It's eminently possible to resist the prevailing view in a mature fashion. Frederick Douglass presented his case in a supremely dignified, thoughtful, well-reasoned, and effective manner.

Although people who feel attacked may cast about for an excuse to discredit you, and that is of course invalid, if this is a characteristic comment it probably reflects a distinctive feature of yours, not of the nature of resisting narrative.

Of course, one can resist a narrative in a juvenile way. One can throw a temper-tantrum, one can obstinately say "No! No, no, no!", one can call one's opponents names, and so on. The key features of what are considered juvenile is that although they might authentically express strength of feeling, they are not in general pro-social, nor do they provide cause for anyone else to change their perspective save out of fear of your reaction.

In this vein, "IsraHell" is, indeed, juvenile--it's disrespectful, in a situation where mutual lack of respect is one of the biggest barriers to a humane resolution; it's not even clear what you mean--as evidenced by you needing to explain it here; and it suggests many courses of action that would be even more egregiously horrific than the already-horrific ongoing events. As a throwaway comment in standup comedy, it could pack the appropriate punch. Otherwise, you don't need it to resist any narrative. Indeed, it robs you of potency in changing the narrative (save in finding common cause with others who already resist the narrative).

Now, those of sufficiently calm disposition can discard the juvenile aspects of what you say and focus on the content instead. We all should be able to do that. If I said something about the Terrorstinians being led by Hatemas, and then presented some highly pertinent (and true) information about the situation in Gaza that suggested that some aspects of what Israel has been doing are more justified than you suggest, you ought to be able to look past the gratuitously inflammatory and largely-uninformative name-calling to evaluate what I said. But my actions sure wouldn't be helping and it would be reasonable to criticize my choice to antagonize rather than persuade.

Displays of emotion have a kind of power. So too do compelling arguments delivered in a forceful yet non-antagonistic way. Given how concerned you seem about power, it seems inconsistent that you would discard the latter.

(Additionally: of course the acceptance of labels does not all depend on "brute force and power". That is just one of many aspects that determine how defining works. It's worth paying attention to the power aspect when that aspect is neglected, but to neglect everything else (e.g. is it "catchy") is also an enormous mistake. If "I have found a new part of the truth" were not so often followed by "...and let's use it with such fervent fixation that we become more wrong than ever before", we'd all be collectively a lot wiser.)