Israel has a right to defend itself on the information battlefield too

Israel possesses a right to self-defense, a principle universally acknowledged yet frequently condemned when the nation exercises it against adversaries like Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran. This right, according to the editorial, is often acknowledged only in theory by Israel's critics, becoming invalid the moment it is actively used.

“

Of course it does. Every country has the right to self-defense. Every society has the right to protect its citizens from those seeking to murder them.

The principle extends beyond the physical battlefield to the realm of public opinion, which is described as a modern-day battleground. Governments globally invest heavily in shaping perceptions, garnering support, explaining policies, and countering hostile narratives through various means, including public relations firms, communications consultants, influencers, digital content, and targeted social media campaigns. Nations like the US, Taiwan, Russia, the UAE, and Qatar are cited as active competitors in this arena.

“

The problem is that when these words are uttered by Israel’s critics, this right is acknowledged only in theory. The moment Israel actually exercises that right – whether against Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran – they condemn it. The right exists only so long as it is never used.

The editorial highlights a perceived double standard applied to Israel's public diplomacy efforts. Recent articles in Time magazine and The Wall Street Journal, detailing Israel's modernization of its public diplomacy campaign, including hiring a former Trump administration digital strategist and employing AI, social media, influencers, and podcasters, carried an implication of impropriety. The Jerusalem Post argues that such efforts are not inherently troubling, drawing a clear distinction between covert influence operations and transparent advocacy.

“

In the modern world, public opinion is also a battlefield. Governments understand this. They spend billions trying to shape perceptions, build support, explain policies, and counter hostile narratives.

If Israeli government actions comply with laws like the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which anticipates foreign influence campaigns, they are deemed proper. The editorial dismisses Vice President JD Vance's accusation that Israel is conducting a nefarious influence campaign to keep the US at war with Iran, attributing the failure of the Iran Memorandum of Understanding to Iran, not Israel's routine public diplomacy. The piece concludes that Israel has an image problem, suggesting its public diplomacy efforts are a necessary response.

“

Only when Israel does so is it portrayed as something sinister. That was the unmistakable tone of recent articles in Time magazine and The Wall Street Journal, detailing Israel’s efforts to modernize its public-diplomacy campaign.