speaks

In the midst of the escalation of the Gaza conflict that has been going on since 2023, the world is once again witnessing the heartbreaking reality of women crying among the ruins of their homes and the burning of property, mothers who have lost children, and families separated by military attacks. Global media were quick to point to this event as a symbol of the suffering of civil society. But behind the empathy shown, there is also a question that is rarely asked: how exactly can Palestinian women be represented, and who can shape that narrative?

For decades, women in conflict zones, such as the Middle East, have often been portrayed in the same framework, as passive victims who need to be rescued and protected. In the context of Gaza, this pattern has resurfaced. Global media coverage often only highlights women’s plight without giving enough space for their voices, perspectives, and agency in conflict. This narrative does look humanistic, but it also contains an element of simplification that makes the world unaware of the more complex reality behind it.

This is where postcolonial feminism offers a sharper critique and helps us to look further at this issue as a form of epistemic violence. This perspective emphasizes that in understanding women’s experiences, it cannot be separated from considerations about the history of colonialism and global power relations. In the context of the Gaza conflict, this means that violence is experienced by women. Not only a patriarchal problem but also supported by aspects of colonialism, militarization, and inequality politics (Enloe, 2014).

This phenomenon cannot be separated from the thoughts of Lila Abu-Lughod, who mentioned “politics of saving” in her work entitled Do Muslim Women Need Saving? Abu-Lughod (2013) criticized how the Western world portrays Muslim women as an oppressed group in need of rescue. This narrative is not only a form of simplifying women’s representation but can also be used as a legitimacy for political, cultural, and even military intervention from external actors. Such as the concept of militarization of daily life raised by Enloe (2014), who explains that militarization does not only occur on the battlefield but also enters into the reality of daily life, including in how the media frames conflicts. Where in this context the representation of Palestinian women as passive victims is used to affirm certain narratives about war, security, and the legitimacy of power.

The term “security politics” in the Gaza conflict appears in a more subtle form. Palestinian women are positioned as a universal form of suffering but are rarely seen as political subjects with diverse experiences and aspirations. The suffering they experience in conflict becomes a global consumption, while structural contexts, such as colonialism and power inequality, are often ignored.

An important question then arises: who really has the right to speak on behalf of Palestinian women? This is where Spivak’s (2009) thoughts on the concept of the subaltern become relevant. Spivak himself argues that the subaltern group is a group that is in a marginalized position so that its voice is not heard in the dominant discourse. Even when they are “represented,” their voices are often mediated or even filtered by stronger actors.

In many news narratives about Gaza, Palestinian women rarely appear as the main narrator of their own experiences. Brand awareness is often told by foreign journalists and international organizations. Or humanitarian institutions as “representatives.” As a result, the narrative that is born is not a complete reflection of the reality they face, but rather a form of representation that has been framed according to the logic and direction of global media reporting.

This issue becomes more complex when we look at how the media tends to ignore the agency dimension. Palestinian women not only live in the shadow of conflict but also have active agency in various forms of resistance, both as activists, journalists, medical personnel, and community leaders. They have the capacity to build solidarity and even contribute to political struggles as well as peace. However, aspect II rarely gets the same spotlight as the narrative of suffering.

This disregard of agency can create an imbalance of representation. Palestinian women are only seen as passive victims, which makes them look like they also have no capacity as active actors. This inequality is not only a question of representation but also a question of power regarding who has the right to define reality for a particular purpose.

In the digital era, this is certainly starting to change. Social media provides a space for Palestinian women to be able to speak directly to a global audience. Through various social media platforms, they can share experiences and aspirations that are often not featured in the mainstream media. This ultimately opens up the possibility of a more authentic and diverse counternarrative.

However, the digital space is still full of limitations. Certain narratives can easily go viral, while others sink and disappear without a trace. In other words, while social media can offer opportunities, the space is not completely free from the influence of broader power structures.

Rereading the narrative of Palestinian women in the era of the Gaza conflict is a form of recognition that representation is not neutral. It is always related to interests, ideologies, and power relations. The narrative of “rescue” may seem like a form of concern from the surface, but if you look further, it can also be a form of control over the other party’s representation. Looking at the Gaza conflict through the lens of feminism is to question basic assumptions in global reporting. Do we really see them as individuals? Do we really hear their voices, or just voices about them?

Therefore, it is important to change our perspective. Instead of seeing Palestinian women as victims who need to be saved, we need to recognize them as subjects who have the capacity to speak, form agencies, and share their experiences in the form of real reality. This is not to ignore the real suffering but to place Palestinian women’s experiences in armed conflict in a broader, fairer, and closer context to reality. As Abu-Lughod (2013) reminds us, the more important question that arises is not how to save Muslim women, but how to understand the conditions and realities that shape their life experiences.

Ultimately, the lens of feminism, particularly postcolonial feminism, invites us to not only have empathy but also to be more critical. By looking further at how the narrative is formed, who can benefit, and which voices are ignored.

Perhaps the more relevant question is not whether Palestinian women need protection and rescue, but whether the world is ready to hear and see them as subjects who have the capacity to speak and move. Because what needs to change is not them, but the way we understand them.

United States President Donald Trump has shared a Truth Social video of a TV comedy skit showing a panicked United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer trying to avoid his call, on the same evening the two leaders spoke about the US-Israel war on Iran.

The skit, aired on the premiere of the new British version of Saturday Night Live (SNL), adapted from the long-running US show, shows Starmer, played by George Fouracres, panicking inside 10 Downing Street at the prospect of a call with Trump.

Starmer turns to a fake David Lammy, his deputy prime minister, and says, “What if Donald shouts at me?”

When Trump picks up the phone, Starmer immediately hangs up, asking why it is so difficult to talk to “that scary, scary, wonderful president”.

“Sir, just be honest and tell him we can’t send any more ships to the Strait of Hormuz,” Lammy says, the vital shipping lane effectively blocked by Iran since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28.

“I just want to keep him happy, Lammy. You don’t understand him like I do – I can change him,” Starmer says.

Trump did not post any comment alongside the video.

Trump has lashed out at his NATO allies, including Starmer, for not joining the US efforts to break the de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of global oil passes. A week ago, he asked the UK to be more supportive of the US war efforts because Washington spends “a lot of money” on NATO.

The US president last week called the NATO countries “cowards” for their refusal to join the war. This, after European leaders rejected Trump’s demands ⁠to help ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

“Now that fight is militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about the high oil prices they are forced to ⁠pay, but don’t want to help open ⁠the Strait of Hormuz, a simple military maneuver that is the single reason for the high oil prices. So easy for them to do, with so ⁠little risk,” he wrote on the Truth Social platform.

The closure of the strait has sent oil prices soaring, creating the biggest energy crisis since the 1970s. On Sunday, Trump threatened to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if it did not reopen the strait within 48 hours.

Trump-Starmer call

Separately, on Sunday evening, Starmer spoke with Trump to discuss escalating tensions in the Middle East, his office said in a statement. It was not clear if the call took place before or after Trump posted the SNL skit on Truth Social.

In a readout of the call, the Prime Minister’s Office said the two leaders focused on “the need to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to resume global shipping” amid growing concerns over energy security and regional stability.

“They agreed that reopening the Strait of Hormuz was essential to ensure stability in the global energy market,” the statement said.

The leaders also agreed to remain in close contact as the situation develops and “to speak again soon”, it added.

On Monday, Starmer ⁠said there had been no assessment ⁠that mainland Britain was being targeted by Iran.

Starmer asserted that any ⁠attempt to reopen the Strait of Hormuz needed careful consideration and a ‌viable plan, and that his number one priority was to ‌protect ‌British interests and de-escalate.

‘Not Winston Churchill’

The US leader has repeatedly railed against Starmer since the start of the war, accusing him of not doing enough to support the US.

“This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” Trump said earlier this month, after Starmer initially declined to let US warplanes use UK bases to strike Iran.

“I’m disappointed with Keir,” Trump has also said, slamming Starmer’s “big mistake”. “I like him, I think he’s a nice man, but I’m disappointed.”

On Friday, the UK government gave authorisation for the US to use its military bases to carry out strikes on Iranian missile sites that were attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

Starmer initially rejected a US request to use British bases for the strikes on Iran, saying he needed to be satisfied that any military action was legal.

But the prime minister modified his stance after Iran conducted strikes on British allies across the Middle East, saying the US could use RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia, a joint US-UK base in the Indian Ocean.

Joe Kent says he resigned as director of the US National Counterterrorism Center over opposition to the war in Iran, telling an audience at a Washington prayer event that he couldn’t “send young men and women off to die on foreign battlefields” in “good conscience.”