The narratives to double-check before you vote

With elections ahead, every voter will face choices that shape the country’s future. Those choices can only be optimal if they rest on real information rather than recycled allegations, selective omissions, and claims that gain the appearance of truth simply by being repeated. This holds regardless of political views. People on every side of the spectrum need accurate facts. Distortion of the factual record does not strengthen democratic decision-making, it weakens it.

For more than two years, I have been watching a disturbing pattern in the Israeli information space. The same claims are copied from post to post, often with almost identical wording. Allegations are presented as established facts, and repetition is treated as confirmation. Posts that look independent often trace back to the same small circle of sources rather than to independent evidence.

The narratives listed below may be markers of misinformation. If you come across any of them in a post, an article or a forwarded message, please double-check the text against the original sources before you rely on it or share it.

Many of these claims are not new. Some were first made in interviews two or more years ago. One example is an interview with retired police lieutenant colonel Avi Weiss, reportedly broadcast on the TOV channel. In it he discussed the events of October 7, the role of legal advisers, the conduct of the IDF, the Shin Bet and Ronen Bar. Weiss and Hagit Dror are often cited as the main sources for claims about four things: October 7, the supposed authority of legal advisers over military operations, the conduct of the Israeli Air Force, and an alleged Shin Bet conspiracy.

A year or more later, the same claims, or close versions of them, keep resurfacing as if they were new or independently verified revelations. The repetition makes it look as though many independent sources confirm them. In reality, many posts form a closed loop:

original interviews → social media posts → reposts → further reposting of the same claims as apparent confirmation

For a while, I assumed this was a marginal phenomenon. Then, on June 1, 2026, Supreme Court President Justice Yitzhak Amit spoke about fabricated narratives about the judiciary at the Israel Bar Association conference. Several of the claims he described were strikingly similar to the ones I had been tracking. That is when I realized I was looking at part of a much broader pattern.

Justice Amit spoke about how attacks on the courts and false claims about their decisions have become normal in public discourse. He also warned that AI-generated deepfakes pose a risk to democratic processes. He gave specific examples of false claims:

– the Court had divided the Western Wall and set the prayer arrangements there
– the Court had secretly given the IDF operational instructions
– the Court’s hearings had undermined the IDF’s fighting spirit
– he had “appointed himself” President of the Supreme Court
– Justice Dafna Barak-Erez is the daughter of former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak

Full speech: https://www.gov.il/he/pages/judgespeech01062026

Below are some of the narratives now circulating in the Israeli information space that may be false, unsubstantiated or misleading. The list is not exhaustive. Justice Amit addressed several of them in his speech. Others are passed from post to post in connection with the Tally Gotliv affair and the events of October 7. Each claim is followed by an example of how it is worded when it circulates. For items 20 to 26, the examples are quotes from Justice Amit’s speech.

The narratives below should not be read as a list of claims made solely by Avi Weiss. Weiss is a prominent and vivid example, especially regarding October 7, legal advisers, the Air Force and the Shin Bet, but many of these claims circulate independently or through other sources as well. His interviews and posts are best understood as part of a broader ecosystem of repetition, in which the same allegations are recycled, reworded and presented as newly confirmed.

1. Legal advisers prevented a declaration of war on the morning of October 7 (may be false or misleading).
“Netanyahu declared war in the early morning hours of October 7, but this declaration was not implemented until late at night. The reason was that the Military Advocate General and the Attorney General claimed, contrary to the law, that Netanyahu allegedly had no authority to declare war.”

2. Because of the legal advisers, the army’s operational activity was restricted during the most critical hours (may be false or misleading).
“The prime minister declared a state of war in the morning, but the legal advisers insisted that a formal government decision was required. As a result, the army’s operational activity was restricted during the most critical hours.”

3. Because of the legal advisers, the position of commanders on the ground was ignored (may be false or misleading).
“Military commanders in the field and at headquarters already regarded the situation as a war, but their position was allegedly not accepted by the legal establishment as a sufficient basis for immediately expanding the use of force.”

4. Because of the legal advisers, the Israeli Air Force was not given freedom of action, and pilots were allegedly not allowed to open fire without a legal adviser’s approval for each target (may be false or misleading).
“The IAF allegedly did not receive freedom of action during the first hours of the attack, even when terrorists were already inside Israeli territory and continued killing and abducting people. Pilots do not open fire without a legal adviser’s signature approving each target.”

5. Because of the legal advisers, it was impossible to strike gatherings of terrorists inside Israel quickly (may be false or misleading).
“Because of legal restrictions, it was impossible to strike locations inside Israel where terrorists had gathered, even when the objective was to save civilians and members of the security forces.”

According to the same narrative, the legal advisers were also responsible for the following:

6. A helicopter in Be’eri saw 50 terrorists and flew away on orders (may be false or misleading).
“At 2:00 p.m., the rapid-response team in Be’eri begged a helicopter that was at the scene to eliminate 50 terrorists gathered in a garden. It turned around and flew away without doing anything.”

7. A helicopter near the Nova festival circled for half an hour and returned without achieving anything (may be false or misleading).
“A helicopter sent to the area circled in the sky for about half an hour, identified terrorists, but returned without taking action ‘because there was insufficient certainty.'”

8. Another helicopter was ordered in real time not to attack terrorists armed with RPGs (may be false or misleading).
“Another helicopter, whose pilot could see terrorists carrying RPGs, received an order in real time not to attack them.”

9. Israel bombed only empty buildings in Gaza that day (may be false or misleading).
“Even the strikes that were carried out in Gaza were conducted only after ‘roof-knocking’ warnings throughout that cursed day. Our brothers and sisters are being killed, slaughtered and beheaded, and what are we doing? Bombing empty buildings in Gaza?”

10. Hamas leaders could not be attacked in hospitals and shelters designated as humanitarian sites (may be false or misleading).
“It was forbidden to attack any of the places in Gaza where Hamas leaders and fighters had taken refuge, such as shelters, hospitals and similar locations, because they had been designated as ‘humanitarian shelters’ that could not be struck.”

11. Targets near civilians could not be attacked even when Hamas fighters were present, contrary to a General Staff directive issued at 1:00 p.m. (may be false or misleading).
“It was also forbidden to attack locations in Gaza where several ‘uninvolved civilians’ were present, despite the new General Staff directive on this issue, which was circulated during the massacre at 1:00 p.m. precisely for that purpose.”

12. The refusal to activate the Hannibal Directive allowed hostages to be taken out of Israel in waves (may be false or misleading).
“The Hannibal Directive was not activated. Because the abductions took place in ‘waves,’ the refusal to activate the directive allowed subsequent waves of abductions to occur.”

13. Fuel and electricity continued to be supplied to Gaza throughout October 7 (may be false or misleading).
“Fuel and electricity supplies to Gaza continued throughout those terrible hours, until the cabinet decision on the night of October 8.”

14. A Shin Bet employee who was the partner of a protest leader contacted Sinwar before October 7 (may be false or misleading).
“The allegation against the Shin Bet employee is that he supposedly had contact with Yahya Sinwar shortly before October 7.”

15. The Shin Bet employee resigned unusually quickly shortly before October 7 (may be false or misleading).
“This employee allegedly resigned from the Shin Bet shortly before October 7 and, according to those making the accusation, did so unusually quickly.”

16. Ronen Bar covered for this employee (may be false or misleading).
“Ronen Bar allegedly protected or covered for a Shin Bet employee whose identity was connected to Shikma Bressler’s husband or partner, and this was supposedly the reason for the conflict with Tally Gotliv.”

17. Netanyahu requested information about the employee, but the Shin Bet concealed it (may be false or misleading).
“It is claimed that Netanyahu requested information about this employee, while the Shin Bet or its leadership allegedly obstructed its disclosure.”

18. The criminal case against Tally Gotliv is presented as indirect evidence that the conspiracy was real (may be false or misleading).
“The case against Tally Gotliv was opened not for spreading false information as such, and not for exposing the identity of an undercover employee, but for disclosing information about real events that someone wants to conceal.”

19. The Shin Bet employee was part of a broader conspiracy involving the protest movement and the government’s political opponents (may be false or misleading).
“This employee may allegedly have been part of a broader conspiracy involving the protest movement, the Shin Bet and the government’s political opponents.”

20. The Supreme Court ruled on the division of the Western Wall and set the prayer arrangements there (described as false by Justice Amit).
“Headlines recently circulated claiming that the High Court of Justice had supposedly ruled on the division of the Western Wall and established the prayer arrangements there.”

21. The Court interfered in the IDF’s rules of engagement in the perimeter area near Gaza (described as false by Justice Amit).
“The claim is once again being circulated that the Court interfered in the IDF’s defense policy in the area adjacent to the security barrier on the Gaza side.”

22. Before the ruling on the perimeter area, a closed hearing was held at which the Court gave the IDF operational instructions (described as false by Justice Amit).
“It is claimed that the decision was preceded by a closed hearing with IDF representatives, during which the Court allegedly issued one instruction or another.”

23. After the petitions were filed, the IDF changed its rules of engagement to avoid a Court ruling (described as false by Justice Amit).
“Another claim is that, after the petitions were filed, the IDF changed the rules on its own initiative in order to ‘avoid’ a Court ruling. But no such change took place.”

24. Supreme Court hearings undermined the IDF’s fighting spirit (described as false by Justice Amit).
“Another false claim recently emerged: that the Supreme Court hearings themselves allegedly undermined the IDF’s morale.”

25. Yitzhak Amit appointed himself President of the Supreme Court (described as false by Justice Amit).
“Another fake story that has recently spread like wildfire is the claim that I supposedly ‘appointed myself’ President of the Supreme Court.”

26. Justice Dafna Barak-Erez is the daughter of former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak (described as false by Justice Amit).
“A particularly telling example is the claim that my colleague, Justice Dafna Barak-Erez, is the daughter of former President Barak. An absolute fake, of course.”