“Opening the Gates of Hell”: The American Adaptation of Israel Genocidal Rhetoric

Following Donald Trump’s election victory, he pledged during his campaign to bring peace to the world, often claiming that wars and conflicts would never have occurred if he had been in office. However, Trump began threatening Palestinians, demanding Hamas to accept a ceasefire with Israel, warning that “all hell will break out in the Middle East” if Israeli captives were not released by the time he gets to office.

This rhetoric marked a shift from his promises of peace to aggressive posturing, aligning closely with the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his warmonger coalition.

A deal was finalized just days after Donald Trump’s election victory and his threats to “open the gates of hell” in Gaza. Seeking to honor his campaign promise to ‘bring peace,’ Trump pressured Netanyahu to adopt the exact same three-phase deal proposed by former President Joe Biden in May—a plan Israel had rejected and blamed Hamas for it to continue its war.

The deal first phase included a ceasefire, staggered releases of Israeli captives via exchange deals, Israel’s allowance of urgent humanitarian aid into Gaza, and a signed Humanitarian protocol to begin reconstructing hospitals, schools, and critical infrastructure.

However, during the first phase of the deal, Israel violated most of its terms in regards of aid and reconstruction plans, and is now refusing to advance to the second phase, which mandates a full withdrawal of its army from Gaza and a permanent end to the war.

This reversal exposes Netanyahu’s bad faith: by agreeing to Biden’s plan under Trump’s pressure, he wanted only to secure captive returns and aid concessions, only to sabotage the process before it could lead to the complete end of the war.

This delay exposes Netanyahu’s role in blocking a ceasefire for months. Had he agreed to Biden’s proposal earlier, Israel’s devastating invasion of Rafah—which killed thousands of Palestinians in the intervening months and turned most of the city into rubble—could have been avoided. Instead, with Trump’s full backing, Netanyahu now threatens to “open the gates of hell” on Gaza if Hamas refuses to extend the first phase.

This stance is understandable as far-right ministers like Itamar Ben-Gvir, who resigned over Netanyahu’s acceptance of the ceasefire and humanitarian aid being allowed into Gaza. Ben-Gvir has conditioned his return to government on the re-closure of all crossings into Gaza, the cessation of aid, and “opening the gates of hell”—a demand echoed after Netanyahu announced the closure of crossings following Hamas’s refusal to extend the first phase of the ceasefire. Ben-Gvir even urged bombing aid warehouses that stored supplies delivered during the first phase truce.

Netanyahu’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich who is the prominent threat to the government’s stability vowed to topple it if Netanyahu agreed to the second phase. Smotrich declared that halting aid is an “important step in the right direction,” adding that Israel must “open those gates as quickly and lethally as possible on the cruel enemy, until absolute victory.” As the first phase ended, Smotrich assured the world would be shocked by the Israeli army’s speed in reoccupying Gaza.

Apocalyptic Imagery and Religious Symbolism in Statecraft

The phrase “opening the gates of hell” has re-emerged as a potent rhetorical tool, steeped in apocalyptic imagery to justify extreme measures against Palestinians. Following 15 months of Israeli officials invoking Biblical rhetoric such as referring to Palestinians as “Sons of Amalek”.
The adoption of such language by US officials signals a dangerous escalation. Historically, this kind of rhetoric foreshadowed indiscriminate attacks, but today it intertwines with policies framed as divinely sanctioned missions, further legitimizing never-seen-before attacks under the guise of religious necessity.

This convergence is starkly reflected in Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent Fox News interview, where he made headlines by appearing with a cross emblazoned on his forehead—a sign many considered a deliberate public display of religious symbolism during Ash Wednesday, merging ritual penitence with a performative claim to divine endorsement.
In the interview, Rubio reiterated Trump’s ‘final’ threat to Hamas: demanding an unconditional release of all Israeli captives and bodies, the expulsion of Hamas leaders from the Gaza Strip, and a warning that the people of Gaza will face death if deemed complicit in keeping captives.

Rubio’s theatrics—brandishing liturgical imagery while vowing that Trump’s threats to Palestinians will certainly happen—framed the war as a biblical purge, casting Palestinian lives as collateral in a divinely ordained reckoning. This duality—a cross-symbolizing mercy juxtaposed with threats of annihilation—reveals a calculated strategy: using religious iconography to sanctify collective punishment.

By equating Gaza’s population with sin and Hamas with absolute evil, Rubio’s rhetoric reduces Palestinians to dehumanized obstacles in Netanyahu’s alleged “revival war,” their eradication recast as a moral imperative rather than a blatant series of war crimes that constitutes genocide.

By weaponizing religious iconography and apocalyptic rhetoric, Rubio signaled a deliberate effort to sanctify genocidal policies. The cross on his forehead, far from a private act of faith, became a public endorsement of collective punishment, conflating Trump’s threats of annihilation with a divine mandate. This duality—ritualized piety paired with explicit dehumanization—reduces Gaza’s civilians to collateral in a “holy war,” where their eradication is framed not as a war crime, but as a moral necessity.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz echoed this, threatening: “The gates of Gaza will be locked, and the gates of hell will open.” Such rhetoric dehumanizes Palestinians, reducing their suffering to collateral in a “divine retribution” narrative.

Escalation and Ethical Implications

The repeated use of “hell” reflects a deliberate strategy to normalize collective punishment. Meanwhile, Trump’s pledge to provide Israel “everything it needs to finish the job,” including threats like “If you don’t do what I say, not a single one of your people will be safe,” emboldens Netanyahu’s blockade of aid and targeting of civilian infrastructure.

This rhetoric also sidelines diplomacy. Ceasefire agreements brokered by Egypt and Qatar are dismissed as US-Israeli policy increasingly aligns with religious-nationalist fervor. As Netanyahu assured Trump during Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to Jerusalem: “President Trump and I are working in full cooperation and coordination between us. We have a common strategy and we can’t always share the details of this strategy with the public, including when the gates of hell will be opened.”

A Cycle of Violence and Dehumanization

The “gates of hell” rhetoric prioritizes military dominance over humanitarian considerations, trapping Palestinians in a cycle of violence. By framing state actions as divinely ordained, it absolves policymakers of accountability while justifying civilian starvation and suffering. When US officials like Trump warn of “hell to pay” and Israeli ministers demand “absolute victory,” they forge a narrative that pushes the region closer to irreversible violence that could explode into a religious war in the region.

As these words normalize apocalyptic violence, scrutinizing their implications becomes urgent. How does such rhetoric shape public perception? What ethical lines are crossed when religious symbolism justifies policies that kill thousands? And how does this narrative erase Palestinian humanity while casting militants as sole agents of chaos?
In a climate where “opening the gates of hell” is wielded as policy, the stakes extend beyond Gaza. They challenge the world to confront how language legitimizes brutality; and who pays the price when hell is unleashed.