Israel is losing (some even say she has already irrevocably lost) the information war that is being waged in parallel with the kinetic one that she has been engaged in since 1948, but especially since 7 October 2023. The usual suggestions are technical: spend more money, react more quickly to enemy propaganda, utilize social media more effectively, and so on. All of these are worth doing, but there is one factor that is even more important than all of them together, and it is both simpler and more difficult. There are four paradoxes that can be found in our situation that expose it.
The Paradox of 7 October
On that day, Israel was attacked in the most atavistic, brutal and vicious way that can be imagined. Civilians were murdered, raped, sadistically tortured, and carried off to indefinite captivity under subhuman conditions. Their homes were looted and burned. It was war as practiced before the advent of civilization. It was the greatest mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust.
And yet, although there were many expressions of sympathy, both from people in general and from governments and international organizations, there was also an explosion of hatred for Israel as a nation and for Jews as individuals. Demonstrations were held around the world expressing support for the attackers, and incidents of Jew-hatred – beatings of Jews, anti-Jewish graffiti, attacks on Jewish-owned businesses, and so on spiked. How is this to be understood?
One answer is that people were primed by a decades-long campaign by the Soviet Union, both in the West and the Third World, to use anti-Zionism as a propaganda tool. The Soviets took advantage of the sensitivity that had developed in the West after (ironically) the racist persecution of Jews by the Nazis, and of the general recognition of the evils of the Western colonial empires. At the same time in America, people began to comprehend the horrors of slavery, Jim Crow, and the genocide of Native Americans. The struggle of the Jews for self-determination in their historic homeland was perversely portrayed as racism, colonialism, and now even genocide. The Palestinian Arabs, who were in fact invaders and migrants, were portrayed as an oppressed and colonized indigenous people. This inversion of reality, this “big lie,” was fed with a constant tsunami of propaganda that overwhelmed anemic Israeli attempts to refute or counteract it. The lies have always gone halfway around the world before the truth got its pants on.
Since the fall of the USSR, the campaign has been taken up by the Arabs, Iranians, and international Left who see Israel as an outpost of the hated USA.
The anti-Israel campaign has been disingenuously claimed to be “only anti-Zionist” and not anti-Jewish. But underneath the surface the message has been transmitted clearly and distinctly, and has triggered the closeted anti-Jewish hatreds that have been around at least since the year zero. It is not possible today to go back and undo this.
The way anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda has been deployed in support of the desired genocide of the Jewish people (nothing less) is a triumph of social engineering. Its effectiveness is shown by the combination of murder and defamation that characterized 7 October.
The Paradox of Holocaust Education
In planning a response to anti-Jewish propaganda it’s necessary to consider the attempts to attack the anti-Jewish memes – the prejudices, stereotypes, conspiracy theories, and so on – that were supposed to have caused the Holocaust. One response has been to educate people by presenting the historical facts. Any normal person who knew the true dimensions of the horror perpetrated by the Nazis would reject the patterns of thought that were behind it and shun anyone trying to promulgate them, it was reasoned.
Much money and resources have gone into the building of museums, the development of curricula and materials, and the hiring of experts. And yet this enterprise has failed. It has been met with denial. It has aroused resentment, as Jews are accused of trying to “monopolize oppression,” or of using their own experience as an excuse to persecute others (sometimes at the same time as the Jewish experience is denied). Perversely, the very horror of the Holocaust is titillating to Jew-haters who often admire Hitler, collect Nazi regalia, and so on. Extreme Jew-haters see the Holocaust as something to be repeated rather than condemned.
The Paradox of Sympathy
This gives us a clue to the more general problem of defamation of Israel and Jews. As Jonathan Haidt argues persuasively, humans are primarily motivated by their emotions, even when they believe that they are making decisions on a rational basis. The “reasoning” is really after-the-fact rationalization of choices driven by their feelings. These feelings are often below the surface of consciousness, but they are dominant in a person’s decision-making.
These emotional responses have developed in humans after millennia of biological and cultural evolution. They vary to some extent between cultures (which leads to interesting questions about conflicts between Western and non-Western cultures), but there are also aspects that are universal. One of these is sympathy for an injured person. Paradoxically, there is also an opposite emotion of revulsion. The impulse to despise, to expel, or to flee from a defective or persecuted individual tends to favor survival of an individual or a culture, and so it is strengthened by evolution. We see this tendency among children where a bully that attacks a weak or “different” child is often joined by others.
Thus when a group is mass-murdered, along with sympathy for the victims there is also a tendency to side with the murderers. There is a feeling of safety in the face of horror that comes from the knowledge that one is set apart from the victims, that one is on the other side.
The Paradox of Strength
Another evolutionary trait is an attraction to the stronger side in any conflict. Everybody loves a winner, or as Osama bin Laden said, the “strong horse.” It’s also true that people despise a loser. And before a contest is decided, people choose whom to support based on the perceived strength of each opponent.
Yet in Western cultures people think this feeling should be suppressed. There is a belief that rational considerations and morality should override brute strength in determining the outcome of a confrontation, which results in conflicting emotions (this is one of the reasons they do so poorly when negotiating with Middle Easterners, who see “rational” willingness to compromise as weakness). Strength and honor are of primary concern in the Middle East, but even toward the West, we gain allies by demonstrating strength.
How to Win the Information War
What are the practical lessons for Israel in all this? How can she use the consequences of human and societal evolution to help her overcome the massive propaganda assault, both in the West and in the Middle East? I will offer some suggestions for how she can behave for the best psychological effect. Note that I said “behave,” and not just talk. Actions speak louder than words, especially in the Middle East. And these actions will help bring success in the physical arena as well.
1. Win the War in Gaza
We were humiliated and wounded – from a psychological point of view, critically – on 7 October. We cannot allow Hamas to remain in power and its leaders to remain alive. If we do, we will be marked as victims, in other words, targets. In the Middle East, deterrence comes from honor. If we lose our honor, everything we have is open for the taking.
2. Win the War in the North
Tens of thousands of Israelis have been forced to vacate their homes in fear of bombardment and invasion by Hezbollah. In effect we have allowed our land to become occupied. Again this is a massive loss of honor and must be corrected.
3. Our Lives are More Important Than Theirs
Israel lives in fear of the US and the hostile “international community” of anti-Israel NGOs and institutions, and goes to extreme lengths to warn civilians before attacking military targets, and to allow humanitarian aid to be provided to enemy populations. These policies have made it possible for Egypt to refuse to accept refugees from Gaza, and for Hamas to prolong the conflict, arguably resulting in more civilian suffering than less. Either way, they signify weakness. Get it over with.
4. Return to an Offensive Strategy
Israeli strategy, as propounded by David Ben Gurion, was to take the war to the enemy, fight on his territory, and finish wars quickly. But since Israel has allowed the US to dominate its military policy, she has moved to adopting a defensive posture. Huge amounts of money are spent on weapons like Iron Dome to bat away enemy rockets. This is economically unsustainable, since offensive weapons are much cheaper. It invites the enemy to learn lessons and try again. And from a psychological standpoint, it normalizes shooting at Jews. How can we permit that to become acceptable?
5. Responses Should Always be Disproportionate
Israel’s response should always be several times stronger than our enemies’ provocations. The fact that we responded to an attack from Iran by hundreds of missiles and drones by bombing a radar station was embarrassing, even if it was a demonstration of our capabilities. We may wish to demonstrate capabilities, but we must also demonstrate the will to fight. Deterrence means making them afraid to attack us. Power means hitting back at bullies, not trying to push them away or running from them.
6. Treat the Conflict as Zero-Sum (it is)
Do not look for win-win situations; there aren’t any. Either the Land of Israel will be ruled and populated by Jews, or by Arabs. Americans love the idea that Hamas or the PLO can put aside their desire to destroy Israel if only given an opportunity to develop a prosperous state. Nothing could be more wrong. This is a tribal conflict over land, and tribalism is another evolutionary “built-in.” When Israel goes along with these fantasies, she broadcasts weakness.
7. Get Revenge When Appropriate
Implement the death penalty for terrorist murder. This has the practical benefit of removing a motive for hostage-taking. The modern position is that revenge is atavistic and wrong. But it satisfies a deep need as well as sending a necessary message.
Conclusion
Acting according to the post-WWII Western conception of moral national behavior exposes Israel to depredations by its enemies who do not care about Western morality. At the same time, the climate of opinion that has developed over decades is such that the mechanisms and institutions that might protect a Western state don’t apply to Israel. She has little to lose by changing her behavior to become more aggressive, and aspiring to respect and even fear. Overall this will improve her potential to gain allies and deter enemies.
