Hasbara, Who’s Talking? Who’s Listening, Does anybody care?

Hasbara

Who’s Talking? Who’s Listening

Does anybody care?

I write this as a political journalist, an Irishman born in Dublin, now an Israeli living in Tel Aviv. Perhaps most of all, I write this as a father of two young Jewish Israeli children. I also write this with good intentions, though I suspect Irish friends may view it as a dark act in itself, and some journalists may not see it as journalism at all but as advocacy.

Many, I imagine, will be annoyed by much of what is written. It comes with the territory.

So, first, a definition.

Hasbara (הַסְבָּרָה), literally “explanation,” refers to efforts by the Israeli state and its advocates to explain or justify Israel’s policies to international audiences.

Every state has the right to explain itself and communicate its interests. But let’s be honest: the word “Hasbara” today is, at best, extremely loaded, if not badly tainted. Perhaps the biggest problem with Israeli Hasbara is that much of it is neither very good nor, presumably, very effective.

Maybe because of this, Haaretz recently reported that agents working on behalf of the Israeli state are apparently flooding social media with hasbara talking points from “websites designed to look like institutes and think tanks” in the belief that they can meaningfully outsmart the output of AI chatbots.

It begs the question, is it working?

It’s not.

At least not yet.

I recently asked ChatGPT to list the best and worst Hasbara talking points. To me, at least, the answers were unconvincing. Perhaps Hasbara agents are deluded about the veracity of their own arguments.

Those arguments, of course, have diverse target audiences. A biblically knowledgeable but geographically unfamiliar Middle America is not receptive to the same talking points of a multicultural, secular European left.

So here goes. As an adopted Israeli – and bypassing ChatGPT – from the worst to the potentially effective.

 DOWNRIGHT USELESS

“There is no Occupation.” It’s “Disputed Territory”. Delusional. You cannot erase political geography with rhetoric and semantic dodge.

“The IDF is the most moral army in the world.” In the face of allegations of genocide in Gaza, and the horrific images beamed into homes for two years, this reads as tone deaf at best, self-parody at worst. The lack of accountability for egregious IDF abuses in the West Bank does not help. I understand why Israelis cling to it; almost every family has someone in uniform. But still—drop it.

“Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.” I get it: Arab Supreme Court judges, Druze generals, LGBTQ rights, and the most diverse and open press in the region. But 59 years of occupation render the slogan problematic (an understatement). This one needs an overhaul, or should simply be ditched.

“Israel is the frontline of Western civilization against Islamic jihad.” Yes, Hamas’s genocidal charter exists. Yes, the late Ayatollah Khomeini said Israel is a “cancerous tumor that must be removed”. But in Europe, this framing is often dismissed as racist or “Eurabia” paranoia, with better branding.

“There are 22 Arab States and only one Jewish State.” This flattens everything from Atlantic Moroccan Berber culture to the Christian Arabs of the Levant into a single monolith. A tiresome David-Goliath slogan posing as informed geography, the rhetorical equivalent of waving a map and hoping no one reads it too closely. However, arguments about strategic depth are valid. Many non-Israelis are genuinely surprised that Israel is only 14km wide at its narrowest point.

“There is nobody to negotiate with”. The claim that there’s no partner sits uneasily after a decade of (indirect) bolstering Hamas, steadily weakening the Palestinian Authority. When your last serious peace initiative sits nearly twenty years in the rearview mirror, the argument rings hollow.

LARGELY INEFFECTIVE

“Israel is our Biblical Jewish Homeland.” Historically rooted, emotionally real, rhetorically limited. You can feel it deeply and still fail to persuade. I have met intelligent people who were genuinely surprised that towns with strong Jewish associations mentioned in the Tanakh (Old Testament) are not mythical but actually exist in Israel today. That suggests opportunity, but also a skeptical, dismissive, eye-rolling indifference. Do not invoke Hebron.

“Cherry Tomato Branding”. This includes pitches on everything from the Start-Up nation, pioneering agricultural innovation, wonderful beaches, food, and culture. It is, frankly, a little trite. Those wonderful beaches are a double-edged sword. Bottom line, branding Israel (today) as a lifestyle brochure is not political persuasion but boomerang marketing.

“Jewish decolonization narrative.” Intellectually serious to some, politically overloaded to many. The risk here is that it requires over-explanation, presents a self-serving, sweeping view of history, and starts to sound like a theory in search of an audience.

“What About Congo, Sudan, Syria?” I get it. The 200,000 Syrian citizens killed by Assad’s forces barely registers among the European left. But whataboutism is whataboutism and doesn’t erase scrutiny.

POTENTIALLY EFFECTIVE

“A Right to Self Defense.” Still the strongest and simplest frame. It does not require philosophical overreach. Beware of the valid ‘proportionality’ argument.

“Two-state rejection narratives.” The claim that Palestinians rejected multiple offers (1948, 2000, 2008) is powerful shorthand for some but is instantly contested by others. It depends entirely on how much history your audience believes they know or wants to hear.

“Existential fear in a tough neighborhood.” That this is a tough neighborhood is undeniable. Fear is real. But the fear of an oppressive group does not justify oppressing the repressed. Yet fear cannot be wished away by those who do not experience it. The “Villa in the jungle” narrative can be misunderstood as racist and, ironically, a metaphor for colonialism.

HIGH-RISK, HIGH-REWARD

“Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism.” Sometimes accurate, sometimes dangerously overused. Has a very narrow receptive audience. Use it precisely or not at all. Requires messy addenda that blunt the slogan – Anti-Zionism is not a sincere call for democratic reform, two-states, equality, but a rejection of Israel’s legitimacy, blah blah.  “Jews deserve a state of their own” – falls flat to too many ears. Be direct – “Do you think Israel has the right to exist?” – although pre-prepared, answers on this can be decidedly slippery. Always worth stressing, virulent Anti-Zionism rhetoric, whatever the intent, can endanger the lives of all Jews.

“Invoking Antisemitism”. Advice: use sparingly and judiciously; limit to the more egregious examples. The sad truth, is that antisemitism is badly misunderstood almost everywhere. Another sad truth – this is unlikely to change.

“Apartheid analogy rebuttal.” Yes, two million Arab citizens of Israel participate in Israeli elections, the courts, universities, and civil society, helping to counter this charge, but once again, that 59-year occupation complicates the narrative.

 “Israel is unfairly singled out”. True, Israel faces disproportionate scrutiny in the media, the UN, and elsewhere. In some cases, this reflects demonization, double standards, and delegitimization. As a blanket defense, it is too often used to deflect rather than engage.

“It is Jews who were expelled in the Middle East”. Essentially true – and useful to remind others that approximately half of Israeli Jews trace their origins to North Africa or the Middle East. There’s a reason ‘Go back to Europe’ is used rather than ‘Go back to Casablanca’ or ‘Baghdad.’ Be warned, complicated history rarely trumps contemporary televisual geography.

Concluding words of advice.

Admit mistakes. War is horrible. Horrible things happen; The Trumpian doctrine: never apologize, never admit mistakes, and double down, does not work.

Acknowledge the pain and humanity of the other side. Your children are listening.

Communicate the diversity of Israeli political opinion. There is no single Israeli voice – don’t claim to be it.

Be thoughtful about who speaks. Too many Israeli spokespeople sound like they’ve just stepped off a flight from London, Melbourne, or Cape Town. That creates distance rather than connection. That polished English often reads as imported and over-coached. A heavier sabra “Yisraeli” accent with rough edges can feel more grounded and more important, more local.

Most of all, Hasbara is winning over minds and hearts. Be less combative and defensive. Hasbara is not keyboarding warfare, a legal defense, or a point-scoring exercise.

Finally—calm down. Listen. Do not treat every sentence as if it were a cross-examination.

Shrug your shoulders occasionally; it’s messy. That’s okay.

At its core, Hasbara isn’t really about explanation; it’s about whether anyone is still listening.

And if they’re not, no script rewrite in the world will salvage the performance.

A wake-up call – Fewer and fewer are listening for ever-increasing good reasons.