic of war. The language of humanitarian action has been incorporated into the context of strategy. That means the only realistic path to peace will involve more than ceasefires and corridors. It will involve mechanisms of justice, accountability for occupation, clarity of governance and parity of power. Until that happens, the words will risk remaining theatre, and the war will continue behind the curtain.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/egypt-gaza-talks-kushner-witkoff-israel-hamas-news-10-08-2025-ac80d3ed50ff2a9b4106ab5e13156651

[2] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/11/1/live-israel-continues-attacks-on-gaza-as-palestinians-fear-return-to-war?

[3] https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/11/11/partition-of-gaza-looms-as-trump-plan-stalls

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy.