The Social Media War in Gaza

by Vivienne Nami

"History did not begin on October 7".  This pro-Palestinian slogan gets to the heart of the battle over meaning and memory in the current bloody phase of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The question of how history should be written, including whether Israelis or the Palestinians are the real victims, is crucial.  

Alongside the military conflict in Gaza (as well as in the West Bank, Lebanon and elsewhere), we are also in the midst of a heated social media war, in which both sides attempt to tell their stories, steer opinions and establish their narrative as dominant. For both sides, “the aim of the social media war is to gain international support”, as Dr Jacob Mukerjee, lecturer in Political Communications at Goldsmiths, University of London, pointed out.  

War of Speech 

Israel and its supporters aim to portray the Hamas army as an evil organization, often comparing it to the Nazis or ISIS, both violent, anti-Semitic movements. This rhetoric is designed to justify their military actions and gain sympathy from the international community. 

One of the challenges lies in justifying the excessive number of civilian deaths. As reported by the Gaza-based Health Ministry on March 13th, the death toll in Palestine has tragically reached 31,553 since October 7th and 70% of those killed are said to be women and children. The Israeli army blames Hamas for the many deaths in Gaza, accusing them of using schools, hospitals, neighborhoods and factories as military areas and using Palestinian civilians as so-called “human shields”. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin even claimed it as a tactic of Hamas' terror operations during the meeting with US president Joe Biden last year.  

The New Arab published an article arguing that Israel is using a deliberate propaganda tactic known as "hasbara," which means "to explain." The technique refers to distortions and fabrications to justify its controversial actions and policies. Hasbara is designed to make people believe that Israel is waging a war for its national survival, which in turn justifies the cruelty of Israel’s military attacks on Gaza. For example, Israel portrays itself as a victim and even an outsider, citing the long history of Jewish persecution and displacement. 

To use the famous and controversial formulation adopted by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, we can see the pro-Israel narrative as “propaganda”: a set of narratives and discourses that serve the interests of the powerful. Israel and its military, the IDF, has been well positioned to disseminate this narrative via media briefings, its own official social media accounts and through events like the screening of footage (captured on body cams) of the October 7th attacks. Palestinians, on the other hand, rely more on citizen journalists who film events on the ground and report first-hand. On social media, emotive videos of Israeli bombings and Palestinian deaths provide fuel for the Palestinian narrative.   

However, reporting on the ground poses significant risks for journalists. International reporters are not allowed to report on the ground. Local journalists are being killed in record numbers. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 99 journalists were killed worldwide last year, 72 of whom were Palestinians in the war on Gaza. 

A failed Propaganda? 

The prevalence of pro-Palestine stance on social media runs counter to the predictions of the famous Propaganda Model, a theory presented by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in 1988. It suggests that mass media functions as a muti-layer filter system, enabling the powerful elites to shape the finromation accessible to the public. Dr, Mukherjee, lecturer from Goldsmiths, University of London, points out that the rise of social media has complicated the question of how dominant actors attempt to control narratives.  

The importance of algorithms, the decentralization of social media, and the growing support for Palestinians among youth-based users on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok present challenges to Israel and its supporters. These platforms have generated a huge amount of pro-Palestine contents. From firsthand war documentation of Palestinians to impassioned individuals voicing their anti-war comments, these citizen journalists are keeping public attention on the real life in Gaza but also expanding the geopolitical conflict beyond this war itself.  

TikTok, a Chinese-owned social platform, has drawn attacks in the US, with one Senator (Tom Cotton, of Arkansas) grilling the Singaporean CEO of TikTok, Shou Chew, about his views on China, even asking if he " had ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party” (a bewildered Mr Chew replied: “Senator, I’m Singaporean – no!”).  

One analysis by Israel-based communications consultancy Humanz in November 2023 found at least 15 times more posts with pro-Palestinian hashtags than pro-Israeli across Instagram and TikTok (this despite ample evidence of shadow banning and other restrictions on Pro-Palestinian accounts on US-based platforms like Insta).  

Imbalance of Power 

The different ways Israel and the Palestinians attempt to disseminate news and bolster their narrative (with the former relying on a top-down strategy of briefing journalists and other opinion leaders and the latter involved in a more grassroots, decentralised effort) point to an obvious fact : an imbalance of media power.  

The fact is also made clear by the language used by the leading media. It fails to recognize the imbalance of power between the Israeli military apparatus and the Palestinian people. The Guardian led with an editorial referring to “the murderous rampage carried out by Hamas” Similarly, The Economist referred to “the bloodthirsty attack by Hamas”.  

Dr Mukherjee cites a study by The Intercept that found US newspapers regularly used emotive words like “slaughter” and “massacre” in relation to Israeli deaths, but almost never about the approximately 30,000 Palestinians killed so far (around 40% of them children). In fact, The Intercept found that any kind of coverage of Palestinian deaths has actually fallen even as the civilian death toll mounts 

More qualitatively and subtly, UK based Open Democracy, noted that the BBC tends to omit crucial context about the conflict, including the illegal Israeli occupation since 1967, apartheid claims by human rights organizations, and the significant disparity in casualties between Palestinians and Israelis. The BBC began the story by stating that “the conflict began when Gaza-based gunmen from Hamas attacked southern Israel on 7 October, killing about 1,200 people and taking about 240 others hostage.” 

Equally glaring, neither Sky News nor the BBC covered South Africa’s opening presentation of evidence at the International Court of Justice that Israel is committing in genocide… but both outlets not only covered but live-streamed Israel’s defense the following day 

The media, which is supposed to be a gatekeeper of information in shaping public discourse, has instead become an ally in the interests of the powerful. This has led to a monopoly in the media, with little room for the Palestinian perspective. Social media presents at least some opportunities to counter this dominant narrative.