Italy (Brussels Morning) Hybrid war operates in the “gray zone” between conventional war and peace, using a combination of military, economic, political and informational tools to create ambiguity and achieve strategic goals without triggering direct, large-scale military confrontation.
Russia, China and Iran are employing a coordinated strategy of hybrid warfare to destabilize the West, in particular Europe, not only in Eastern flank of European continent (from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and beyond) but increasingly in the Southern flank, in the Mediterranean Sea and the region called traditionally Middle East and North Africa (MENA).
Since the recent Sharm El Sheikh Summit on Gaza peace, the regional powers have to deal with a fragile ceasefire in Gaza and ongoing challenges in securing the long-term provisions of the “Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity”.
But there is another issue that may hinder the permanent stabilization of the region: the increasing hybrid war based on infowar and propaganda, to delegitimize Israel existence, coupled with attacks to West countries supporting Israel like Italy, to maintain the ‘divide et impera’ and keep the region unstable and underdeveloped.
A hybrid war strategy that is not often analysed is based on the semantic elements of infowar, in particular the use of contested terms like the term ‘genocide’.
I recently participated to a conference in Washington DC, by the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA), in which many academic papers were presented by scholars who are increasingly choosing this conference instead of the older Middle East Studies Association Conference (MESA) in the US.
This because as some professors explained, the MESA conference is not anymore a respected space for intellectual exchange since a while and in particular after the organization voted to endorse the academic boycott of Israel in 2022, ending academic neutrality and contributing to make the academy a battlefield of ideology instead of a marketplace of ideas.
The use of the term genocide is increasingly used by politicized Academia to legitimize the following political and legal actions, like the Israel case in front of International Court of Justice. To classify an event as genocide in fact is to trigger legal obligations, mobilize international outrage, and redefine the legitimacy of the actors involved.
Also international organizations are increasingly using this term to delegitimize the existence of Israel and fuel antisemitism, like the UN, that should also be super partes and impartial like Academia, while instead it uses activists and militants for their political goals. One famous case is Francesca Albanese, Italian leftist activist, nominated UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories since 2022, who used often the term genocide for political reasons.
She was so biased that even the US Mission to the UN accused her of antisemitism propaganda and asked for her removal. In recent years, certain activist circles in the West have embraced the rhetoric of extremist groups, portraying Hamas or even Hezbollah as a liberation force and echoing chants such as “From the river to the sea.” This against liberal values.
This surrenders human dignity for a partisan vocabulary of victimhood. It’s a rhetoric even popular in the Global North as the recent New York election suggests. This shift erodes the moral compass that once guided global advocacy and blurs the distinction between legitimate resistance, terrorism, and pure political theatre.
At the same time, international campaigns and political organizations increasingly stretch once-precise legal terms like “apartheid” and “genocide” to fit a wide range of political causes. As these words are applied indiscriminately, their meaning weakens, and the world’s ability to confront genuine crimes against humanity diminishes. They become mere ammunition in lawfare and hybrid-warfare campaigns.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
