Israel’s tenth war

Far from the destruction and smoke enveloping Gaza, another critical battle is being fought, the battle for public perception and information. More than a year after the October 7th massacre and in view of the recent antisemitic outbreak in Amsterdam, the significance of this struggle cannot be overstated. The challenges brought on by Israel’s ninth war, Iron Swords, exposed deep flaws within Israel’s national information system, some of which had previously gone unnoticed.

Over the years, Israel’s Foreign Ministry has seen its influence diminish and its budgets severely reduced. Responsibilities were fragmented across four different offices without clear boundaries, leading to inconsistent messaging and difficulties in recruiting skilled personnel. This disorganization, combined with Israel’s pervasive “it will be fine” mentality, has eroded Israel’s once-strong reputation, the effects of which are now plainly visible.

Since the war began, three foreign ministers, four government offices, and one resigning minister have all attempted to manage national media, scrambling to buy Israel time on the global political stage. Yet, the reality has been harsh. Israel faces well-organized pro-Palestinian forces that effectively craft compelling, empathetic narratives, fueling anti-Israel sentiment worldwide.

The digital landscape reflects this struggle. According to The Washington Post, in the month following October 7, the hashtag #freepalestine appeared 39 times more frequently on Facebook than #standwithisrael and 26 times more on Instagram. In that same period, Instagram and TikTok saw 7.39 billion pro-Israel posts compared to 109.61 billion pro-Palestinian posts. In the last week of October alone, TikToks tagged #standwithpalestine had 285 million views from about 97,000 posts, while #standwithisrael garnered only 64 million views from 9,000 posts. Additionally, antisemitic content on the X platform surged by 919% in the month after October 7.

This disparity stems from the demographic imbalance: an estimated 1.8 to 2 billion Muslims globally (about 24% of the world’s population) compared to approximately 15 million Jews (less than 0.2%).

On the legal-political front, Israel has faced coordinated efforts to challenge its legitimacy. The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague have both taken steps against Israel. The ICC, under Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, is working to issue arrest warrants against senior Israeli officials. Simultaneously, the ICJ is handling a baseless lawsuit filed by South Africa accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza. The United Nations has also played a key role in these challenges. Despite its founding principles, the UN has increasingly shown bias, hypocrisy, and double standards. Over the past decade, it has issued 155 condemnations against Israel compared to 70 for all other nations combined. The UN Human Rights Council has similarly passed 108 resolutions against Israel out of 211.

The numbers tell a stark story. The 1975 UN resolution equating Zionism with racism, set the stage for further condemnation and was only rescinded in 1991. The 120-member Muslim bloc consistently votes against Israel. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), with 57 members, influences these votes and is backed by the non-aligned group of 120 developing nations, forming nearly two-thirds of the UN.

For instance, resolutions supporting Palestinian statehood and condemning Israeli settlements consistently pass due to this voting pattern. While some argue that UN resolutions are largely symbolic, their cumulative effect is damaging. These resolutions feed into a cycle where one UN body relies on unfounded decisions from another.

A significant example is the 2012 upgrade of Palestine’s status to an observer state, despite it not meeting the requisite criteria. This status has enabled Palestine to initiate legal action against Israel in the ICC, entrenching distorted narratives as “truths.” The ICJ, intended to resolve interstate disputes, is similarly affected. Of its 15 judges, four are from OIC member states, often influenced by the UN’s political dynamics and Muslim-majority countries.

Any UN member can bring cases before these tribunals, allowing coordinated efforts to delegitimize Israel. Worse still, the ICJ’s rulings are binding, leaving Israel with no recourse against these attacks. The tribunal’s imbalance, with Muslim-majority countries dominating, undermines its impartiality. In July, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion on “The Legal Consequences Arising from Israel’s Policies and Practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.” As expected, the opinion was unfavourable. The Palestinians seized the opportunity, pushing the UN General Assembly to pass a resolution demanding Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem within 12 months, an arms embargo, and additional sanctions.

On September 18, 2024, this resolution passed with 124 votes in favor, 14 against, and 43 abstentions. This same imbalance extends to the ICC, which prosecutes those behind the most severe crimes. With 124 member states and a 2024 budget of 187 million euros, the ICC has issued around 40 arrest warrants and secured 10 convictions, five of which involve militia leaders from Africa. The ICC is now expected to issue warrants against Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and outgoing Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who was dismissed from his position last week by Netanyahu.

The OIC, a 57-nation coalition, played a key role in drafting the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding charter. This group inserted a clause defining the Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as a crime, a condition for their participation. This clause is the main reason Israel has refused to ratify the treaty.

The ICC prosecutor’s insistence on pursuing arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant for their actions against Hamas has sparked outrage, as the court lacks jurisdiction to intervene. This approach draws a false moral equivalence between the democratic leaders of Israel and a terrorist organization like Hamas. It has been condemned by Israel’s allies, including the United States, and exposes the deep anti-Israel bias permeating the international system. Further complicating these concerns, the court has recently announced its intention to open an external investigation concerning allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior by the prosecutor and his attempt to coerce his assistant into having sexual relations with him. This development may further impact the credibility of the court’s actions.

Israel faces not just a war on the battlefield but a relentless assault on its legitimacy in the international arena. The pro-Palestinian forces have mobilized effectively, leveraging their demographic and political power to dominate narratives and influence institutions like the UN, ICC, and ICJ. The statistics reveal an overwhelming imbalance, demonstrating that the battle for legitimacy is as crucial as any military engagement. Israel’s challenge lies in countering this bias, enhancing its information strategies, and mobilizing its allies to confront the deeply entrenched, systemic efforts aimed at undermining its sovereignty and security. If Israel is to prevail, it must not only defend its borders but also reclaim its narrative and strengthen its position on the international stage.