From Puerto Rico, the leader of the Kingdom of Peace and Justice Center analyzed the conflict that began on October 7 and challenged the way in which the international community has framed the war.
Cayey, Puerto Rico – October 7, 2025
As a new escalation unfolded in the Middle East following attacks launched from the Gaza Strip, Dr. José Benjamín Pérez Matos delivered an analysis centered on the political and communicational dimensions of the conflict, with particular focus on the mechanisms through which narratives are shaped at the international level.
During his address, the president of the Kingdom of Peace and Justice Center maintained that the current situation cannot be understood solely through a military lens, but must also be examined as a struggle for control over the global narrative. In this regard, he drew attention to a recurring tendency among international organizations and media outlets to systematically shift the public’s perception of events as the conflict unfolds.
Dr. José Benjamín Pérez Matos pointed out that, following the initial attack attributed to Hamas militias—which included coordinated ground and air strikes—a perspective is beginning to take shape that could alter the accountability for the conflict. In this framework, he affirmed: “In the end, they are going to blame it on Israel saying they are an abuser, when the ones who started the war were Hamas.”
According to his analysis, this dynamic is not new, but rather reflects broader geopolitical patterns that systematically redefine the role of actors in high-tension scenarios. From this standpoint, Israel, initially identified as the attacked country, faces the risk of being presented as the responsible party for the escalation, contingent on the scope of its military response.
Dr. José Benjamín Pérez Matos’ argument also included a structural reading of the conflict, linking international pressure to long-term historical processes. In this context, he maintained that Israel occupies a central position on the geopolitical board, that reactions to its actions tend to be conditioned by factors that go beyond the specific facts of the confrontation.
He also highlighted that the intensity of the recorded attacks—considered among the most severe in recent years—is at odds with the prevailing interpretation of events by certain segments of the international community, many times without accounting for what triggered the hostilities to begin with.
The analysis presented constitutes a warning about the weight of narrative in contemporary conflicts, underscoring that the construction of perceptions can decisively influence the legitimacy of states’ actions and the evolution of international relations.
