Israel’s Right to Shape Public Discourse in the Digital Age

A common refrain whenever Israel faces criticism is the claim that it “has the right to self‑defense.”

Indeed, every nation possesses that right, and every society may defend its citizens from those who wish to harm them.

The issue arises when critics invoke this right only in theory. The moment Israel actually acts on it—whether against Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran—the same voices condemn the action. In their view, the right exists only as long as it remains unused.

The same dynamic extends beyond the battlefield.

In today’s world, public opinion itself is a battleground. Governments recognize this and spend billions shaping perceptions, building support, explaining policies, and countering hostile narratives.

They engage public‑relations firms, retain communications consultants, partner with influencers, create digital content, and target audiences via social media.

Governments ranging from the United States and Taiwan to Russia, the United Arab Emirates, and, notably, Qatar compete daily to influence perceptions.

Double standard applied to Israel

Only when Israel engages in such efforts is it depicted as sinister. This was the clear tone of recent pieces in Time and The Wall Street Journal that examined Israel’s attempt to modernize its public‑diplomacy campaign.

Both pieces chronicled the government’s decision to bring on a former Trump‑administration digital strategist and to employ artificial intelligence, social media, influencers, and podcasters to boost Israel’s image. The implication was that there is something inherently troubling about this approach.

There is nothing inherently wrong with it. A clear distinction exists between covert influence operations and transparent advocacy. If the Israeli government or its agents breach U.S. law, hide their identity, or secretly manipulate public discourse, that warrants scrutiny.

However, when they operate in full compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act—which exists precisely because Congress expected foreign governments to try to sway American opinion—there is nothing improper about their actions.

Indeed, it would be remarkable if Israel were not making such efforts.

Recently, Vice President JD Vance accused certain elements within the Israeli government of orchestrating what he described as a nefarious influence campaign aimed at shaping U.S. public opinion and policymakers to keep the United States at war with Iran indefinitely.

While Vance’s frustration over the collapse of the Iran Memorandum of Understanding he brokered is understandable, he is misdirecting blame: Iran caused the agreement to falter, not Israel for engaging in the routine practice of public diplomacy.

Israel’s image problem is beyond dispute. Polls consistently show support for Israel falling sharply among Democrats and, increasingly, among younger Republicans. For too long, Israel has relied on outdated tactics—such as sending Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to debate Hanan Ashrawi on CNN—to address this challenge.

Israel fighting on today’s battlefield

That era has passed. Today’s information battlefield consists of TikTok, YouTube, podcasts, Instagram, X/Twitter, and AI‑driven messaging. If Israel hopes to reach younger audiences, it must engage them where they actually are—not where they were three decades ago.

According to Time and The Wall Street Journal, that is exactly what Israel is now attempting to do—and that is a positive development.

As long as these efforts remain lawful, there is nothing improper about them. As The Wall Street Journal observed, Israel is “trying to shore up its U.S. reputation with the help of influencers, Trump insiders, and millions of AI‑driven texts.”

Israel’s adversaries have long recognized the significance of this battlefield.

As Netanyahu noted in a recent CNN interview, “several countries and organizations” have infiltrated social media to systematically poison minds—particularly those of young people—against Israel.

Israel overlooked this reality for far too long. The government’s December decision to allocate NIS 2.35 billion for public diplomacy and Israel advocacy in the current budget is welcome—and, frankly, overdue.

Jews worldwide have long questioned why Israel’s public diplomacy is so ineffective; after the October 7 massacre, that question became impossible to ignore.

Whenever a commission of inquiry is finally convened to investigate the failures of that day, it must examine not only the intelligence and military shortcomings but also why Israel entered what may be the greatest communications battle in its history so unprepared and flat‑footed.

It is now taking steps to correct that shortcoming. This effort is neither nefarious nor sinister; rather, it is imperative and long overdue.

Source link