With diplomatic activity and a public diplomacy blitz up front, alongside operations better left unspoken, Israel is entering what it perceives as a war for its image—where, once again, all means are considered fair game

Israelis are experts in feeling besieged. Call it a “small nation surrounded by enemies” or a “villa in the jungle”—the bottom line is that maybe, just maybe, life here hasn’t exactly been easy lately (say, since 1880?). But our sense of siege isn’t just about nearby physical threats. Israeli public discourse devotes much attention to wallowing in the idea that “the whole world hates us.”

In true siege-mentality fashion, Israel’s image efforts in recent years fall into two classic military modes: defense and offense. Defense is what we’ll call “white operations”—good old-fashioned hasbara, that long-suffering PR apparatus, the one you still hear people groan about in every Friday morning coffee klatch: “Why don’t we have better hasbara?” Offense—what we’ll call “black operations”—includes all those activities carried out “according to foreign reports,” aimed at silencing, sabotaging, or punishing those who dared smear Israel’s name. At times, it seems that these white and black efforts are everything—that they constitute the entirety of Israel’s foreign policy.

But there is another white effort, one that is neither defensive nor offensive. This one should be at the core of the Foreign Ministry’s work: diplomacy. Israel has a network of missions in 108 countries, most led by professional diplomats whose careers are in public service. Some are filled with political appointees—more or less competent. The Foreign Ministry itself describes its role on its website as follows:

“The Foreign Ministry is responsible for formulating, implementing, and explaining the foreign policy of the Israeli government. It works to ensure the national resilience of the State of Israel by continuously expanding and deepening its international ties and fostering global support for Israel and its positions.”

In the eyes of Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, defending Israel’s actions —pushing back against false allegations and curbing the global anti-Israel sentiment—are top priorities. Sa’ar calls it “the battle for consciousness”

The hasbara division within the ministry creates and disseminates “talking points” to Israel’s missions abroad. Ambassadors are expected to promote those messages. As for relationship-building—this is the job of Israel’s envoys around the world.

In the Netanyahu era of centralization, the Foreign Minister role is often viewed as an empty title—a reward given to those pushed aside or who pleased their master. Politically, this is accurate. But on the ground, the Foreign Minister can have a real impact, whether by doing nothing, by securing budgets as part of the political deal that landed them the job, or by shaping and sharpening the talking points. And most crucially—given that the Foreign Ministry suffers chronic underfunding (because there’s always something “more politically urgent” in coalition deals)—the Foreign Minister has one critical lever left: setting priorities. That means determining where attention and budgets go: will they function more as a Minister of Hasbara or as a Minister of Diplomacy?

Setting aside Gideon Sa’ar’s awkward political gymnastics in crawling back to the arms of Likud, he entered the role of Foreign Minister with a clear ideological mission. The bad news? His worldview places hasbara at the center. For him, the top priority is defense—countering publications and claims against Israel and halting the rise of anti-Israel sentiment worldwide. He calls it “the battle for consciousness.” And so, between diplomacy and hasbara, Israel’s embassies and diplomats get less attention, fewer resources.

Diplomats: Presenting the Nuanced Picture

In this project, we’ve covered hasbara at length. Here, the focus is on diplomacy.
Unlike the government’s defense/offense mindset, the professional ethos of Israeli diplomats is based on a different principle: “Don’t wrestle a pig in the mud.” You can’t really defeat hatred. The goal isn’t to get people around the world to love us—but to get them to see a more nuanced picture of Israel. A nuanced picture might mean that if you’re a citizefn of a country with a large Muslim population, you may naturally sympathize with the Palestinians—but that doesn’t mean you can’t appreciate Israel’s society, achievements, or the benefits your country gains from ties with Israel.

It also means fostering familiarity, so that behind the demonized image, one sees a diverse society with a broad range of views. For us, that’s obvious—our divisions define us, and “Kaplanistas” and “Bibi loyalists” may detest one another but still feel equally Israeli.
But a random citizen abroad, whose idea of international news is vague at best, likely knows nothing about us beyond “they’re always at war with everyone,” or “they’re on the bad side.” Even the fact that there’s an internal public struggle over the future of the state is something only hardcore news junkies know.

According to foreign reports, as part of the offensive for protecting Israel’s international public image during this war, the state has not shy away from less conventional methods—up to and including the blackmail of prominent journalists or social media influencers

Think that sounds strange? How much do you really know about Nigeria?
It’s the world’s seventh-largest country by population (over 220 million people), rich in natural resources, and one of the top exporters of oil, gas, gold, coffee, and cocoa. Nigeria is battling Muslim-Christian tensions, tackling corruption, and investing heavily in its “African Silicon Valley,” YabaCon Valley. And yet, what do we know about it beyond, “Boko Haram is doing terrible attacks there”?

For ambassadors and embassy staff, this is the daily work: building relationships, forging personal connections, promoting collaborations—in sports, culture, academia, research, mutual investments. And, crucially: in security. Much of a diplomat’s work is nurturing ties with elites—ministers, MPs, judges, academics, CEOs. Every hosted judo tournament, every student exchange, every link between Israeli investors and local entrepreneurs is another small win for Israel’s global image.

Defense exports now make up a growing share of Israel’s total exports—and war, ironically, helps. Yes, arms sales and surveillance gear to problematic regimes are troubling. But when it comes to democratic, Western countries—where Israel is seen as an authority on protection—these agreements create a perception of “Israel is keeping us safe.” That’s measurable, by the way, in public opinion polls. So let’s assume that the benefit to Israel’s brand is at least as valuable as any #standwithisrael hashtag.

Black Ops: A Shadow War Denied

Now we enter the shadowy world where everything is “according to foreign reports.” According to these reports, Israel’s offensive campaign for its global image includes unconventional pressure—up to and including blackmail of journalists and influencers. Most international coverage doesn’t name names, only citing anonymous sources who claim they faced immense pressure or had their social media accounts repeatedly shut down due to mass reporting. Has any influencer publicly declared “Israel silenced me”? We haven’t found one. But anecdotal reports suggest these activities have been going on for at least a decade.

Infiltrating university activism and sowing chaos: After October 7, U.S. campuses saw rising tension between academic freedom and real threats to Jewish students and faculty. This became a hot-button issue in the U.S. election cycle and under the second Trump administration. Arab media like Al Jazeera and independent outlets often ask: Is Israel infiltrating anti-Israel student groups? Sometimes they confuse Jewish student security initiatives with Mossad-level plots. But sometimes—it feels like they may have stumbled onto something deeper.

For instance, Truthout reported that some U.S. universities use “Israeli-made” facial recognition systems to identify anti-Israel activists. Once flagged, these individuals are allegedly targeted with doxxing, surveillance, and referrals to the Trump administration for visa cancellations or deportation. Is this just universities purchasing security tech (that happens to be Israeli) for dealing with rising campus violence? Possibly. But remember Hezbollah’s pager operation? Sometimes, behind a seemingly routine tech deal lies something very different.

Canary Mission was founded in 2014 to document individuals and groups promoting hatred of the U.S., Israel, and Jews—especially on North American campuses. Its main tool: doxxing.
It publishes profiles of students, faculty, and activists using public social media and open-source information. Critics call it a McCarthyist blacklist meant to intimidate pro-Palestinian voices and destroy their professional futures.
Allegations include invasion of privacy, sharing sensitive personal data, and pressuring universities and employers to take action. Some reports claim that information from the site was used by U.S. immigration and Israeli intelligence to block activists from entering the country.
The site’s operators remain anonymous. But many believe at least some of its intel comes from Israeli agencies.

Revealing Dark Secrets to Undermine “Problematic” Figures
Here, we enter full-on John Grisham territory. The latest example involves two judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC). According to a Guardian investigation, Israel spent nine years spying on ICC officials—hacking their phones and computers, obtaining embarrassing material, and harassing them. Coincidentally, at the end of 2024, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan was accused by a female colleague of multiple sexual assaults and intimidation. His predecessor, Fatou Bensouda, was reportedly pressured and threatened, allegedly even directly by then-Mossad chief Yossi Cohen.
Needless to say, Israel has denied all these claims.

The Fence Hole Syndrome
Whether it's the white efforts of diplomacy or the black ops of whoever-knows-who, Israel continues to operate with Fence Hole Syndrome: obsessing over tactical gaps while ignoring the bigger strategic picture. Discussions focus on technical failures—who didn’t wake the Prime Minister, which forces didn’t respond, which warnings were missed—while avoiding the question of why October 7 happened. Israel excels at short-term field wins but refuses to acknowledge that the best PR campaign can perhaps buy time for a faulty product—but only for a while.
And time, as it turns out, is perishable. See: October 7.