What Is Hasbara? Israel's Public Diplomacy Explained
Sometimes one word carries far more weight than its meaning suggests. As a student of SourceCode Academia , I kept running into the term Hasbara while reading about the Israel-Gaza conflict, and I wanted to understand what it really means.
Hardly anyone used the word before this conflict became a major topic, and it is still not widely known. In Hebrew, it simply means "explanation." In practice, though, it refers to something much bigger: an effort to shape how the world sees Israel, from press releases and news coverage to social media campaigns and even artificial intelligence. Why would a country put so much effort into controlling its story? And why, according to its critics, did that effort start to lose its grip during the Gaza war?
If you have ever read the headlines and felt that the way a story was told did not quite add up, this article is for you. We will look at what Hasbara is, how it works, and why it has come under so much pressure. The goal is not to pick a side blindly. It is to learn how to read the message behind the message.
The Core of Hasbara: Controlling Israel's Narrative
At its core, Hasbara is about control. Political and financial support matter a great deal to Israel, and critics point out that its legitimacy has been questioned in the eyes of parts of the world more than once. As a result, they argue, a large share of Israel's public effort goes into shaping the story that is told about the country, both through official channels and through unofficial ones.
Critics also accuse Israel of using "grey" and "black" propaganda. In simple terms, these are methods that hide or disguise where a message comes from, or that do not stick to information that can be verified. According to this view, the aim is to appeal to emotion and to build a case from carefully selected facts while leaving out the wider context.
It has also been reported that after the Hamas attack on October 7, Israel set up a dedicated military unit, known as the "legitimization cell," to research and gather material that could be used to support its public case.
Common Techniques Used in Hasbara: How Critics See Them
Using Fallacies and Biased Arguments
Critics say a few argument patterns show up again and again in Hasbara messaging. Once you know what to look for, they are easier to spot.
False balance . Presenting Israel and Hamas as equally responsible for everything, even when the scale and nature of the harm on each side are very different.
Confusing criticism with hatred. Treating any criticism of a specific Israeli action as an attack on Jewish people, instead of responding to what was actually said.
Dismissing witnesses . Claiming that reports of civilian harm are staged or fake. Online, this idea is often summed up with the term "Pallywood," which critics say is used to wave away real footage and testimony.
Appealing to sympathy . Arguing that Israel is "the only Jewish state" and therefore deserves support no matter what, without allowing its actions to be questioned.
Casting doubt on facts. Suggesting that reports of civilian suffering or mass starvation are exaggerated, invented, or faked.
Limiting Access: How Hasbara Controls Information Flow
Critics also say Hasbara works by controlling what information reaches the world in the first place. Independent media have had very limited access to Gaza during the war, and journalists working there have faced serious danger, with many losing their lives. Some reports also claim that certain newsrooms avoided the word "Palestine" altogether, or used a different tone depending on which side was involved: calmer, more neutral language for Israeli military action, and more emotional, dramatic language for the other side.
Attacking Trusted Sources: Hasbara and Media Credibility
Critics describe another method: attacking the credibility of the people who report from the ground, including journalists, aid workers, and the international organizations that support them. They say some journalists and aid workers have been accused of secretly working with groups like Hamas, sometimes with little or no public evidence. Accusations like these make audiences doubt everything those people report.
Organizations have been targeted too. UNRWA, the UN agency that supports Palestinian refugees, saw several countries suspend its funding after allegations that some of its staff were linked to the October 7 attack. Critics argue that this kind of pressure makes it harder for people outside the region to trust what they hear from the ground.
Hasbara on Social Media: The Digital Evolution
Hasbara is no longer limited to TV interviews, newspapers, and press conferences. It has moved onto social media, where a message can reach millions of people within minutes. On platforms like X, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook, governments, activists, journalists, and ordinary users all compete to tell their version of the conflict.
The biggest change is speed. A video, a photo, or a short post can circle the globe before any journalist has had time to check it. That gives the first version of an event a lot of power, because once people have formed an impression, later corrections rarely reach as many of them.
Bots and Coordinated Accounts in Hasbara Explained
Another concern in discussions about digital propaganda is the use of automated or coordinated accounts. Bots can post, repost, and amplify messages automatically, while networks of real users working together can make an argument look far more popular than it really is.
That said, it would be a mistake to assume that every account supporting Israel, or every account supporting Palestinians, is a bot. Coordinated influence operations have to be proven on their own evidence. Plenty of online activity comes from genuine people, organizations, journalists, activists, and official government communication teams.
This is why it matters to tell the difference between real public opinion, organized activism, official communication, and outright manipulation. On social media, all four can look almost identical.
Images, Videos, and the Information War Over Gaza
Images and videos have become central to the information battle over Gaza. A short clip can make an argument faster than a long article ever could. Governments and militaries publish footage meant to support their version of events, while Palestinian journalists and humanitarian organizations post images documenting destruction and civilian suffering.
The trouble is that a single piece of footage rarely tells the whole story. A video can be real but filmed at a different time or place than claimed. The opposite mistake happens too: waving away an uncomfortable video just because it clashes with what you already believe is also a way of spreading misinformation.
That is why it pays to check a few things before you share a viral clip: where it was filmed, when, who posted it first, and whether independent sources confirm it.
Can Journalists Enter Gaza? Media Access Explained
Restrictions on foreign journalists have also shaped the information environment around Gaza. In June 2025, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Reporters Without Borders joined more than 200 media and press-freedom organizations in calling for independent international media access to Gaza. CPJ said that foreign journalists had been largely barred from entering since the war began, apart from a few visits controlled by the military.
Access matters because it lets reporters check claims for themselves: they can interview witnesses, visit locations, and compare competing accounts. Without it, international audiences have to rely more on local journalists, official statements, videos shared online, satellite imagery, and humanitarian organizations.
None of this proves that one side's version of events is false. It does make independent verification harder.
Who Can You Trust? Source Credibility in the Gaza War
Another big part of the information war is the question of who to trust.
During the Gaza war, journalists, humanitarian groups, UN bodies, Israeli officials, Palestinian authorities, and human-rights organizations have all made competing claims. Some of those claims were later corrected, challenged, or independently confirmed.
In this kind of environment, attacking a source can become almost as effective as challenging the information itself. But saying that a journalist, aid worker, or organization has political ties does not prove that a particular report is wrong. A better approach is to test the specific claim: What exactly was reported? Who is the source? Can it be verified independently? What evidence supports it, and what contradicts it?
Why Hasbara Began to Fail in the Gaza War
Critics of Israel's public-diplomacy strategy argue that traditional messaging works less well in the social-media era. One reason is that audiences no longer depend on government statements or the big television networks. They can now see material from many different sources.
The scale of destruction and the high number of civilian casualties reported from Gaza have also made the conflict hard to explain through a simple PR message. Israel, for its part, says its military campaign is aimed at Hamas and that it takes steps to reduce harm to civilians.
So the information battle is not only about which side has the better PR strategy. It is also about whether individual claims can hold up under independent scrutiny.
What Is Hasbara Today? Final Thoughts on the Debate
Hasbara has become a major part of the wider information struggle over Israel and Gaza. Today it reaches well beyond government press releases into television, social media, online videos, and digital campaigns.
The term itself is also contested. Some see Hasbara as legitimate public diplomacy, an effort to explain Israel's position to the world. Critics see it as a broader system for shaping international opinion and defending Israeli policies.
The digital age has made this debate even harder to settle. Audiences now get information from governments, journalists, activists, humanitarian organizations, eyewitnesses, influencers, and anonymous accounts, all at the same time. In that flood of voices, the most useful habit a reader can have is to ask who is speaking, what evidence they offer, and whether it can be confirmed elsewhere.
SourceCode Academia is a purposeful online learning platform where expert faculty help students connect classical Islamic wisdom with modern knowledge and real-world skills. Through our unique Thought , Eloquence , and Competence learning model, learners develop deep understanding, confident communication, and the practical ability to succeed with faith, clarity, and purpose.