We’re Fighting Anti-Israel Sentiment the Wrong Way

I have spent the past year watching how anti-Israel sentiment spreads online, both as an observer and as a content creator directly engaging with it. What shocked me most was not only the criticism of Israel, criticism exists, and it always will. What shocked me was how ineffective much of the pro-Israel response has become.

I have posted videos explaining Israel’s position that reached thousands of people, only to see the same comments again and again: “genocide,” “apartheid,” “baby killers.” That matters. Because when the same words are repeated often enough, they stop feeling like accusations and start becoming assumptions.

A recent Gallup poll shows how serious this shift has become. According to the poll, only 37% of Americans now hold a positive view of Israel. This is not just a bad number, it is a warning sign. In politics, when numbers collapse, campaigns do not simply repeat the same message. They change strategy. Israel now faces a similar moment. But our strategy has not changed enough.

Much of the pro-Israel world still operates under the basic assumption that facts alone will change minds. Because of this assumption we respond with long threads, detailed historical explanations, maps, timelines, legal arguments and military justifications. Some of these arguments are true, many are necessary. But they are not enough, facts without a narrative rarely move people.

That is where our side is failing. We often try to win debates while the other side is defining reality. Anti-Israel activists do not only argue policy, they attach simple, emotional words to Israel until those words become inseparable from the conversation. “Genocide!” “Apartheid!” “Occupation!” “Ethnic cleansing!” These words are short, memorable, and morally explosive. They do not require the audience to understand history, they only require the audience to feel outraged.

By contrast, the pro-Israel response is often reactive. We wait for an accusation before trying to disprove it. We wait for a lie to spread before posting the truth. We wait for a viral slogan before explaining why it is misleading. But by then, the damage is already done. The first frame usually wins. If you do not define the narrative, someone else will.

Of course, communication does not exist in a vacuum. Social media algorithms, legacy media institutions and cultural gatekeepers all influence which narratives are amplified and which are ignored. Emotional slogans and simplistic framing usually spread faster than nuanced explanations, especially in modern media environments, those are built around speed, virality, and outrage. That reality creates an uneven playing field. But structural disadvantages do not excuse weak strategy. If anything, it makes strategic communication even more essential.

This problem becomes even worse when our messaging is inconsistent. One official says one thing, another says something else, and Hasbara accounts try to explain both at once. To people already skeptical of Israel, this does not look like nuance. It looks like a contradiction. And contradiction destroys trust.

The issue is not that Israel lacks facts. The issue is that the facts are presented without enough clarity, unity, and strategic direction. In today’s digital world, people do not form opinions like judges reviewing evidence in a courtroom. They form opinions through identity, emotion, repetition, and social pressure. And if we ignore that reality, we will continue losing people who might otherwise be reachable.

This does not mean we should abandon the truth. The opposite is true. It means truth must be communicated better. It must be simpler, clearer and memorable. A correct argument that nobody remembers is not effective. A perfect explanation that nobody finishes reading is not persuasive. Being right is important, but being right is not the same as being understood.

So what should change?

First, pro-Israel communication must become more narrative-driven. We need to explain not only what Israel does, but why Israel exists, what it represents, and what would happen without it. People need to understand that Israel is not just another country involved in another conflict. It is the national home of a people who survived exile, pogroms, terrorism, and genocide, and despite everything they endured, still chose to build, defend, and persevere.

Second, we need to stop speaking only to people who already agree with us. Too much pro-Israel content is designed for applause from the pro-Israel audience. That may feel good, but it does not change minds. The real test is whether our message can reach the confused teenager, the uninformed college student, or the person who has heard the word “apartheid” a hundred times and never heard a serious response.

Third, we need consistency. Every movement that succeeds has clear language. It repeats its message until people remember it. The pro-Israel world often has the facts, but not always the discipline. And without discipline, even truth can become scattered.

The uncomfortable reality is that anti-Israel activists understand the power of framing better than we do. They know what they are targeting. They know what words they want associated with Israel. We, too often, do not know exactly what we are trying to make people remember. That has to change.

The goal is not to scream louder. The goal is to communicate smarter, clearer and more consistently, more strategically. Ultimately, the challenge we face is not a lack of facts, but a failure of strategy. The Jewish people have survived far worse than bad headlines and hostile comment sections. But this “far worse” might come if we don’t wake up.

And if we fail to adapt, history will remember the facts we had. But by then, it will be history.