Reputations can change. This is not speculation but a historical fact. Even countries that were once treated as pariahs have managed to become respected members of the international community. Israel is no different. Yet, the war has made one thing very clear: the “hasbara” effort, Israel’s public diplomacy strategy, does not succeed in changing how the world sees it.
In Israeli public consciousness, criticism is often dismissed in two main ways. Either critics are labeled as antisemites, or they are seen as ignorant and unfamiliar with the truth. In reality, the situation is far more complex. Abroad, one can find individuals who genuinely care for Israel and its people while at the same time opposing certain government actions and in some cases even protesting against them. Over the past two years, even some of Israel’s most loyal supporters have struggled to defend it.
Today, Israel is widely viewed as one of the countries with the most negative international image. Surveys conducted over the last two years consistently show a sharp decline in Israel’s popularity around the world, including among both major political parties in its closest ally, the United States.
Many argue that this situation is the result of Israel abandoning its public diplomacy efforts too soon. There was no central governmental body dedicated to it, no significant investment in resources or qualified professionals. If well-trained spokespeople had appeared after every incident in Gaza and provided clear and credible answers to journalists, Israel’s image might not have suffered as severely. In the end, hasbara was neglected and left in the hands of civil society.
Nevertheless, this assumption overlooks a more fundamental issue: hasbara has rarely, if ever, changed global attitudes toward Israel. The problem is not the lack of spokespeople, it is the nature of the policies they are trying to justify. Ultimately, most of Israel’s critics are neither ignorant nor antisemitic – they’re responding to what they see.
Throughout the war, there was a different battlefield at play: the battlefield of public opinion. Both sides pushed their narratives with full throttle. Books and documentaries about the conflict spread globally, conferences and lectures multiplied in universities and public forums, and activists on both sides produced content on social media without pause.
The result of this battle is widely seen as a loss for Israel, and many Israelis tend to explain it by pointing to what they see as political bias in favor of the Palestinians. However, Psychologist Daniel Bar-Tal’s Ethos of Conflict theory offers a different perspective on this explanation. He argues that societies living in prolonged conflicts, such as Israelis and Palestinians, develop collective narratives that justify their actions and portray the other side as primarily responsible for the conflict. This shared mindset often blinds them to alternative perspectives. By contrast, outsiders are less tied to these narratives and can often see the situation more clearly.
It can also be argued that some of Israel’s actions during the war were simply indefensible. Even Israel’s most devoted evangelical supporters would struggle to explain images of starving and dead children to their teenage children. No argument about human shields can sound convincing, because they would easily respond that no child should suffer or die for the actions of others. Even after the war, the recent footage of a radical settler attacking an elderly Palestinian woman in the olive groves is nearly impossible to justify, especially when those responsible are unlikely to face real consequences. This might help to explain why no amount of public diplomacy can outweigh what people witness in real time.
In addition, this war also exposed a growing phenomenon of Jewish individuals who openly distance themselves from Israel, criticize it, and even produce pro-Palestinian content. Some accuse them of trying to please others or of self-hatred, but can they truly be called antisemites? Likewise, many non-Jewish content creators repeatedly emphasize that their criticism is directed at the state and its actions, not at the Jewish people as a whole.
Without dismissing Israeli suffering, it is clear that much of the world has grown weary of this conflict that has lasted for more than 75 years. Many see two peoples with the same right to self-determination on the same land, yet believe that Israel bears the main responsibility for its continuation, by sustaining the occupation and favoring military operations over mutual recognition and diplomacy.
None of this absolves the Palestinians of responsibility. A lasting peace requires both sides to act: Palestinians must address legitimate Israeli security concerns, and Israel must accept the basic right of the other side to self-determination. However, as long as the conflict continues and more images of human suffering emerge, it is unlikely that hasbara efforts alone will be able to reshape public opinion in Israel’s favor.
So how can Israel change its reputation despite these challenges? In my view, Israel’s reputation will not improve through more sophisticated public diplomacy efforts, since these have repeatedly proven ineffective in this context. A meaningful change could only come from a different approach to the conflict itself, one that includes genuine steps toward dialogue and a political solution. Israel could benefit from no longer appearing as the side that blocks peace initiatives, dismisses criticism, or refuses to acknowledge that there is room for two peoples on this land.
This article does not pretend to offer a full roadmap to peace. Nonetheless, It’s hard to ignore that we’ve tried to make peace only a handful of times, but we’ve gone to war far more often. Perhaps it is time to change that balance. The message from the international community, as delivered at the recent UN two-state solution conference in July, co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, was clear: genuine negotiations toward a two-state solution, recognition of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, and prioritizing diplomacy over military action.
As it stands, Israel faces two paths: to listen, understand, and act, or to continue down the same road that has led to a reality in which some Israelis feel the need to hide their identity abroad. Israel can either continue defending its image, or change the reality behind it. This choice will play a major role in how the world sees it.
Ben Ari Grossman, 25, is a Law and Political Science student entering his fourth (and final) year. After completing his studies, he will begin his legal internship. A former musician, he speaks Hebrew, English, and Spanish.