Hasbara’s Double-Edged Sword

Rabbi Isaac said: The Torah, which is the law book of Israel, should have commenced with the verse (Exodus 12:2), “This month shall be unto you the first of the months,” the first commandment given to Israel. Why, then, does it begin with the account of Creation? Because of the thought expressed in the text (Psalms 111:6), “He declared to His people the strength of His works, in order that He might give them the heritage of the nations.” Should the nations of the world say to Israel, “You are robbers, for you took by force the lands of the seven nations of Canaan,” Israel may reply, “All the earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He. He created it and gave it to whom He pleased. When He willed, He gave it to them; when He willed, He took it from them and gave it to us.”
— Rashi on Genesis 1:1

At the opening of his Torah commentary, Rashi raises a fundamental question: Why does the Torah, ostensibly a religious and legal text, not begin with the first commandment given to the Jewish people—the law of the new month? Why start instead with the creation of the universe? Among the many answers, one stands out for our discussion: “When the nations of the world ask how the Jews could lead a conquest of Canaan (i.e., modern-day Israel), the Jews can answer that God, as Creator of the universe, granted them sovereignty over this land.” Many commentators find this answer puzzling. If the nations of the world do not abide by the Torah, why would they care what it says? Some resolve this by suggesting that the intended audience is not the nations but the Jews themselves. It is a form of internal reinforcement—a way for Jews to look inward and reaffirm their sovereignty, even in the face of external challenges. This idea remains strikingly relevant today. Many Jews feel an ambivalence toward Jewish sovereignty in Israel. On an intellectual level, they may question it, but on a visceral, almost primal level, they feel it to be right—without necessarily being able to articulate why. This internal tension manifests outwardly: Jews feel compelled to convince themselves (and by extension, the world) of their legitimacy. One of the primary vehicles for this effort is Israel’s public diplomacy, commonly referred to as Hasbara (Hebrew for “explanation”). Israel’s defenders often emphasize its status as “the only democracy in the Middle East” or the claim that it has “the world’s most moral army.” While these statements may be true, I argue that espousing them so frequently does more harm than good.

The Streisand Effect and the Pitfalls of Over-Explanation
A useful framework for understanding this is the Streisand Effect, named after an incident in 2003 when Barbra Streisand sued a photographer for invasion of privacy over an aerial photo of her Malibu home. Before the lawsuit, the photo had been downloaded only six times. After the lawsuit made headlines, the image received over 420,000 views in a single month. The lesson: if you want to avoid drawing attention to something, do not broadcast it on the public stage. Israel already faces an uphill battle in global perception. The modern world includes an entrenched anti-Israel NGO-industrial complex, 22 Arab nations with a combined population of 473 million (many of whom are at best indifferent, if not outright hostile, toward Israel, on a national level, although individuals who disagree exist but are rare), and a growing influence of pro-Hamas funding in universities worldwide. Furthermore, outlets like Al Jazeera, masquerading as neutral journalism, shape narratives against Israel.However, one of Israel’s biggest disadvantages stems not just from external forces but from its own democratic values. Unlike its Islamist adversaries, Israel has a free press and open discourse, which results in a stark imbalance in the imagery propagated to the world.

The Gore Porn Effect
One of the most under-discussed yet highly impactful weapons in the information war is what I refer to as “gore porn.” Israel, adhering to Jewish values of dignifying the dead, does not broadcast graphic images of its slain citizens or soldiers. By contrast, terror groups and their sympathizers have no such constraints. They flood social media with gruesome images and emotionally charged videos, knowing that in an era of 20-second clips and endless scrolling, a single harrowing image can have far more impact than an hour-long civics lesson on Zionism. This imbalance leaves Israel at a significant disadvantage. In the fight for public opinion, facts and logic are often secondary to visceral, emotional narratives. This is where Hasbara can sometimes backfire—by relying on abstract arguments rather than engaging with the psychological and visual realities of modern media.

Jewish Guilt and the Burden of Justification
Another factor at play is what can only be described as Jewish guilt. Many Jews, particularly in the West, feel an internalized need to justify Israel’s existence to an often-hostile world. This guilt manifests in repeated assertions of Israel’s “right to exist” or its “right to defend itself.” These statements are not only unnecessary but counterproductive. No other nation on Earth feels compelled to repeatedly affirm its legitimacy. By doing so, Israel invites questions that should never have been entertained in the first place: Why does Israel need to state this? Does it mean its existence is actually in doubt? The origins of these rhetorical habits likely stem from an earlier era, when Israel’s survival was far less certain. However, that is no longer the case. Israel is an entrenched global superpower. It does not need the world’s approval, and constantly seeking it only fosters further scrutiny and criticism.

A New Approach to Public Diplomacy
Given these challenges, how should Israel and its allies adjust their approach? Instead of falling into the trap of defensive rhetoric, Israel’s public diplomacy should take on a more assertive, strategic role:

Define Terms Before Using Them – Rather than simply stating that Israel is “the only democracy in the Middle East,” first define what democracy means. When referring to Israel as “the only Jewish state,” compare it to other ethno-religious states, such as Saudi Arabia. Contextualizing these statements prevents them from being reduced to empty slogans.

Ditch the Platitudes – Phrases like “Israel has a right to exist” or “Israel has a right to defend itself” should be removed from discourse. These statements inadvertently frame Israel as a state whose legitimacy is in question.

Establish a Non-Partisan Public Diplomacy Department – A neutral, fact-based body dedicated to engaging international audiences can be more effective than state-sponsored Hasbara. This department should highlight Israel’s nationhood without tying itself to specific domestic policies.

Engage with Emotional Narratives – While maintaining dignity, Israel should recognize that in the age of digital warfare, images and emotions matter more than ever. Instead of relying solely on rational arguments, pro-Israel advocacy should incorporate storytelling techniques that resonate on a human level.

Conclusion
The world does not judge Israel the way it judges other nations. This reality will not change. However, Israel and the Jewish people must recognize their own power. Israel is not a fledgling state pleading for legitimacy—it is a thriving nation with the strength to dictate its own narrative. The key is to stop playing defense and start shaping the conversation on its own terms.