If you had to choose one moment that symbolizes October 7 for you, what would it be? The young festivalgoers fleeing in terror from the Supernova music festival? Hamas’s brutal Facebook broadcasts from the homes of Israeli families? Or perhaps you watched the full horror video that left an indelible mark on you.
The events of October 7 and the subsequent Swords of Iron war set a new benchmark for warfare, introducing an additional battleground – the media. While the use of media during wartime is not new, dating back to World War II when leaders leveraged it to convey messages, this war saw a paradigm shift: Those creating the news were not the leaders but rather the direct attackers or the victims who documented themselves.
The scope and intensity of media coverage – both traditional and social – reached unprecedented levels, with millions worldwide weighing in on the conflict, far beyond the Israeli and Palestinian populations experiencing it firsthand.
Furthermore, pro-Gaza campaigns emerged predominantly from European and American college campuses, demonstrating how war narratives, fueled extensively by social media, influenced global news coverage. These movements, orchestrated in countries unrelated to the conflict, forced decision-makers worldwide to take a stance – supporting either Israel or Gaza – in an effort to appease their electorates.
If I had to pinpoint the moment when the Israeli public and media began to grasp the gravity of that Saturday morning, October 7, it would be the desperate phone calls broadcast live from residents pleading for the IDF to rescue them. For those trapped in the chaos, with no security forces to protect them, journalists and media outlets became their last resort to broadcast their distress. The media, in turn, aired the harrowing content unfiltered, forcing viewers to confront the brutal reality of people on the verge of execution. It was during those live calls that Israelis first heard about civilians being abducted to Gaza, a revelation that added another harrowing layer to the day’s events.
Rise of Telegram
Simultaneously, Hamas terrorists streamed their atrocities live on the Facebook accounts of their victims – deliberately sowing terror among the Israeli public. The mainstream media amplified these videos, underscoring the overwhelming power of social networks in shaping the narrative. Around the same time, the first footage from the Supernova festival emerged, capturing the frantic escape of attendees.
These channels became vital sources of information. Hamas’s elite Nukhba forces were equipped with body cameras, relaying numerous graphic videos via Telegram. Since the IDF were not yet on the ground, frantic parents and family members scoured every available Hamas video for any clue about their loved ones. Telegram, already notorious for unregulated content, became the primary hub for Hamas announcements and the most disturbing footage of that day. Even mainstream journalists turned to it for updates and to piece together the unfolding events.
Conversations with bereaved and hostage families revealed that many spent hours scrolling through Telegram in the desperate hope of finding any information about their relatives. A month into the war, a Bezeq study reported that Telegram downloads doubled, with a 50% spike in user activity. The numbers tell the story: Hamas’s military wing, Al-Qassam Brigades, tripled its channel’s subscriber count to approximately 647,000, with each post averaging 239,000 views – compared to 182,000-200,000 subscribers and 25,000 views per post before the war. The Hamas-affiliated Gaza Now channel, which had 344,000 users before the war, skyrocketed to 1.9 million, with an average of 432,000 views per post – ten times the prewar average. Meanwhile, Israel and its security agencies struggled to establish a significant presence on Telegram or counter the messaging effectively.
The importance of ‘hasbara’
One of the critical lessons from those harrowing early days – a lesson relevant to any nation engaged in conflict – was Israel’s inability to respond swiftly in the media sphere. Although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a video statement at around 11 a.m., his visibly shaken demeanor only exacerbated the crisis, failing to instill confidence. More crucially, Israel lacked a coherent strategic communications framework to counter the emerging narrative. Initially, this did not seem urgent, as Israel was the victim of an unprecedented attack. However, as soon as the IDF entered Gaza, global sentiment shifted, and Israel found itself unable to match the scale of the coordinated media offensive against it.
Israel’s official spokesperson, who should have spearheaded a comprehensive media strategy, failed to act decisively and later resigned, apologizing for her role in the communications failure. This vacuum gave rise to an extraordinary phenomenon unique to Israel: In one of the nation’s darkest hours, with no official media strategy, private citizens – many with little to no prior media experience – stepped up to fill the void. Various grassroots initiatives sprang up, mobilizing communications efforts across multiple platforms, languages, and regions, providing a counter-narrative to the wave of misinformation.
Public’s power
Recognizing the urgent need for a strong digital presence, Israeli civilians encouraged colleagues, friends, and professionals to engage in social media discourse, craft responses, and debunk misinformation, especially as AI-generated images were increasingly used to fabricate anti-Israel propaganda. A prime example is the Civilian Media Headquarters established by journalist Eliav Batito on October 9, 2023. This initiative aimed to enhance Israel’s international public diplomacy and combat rising antisemitism. Within days, it amassed 30,000 members and 3,000 volunteers, which included translators, creative professionals, video editors, and researchers.
According to the Institute for National Security Studies, no fewer than 120 independent media operations and dozens of content databases – comprising images, videos, and graphics – emerged. The primary motivations for these efforts included countering the overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian bias on social media; protecting Jewish communities abroad amid rising antisemitism; and compensating for Israel’s sluggish official response. Many participants saw this as an opportunity to contribute creatively to the war effort, while fostering a sense of purpose.
The effectiveness of these grassroots efforts lay in their ability to rapidly debunk Hamas propaganda. A striking example was the explosion at Al-Ahli Hospital on October 17, initially blamed on Israel. As the IDF took time to verify the details, the Hamas narrative took hold, with international media outlets running headlines condemning “Israel’s massacre.” However, thousands of Israeli influencers, backed by journalists with massive followings, immediately challenged Hamas’s claims, exposing the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as the real culprit.
The war and AI
A crucial aspect of modern warfare has been the escalating use of artificial intelligence. Anyone supporting Israel or Hamas could simply generate heart-wrenching AI-created images of suffering children or collapsing buildings to sway public opinion. This tactic became prevalent, with Israeli media debunking AI-generated images by identifying telltale errors – such as the image of a child with six fingers. Additionally, AI-driven algorithms were used to disseminate manipulative content via bot networks across social platforms. Research conducted since October 7 highlights a surge in automated, AI-backed content designed to propagate false anti-Israel narratives. Deepfake technology has been employed to create fabricated videos that appear authentic, further misleading viewers. Moreover, AI is being used to identify susceptible demographics and target them with tailored anti-Israel propaganda.
The rise of AI-driven disinformation presents significant ethical challenges. The ability of AI to fabricate news risks eroding public trust in journalism while exacerbating societal and political divisions. The concern is that AI-generated falsehoods may be accepted as truth, while legitimate information is cast into doubt. In response, technology companies and international organizations are developing tools to detect AI-generated content and flag dubious information. This ongoing battle between content-generation technologies and truth-verification mechanisms is set to intensify in the coming years.■
Rony Hersch is a strategic adviser and owner of a public relations firm specializing in public advocacy and crisis management.