In the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, a war on diplomacy has emerged, fueled by competing propaganda interests. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems to desire a never-ending war, partly to divert attention from his domestic political and legal troubles and partly in pursuit of the daunting goal of eliminating Hamas. On the other hand, Hamas relies on maintaining an indefinite ceasefire to be perceived as victorious, even if the victory comes at a high cost. This has led to the rise of anti-diplomacy, a form of “war by other means” that undermines traditional diplomatic processes.
The tactics employed in this anti-diplomacy campaign are multifaceted, occurring at domestic, regional, and international levels. One example is the use of edited videos by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to link Qatar to Hamas and the Israeli narrative of al-Shifa Hospital serving as a command-and-control center for the armed Palestinian group. These videos strategically mention Qatar to undermine the credibility of Qatar’s role as a mediator in the conflict.
Israel’s attempts at anti-diplomacy have sometimes clashed with the United States’ support for Qatar’s mediation efforts. This tension was evident when the Israeli army deleted a video critical of Qatar following US President Joe Biden’s commendation of Qatar’s role as a mediator. Additionally, United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese has been targeted in a smear campaign accusing her of violating the UN’s Code of Conduct. Albanese, a prominent advocate for peace and an expert in international law, has become a target of disinformation due to her calls for a ceasefire.
The war on diplomacy is not limited to the conflict between Israel and Hamas. College campuses in the US and Europe have become battlegrounds of public opinion, with allegations of protests promoting anti-Semitism and anti-Palestinianism. These protests are also subject to anti-diplomacy campaigns aimed at promoting division and conflict. For example, stickers with the message “I love Hamas” were placed around the campus of the University of British Columbia by a contractor without the knowledge of the pro-Jewish organization Hillel. The aim was to manipulate anxieties and smear pro-Palestinian activists as supporters of Hamas.
As a fragile truce is established, both Israel and Hamas are preparing for the future. Israel seeks to maintain public support for war and undermine mediators or advocates for peace. Hamas, on the other hand, aims to generate sympathy for Palestinian suffering while maintaining a level of bellicosity to maintain support from its allies. The release of captives, a crucial aspect of the truce, faced delays and accusations of reneging on the agreement, highlighting the fragility of the ceasefire.
While the bombing may have paused, the war of words and anti-diplomacy tactics continue. The conflict between Israel and Hamas is not just about physical violence but also about shaping public opinion through propaganda. The global public’s support for a ceasefire is evident, but Western politicians seem less inclined to back that sentiment. The role of mainstream media and social media in shaping opinions cannot be underestimated, as they play a vital role in influencing public perceptions.
In conclusion, the conflict between Israel and Hamas is not only characterized by physical violence but also by a war on diplomacy and the use of propaganda. Both sides employ anti-diplomacy tactics to shape public opinion and undermine mediators or advocates for peace. The fragility of the ceasefire is evident, with delays and accusations adding to the tensions. As the world watches, the war of words and anti-diplomacy continue to fuel the conflict between Israel and Hamas.
