It’s normal and expected for a political leader to address the people of their own nation, but what happens when a leader decides to bypass diplomatic channels and speak directly to the people of another country—especially to those of an adversary?
Public diplomacy, the strategy by which a government seeks to influence the general public of another country, has a consistent history of use by Israel. Israeli public diplomacy was previously referred to as ‘hasbara’ (הַסְבָּרָה), broadly translating to ‘explaining.’ The moniker fell out of fashion for its defensive connotations, perceived as reactionary justification rather than proactive strategy. Now rebranded under the remit of various ‘Public Diplomacy Directorates’ in both the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the practice remains central to Israel’s engagement with neighboring nations. As recently as 2020, targeted campaigns accompanied the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between the UAE and Israel. With the aim of bridging divides and fostering mutual respect, various cultural campaigns were established in tandem with the agreement. That same year, for example, the Abu Dhabi Film Commission, Israel Film Fund, and Jerusalem Sam Spiegel Film & Television School began bilateral cooperation. In 2021, the National Library of Israel and the National Archives of the UAE collaborated in digitization and knowledge/cultural exchanges. Another instance of cultural bridge-building was the phenomenon of widely shared videos of the Israel Association for Care and Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities’ ‘Shalva Band’ performing with singers from the Emirates such as Tareq Al Menhali. [1]
The October 7th attacks in 2023, however, have dramatically altered Israel’s public diplomacy efforts. One core strategic shift has been an increased directness of address. Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has released key messages speaking not to the Lebanese or Iranian governments, but straight to the people of those nations themselves.
Circumventing the standard protocols of public diplomacy (cultural ties, visa-free entry, educational exchanges, and so forth) is not new per se, but it’s certainly not commonplace. Several other examples exist. JFK’s ‘Ich bin ein Berliner!’ speech was directly aimed at the broader Eastern bloc in 1963, and Obama’s 2009 address in Cairo encouraged the Muslim world to embrace “a new beginning.” Yet this strategy is only growing in potency, especially in a technological age in which messaging can be immediately disseminated via social media.
On the 23rd of September 2024, PM Netanyahu posted a direct video message to the Lebanese people on the @IsraeliPM X (Twitter) page, a little under a minute in length and in English. [2] He urged them to move, warning that the IDF was poised to begin taking out Hezbollah weaponry. His first line was most crucial: “I have a message for the people of Lebanon: Israel’s war is not with you. It is with Hezbollah. For too long, Hezbollah has been using you as human shields.” Several days later, on the 8th of October, Netanyahu made a second appeal, this one far more inflammatory, calling on the Lebanese people to “take back your country.” [3]
Simultaneously, Israel began another video-based X (Twitter) public diplomacy campaign directed at the Iranian people. On the 30th of September, Netanyahu stated, “The people of Iran should know—Israel stands with you.” [4] He released a second message on November 12th, expanding on previous warnings: “Another attack on Israel would simply cripple Iran’s economy. It would rob you of many more billions of dollars. I know that you don’t want this war. I don’t want this war either. The people of Israel don’t want this war. There is one force putting your family in grave danger: the tyrants of Tehran. That’s it.”
In the initial phase of conflict after October 7th, the war in the Middle East was fairly contained to the Gaza Strip, yet over subsequent months it has escalated, inching across borders and evolving into direct strikes on Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Against a grim background of worsening geopolitical conflict, the dynamics of the Middle East have shifted. The current situation can no longer be deemed an exclusively ‘Gazan issue’ but must be acknowledged as a Lebanese and an Iranian one too. For all peoples across the Middle East, the war has led to a heightened awareness as to the precarity of their own positions. The elimination of terrorist groups, either through the destruction of their leadership or a strangulation of their supply chains, has adjusted the balance of power. In this new political landscape, the use of public diplomacy is an opportunity for Israel to reshape strategic communications in theddle East, especially in such formative moments for the region.
Direct speeches can serve multiple purposes: acting as a symbol of power, bypassing political leaders and communicating directly to the people, and as an efficient messaging tool to encourage a shift in public attitudes towards Israel. This is particularly relevant given the complex and often strained relationships between the Iranian and Lebanese people and their leaders. Public diplomacy campaigns that make the most of these fractures and further aggravate the populace of divided nations have the potential to be highly disruptive.
In Iran, there is widespread discontent among many groups with the current regime. Feminists, for instance, are unhappy with the subjugation of women to draconian laws and extreme punishment, as evidenced by the repeated widespread protests over decades against the regime, including those after the murder of Mahsa Amini in 2022. Additionally, tension continues to brew in Iran regarding Khamenei’s future, especially after the immense damage to the national image that followed the assassination of Hezbollah’s leader Nasrallah in Lebanon. Iran’s political climate hangs in a delicate balance, and many see their own regime as a threat to their prosperity and security. It is also critical to note the widening chasm between the political and religious elite and the people themselves. For those already disillusioned or unhappy with their regime, public diplomacy serves as a strategic opportunity to simultaneously deepen their opposition and exploit an existing narrative gap.
Meanwhile, in Lebanon, the legacy of the 1975-90 Civil War lingers. The conflict culminated in a fissiparous nation. The sectarian tensions between Hezbollah, Sunnis, and Maronite Christians, as well as other Christian groups such as Syriacs, Assyrians, and Chaldean Catholics, still fracture the proxy battleground of Lebanon. Different sectarian groups are often accused of being allied with Israel, with accusations frequently directed at Christian political parties and increasingly also at Sunnis. Perhaps one of the most problematic misconceptions of the Middle East by the Western public is a presupposed homogeneity in ideology, identity, and stance towards Israel. The fragmented politics of Lebanon is the best example of this. Netanyahu’s messaging to the people is potentially incredibly powerful, particularly when it seeks to understand the heterogeneous viewpoints within Lebanon and positions itself to support a growing public movement that wants to destabilize and delegitimize Hezbollah. However, the impact of public diplomacy as a discipline is notoriously difficult to measure, quantitatively or qualitatively, in the short or medium term. Within both Lebanon and its diaspora, Netanyahu’s speech has sparked debate as to whether Israel intends to reoccupy Southern Lebanese territory as it did from 1982 to 2000. For those opposed to Hezbollah, Israel’s assurances of no long-term occupation could be a persuasive factor.
In a region where political narratives are tightly controlled, the battle for influence over public opinion is critical. The success of this strategy relies on exploiting the pre-existing internal fractures between people and their leaders. Certainly, it is no panacea for complete influence, and whether it could lead to substantial change is hard to measure. What is clear, however, is that this direct and unfiltered approach to public diplomacy may signal a broader shift in how states choose to engage with neighboring populations in the Middle East.
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/shalva-band-sings-bridge-over-troubled-waters-with-emirati-artist/
[2] https://x.com/IsraeliPM/status/1838249137822679042?lang=en-GB
[3] https://x.com/IsraeliPM/status/1843727294289899886
[4] https://x.com/netanyahu/status/1840740049299583355?lang=en-GB
