As the world was once again contemplating missiles raining down on Israel and carefully waiting for the latter’s response, one thing that stood out as particularly unanticipated to the masses was a speech given by an Israeli military spokesman, Daniel Hagari, following Iran’s response to the bombing of its Syrian consulate on the 13th of April. The speech in question was, in actuality, a brief description of the chain of events that had been unfolding ever since the 7th of October, with an emphasis on the plight of the Israeli hostages still detained in the Gaza strip. However, several observers have keenly pointed out Daniel Hagari’s deliberate use of English instead of Hebrew, as it is usually the case with other Israeli officials.
On the 15th of April, a new video was released on the IDF’s official YouTube channel in which the Chief of the General Staff, LTG Herzi Halevi, recounted the most recent events and revealed the code name of the operation through which the Iranian missiles had been intercepted, officially dubbing it “Operation Iron Shield.” Once again, this communique was undertaken exclusively in the English language. And as a matter of fact, scrolling through the numerous videos on the IDF’s YouTube channel would demonstrate that this has been a consistent habit for some time.
But while some commentators may choose to qualify this unexpected linguistic shift as yet another case of Israeli propaganda, the reality may be much more complex and less superficial than that. In order to fully grasp the tactical choice of addressing the world in English, it is recommended that one analyze the videos in question within the scope of digital diplomacy. The latter is a newer form of diplomacy which, as its name suggests, takes place on the digital sphere and has been in vogue ever since the first mandate of former U.S. President Donald J. Trump, who popularized it on the now rebranded “X” through a series of “tweets” in which he would directly address other world leaders and indirectly target their respective populations.
In fact, the primary goal of digital diplomacy is to shatter traditional diplomatic barriers which, in the majority of cases, require pre-established diplomatic missions and tedious protocols in order to be carried out. These barriers have historically limited any diplomatic discussions from fully reaching the public, rendering such diplomacy a privileged activity reserved exclusively for world leaders. However, as digitalization has proliferated and virtually revolutionized humanity, it was inevitable that such diplomatic practices would eventually also succumb to the same type of transformation.
This evolution was in fact foreshadowed in the 1950’s long before the advent of the internet. The first signs of technological advancement were sufficient to inspire renowned researchers such as biologist and first-ever Director-General of UNESCO, Julian Huxley, to coin the phrase “transhumanism.” Proponents of this concept, such as Huxley and Max More, believe that for as long as it continues to develop, technology will likely determine our continued evolution and thus remain an indissociable component of our lives, improving virtually all dimensions of human life. Although it might have appeared extreme to some back then, the transhumanist school of thought has ultimately been proven right, as today, human history seems inextricably linked to technology. Communication, in particular, has been profoundly influenced by technology, not the least of which has been political discourse.
During his presidential campaign, former U.S. President Donald J. Trump shattered behavioral norms with his tweets, instigating a debate as to whether or not it was professional for a potential U.S. president to discuss political affairs on social media. Although he was not the first one to announce his presidential candidacy on Twitter, he was indisputably the first president to promise the building of a wall and publicly ridicule another head of state through simple tweets. Albeit unconventional, this modus operandi received a tremendous amount of media attention–which no doubt had been Trump’s clear intent from the beginning–to the point which some commentators joked about how Trump “memed” his way up to the presidency. Furthermore, the popularity that the 45th president of the United States continues to enjoy both inside and outside of his country is also largely due to his practice of digital diplomacy.
The aforenamed popularity has in fact been so remarkable that it has inspired several other heads of state and political actors to follow suit, including even the most reclusive ones. As such, even Ali Khamenei has hopped on the bandwagon by actively posting on “X,” a platform created by Americans, his country’s sworn enemy. Ironically, he also frequently posts in the English language. This may appear self-deprecating and humiliating, but it is a reality that has been imposed on virtually all political leaders, provided that they wish to successfully reach a broader audience.
Israel is therefore far from being an isolated case, except that it enjoys even more social media presence and in addition to English, it actively posts in Arabic. This is understandable, as Israel is surrounded by Arabic-speaking populations and 20% of Israelis are in fact Arab. Furthermore, the most rampant anti-Israeli sentiment tends to be expressed among Arabic-speaking populations. Thus, it is not surprising that the government-approved Facebook page, “Israil tatakallam bil-Arabiyyah” (Israel speaks Arabic), has today generated over three million followers, and an active viewing platform. This is due to the consistent efforts deployed to influence public opinion among the said populations.
The page in question has in fact been experiencing an exponential rise in popularity and although the comments and reactions tend to be diverse–ranging from insults to seemingly sincere ones–the number of followers continue to rise as the content continues to reach more and more individuals. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that out of the 22 sovereign states in the Arab world, Israel holds official diplomatic relations with only 3 of them, in addition to the liaison office in Rabat. With that being said, opting for traditional diplomacy in the MENA region remains far-fetched. Hence, in such cases of partial or total absence of diplomatic ties, the only viable medium to build bridges between heterogenous populations remains this digitalized form of diplomacy.
If for instance the name “Avichay Adraee” sounds familiar today to the vast majority of the Arabic-speaking youth, it is directly due to the increasing practice of digital diplomacy by Israel. Across different social media platforms, Israeli military spokesperson Avichay Adraee would post hyped-up videos of himself speaking or singing in fluent Arabic, a clear attempt at drawing the attention of the so-called Arab world to a jollier facet of Israel which is almost never shown on Arab media outlets. This constitutes a prime example of digital diplomacy, as Adraee is communicating directly with the populations of the MENA region without conforming to the shackles of traditional diplomacy.
Similarly, in the context of the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, there has been an unprecedented outreach of the Palestinian side of story to the rest of world, not just in English but in virtually all native languages. However, the difference is that very few people sought to refer to this as some type of propaganda, as opposed to the mixed feedback on Daniel Hagari’s speech. On the contrary, several journalists and news media outlets have been praised for their integrity and courage for shedding light on the ordeal of Gazans.
Nevertheless, observing this situation through the prism of digital public diplomacy allows for the formation of more balanced opinions with regard to the issue at hand. In order to reach the broader public, all parties in conflict are compelled to navigate through the digital sphere, and doing so is not necessarily tantamount to propaganda. Instead, it is simply a viable method to draw the attention of as many people as humanly possible in this digital era. In the case of Israel, the choice of language may also be a method by which to evoke feelings of sympathy and empathy among its traditionally English-speaking allies. Thus, it is plausible that it was also in this spirit that the IDF had been actively communicating with the world in English on its official YouTube channel and through its other social media platforms.