In October 2023, a six-year-old boy in London was playing an online puzzle game when an ad showing “Hamas militants, terrified Israeli families” interrupted the game, leaving him “shocked” and “disturbed,” according to his mother.
This ad, which links slaughtering children to Hamas, is one of hundreds of advertisements that Israel promoted to spread propaganda.
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Head of the Digital Diplomacy Bureau, David Saranga, confirmed that “the footage is part of a larger advocacy drive by the Israeli Foreign Ministry […] which spent $15 million on internet ads since Hamas’s October 7th attack.”
For the past year, Israeli and much of Western media has spread now debunked lies about beheaded and burned babies by Hamas and reiterated disinformation about members working in the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).
Israel’s disinformation campaigns about its siege and atrocities in Gaza are part of a larger propaganda-spreading strategy called “Hasbara.” It is a Hebrew term that translates roughly to “explanation” and refers to Israel’s public relations efforts to promote its image and justify its actions on the global stage.
Since the onset of the genocide in Gaza in October 2023, Israeli propaganda has been increasingly focused on digital platforms. The occupation deploys ads on Facebook, Google, and other platforms to promote pro-Israel narratives that often downplay or misrepresent the realities of war crimes committed in Gaza.
Israel and allied advocacy groups have dramatically increased their social media spending, mainly targeting younger audiences with content that frames Israel’s actions as defensive while portraying Palestinians, and not only Hamas, as “terrorists to be eradicated.”
This includes sponsoring misleading ads, posts, and strategic partnerships with influencers who push pro-Israel messaging. Led by the organization “Facts for Peace,” Israel spent more than $370,000 on an ad campaign on Meta alone to attack the pro-Palestine movement.
The organization, whose content has amassed more than 21 million views, published videos that conflate any support for Palestine with backing for Hamas.
For Israel, influencing public opinion in Europe and America is a matter of survival for its colonies on occupied Palestinian territory. Its security and economic stability depend on the continued financial, military, and diplomatic support it receives from the United States and other Western allies.
Since October 2023, the US alone has provided Israel with 17.9 billion dollars in annual military aid. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has launched 75 different ads on YouTube, some containing graphic content. These ads were also viewed more than four million times on X, attesting to the financial investment in this campaign.
The latter has prompted various civil society groups to question social media platforms’ policies on political ads, which permit sharing this type of content. One particularly controversial ad shared by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs on X featured images of burned houses, claiming that Hamas was responsible for burning them and the people inside them.
This post was viewed 8.5 million times despite violating a policy banning state-affiliated media from purchasing advertisements. Some observers have questioned X’s impartiality following Elon Musk’s apparent support for the Israeli regime.
Some of the YouTube ads also featured videos that could be interpreted as incitement to violence. One contained the following threatening phrase: “Israel will take every measure necessary to protect our citizens against these barbaric terrorists.” This contradicts YouTube’s political ads policy, which prohibits any violent content “that encourages others to commit violent acts.”
Compared to its handling of Russian ads during the Russia-Ukraine war, where Meta banned Russian state media from monetized campaigns due to misinformation and pressure to halt fact-checking, there is a clear double standard in how Meta enforces policies on state-affiliated entities that violate them.
Sam Jeffers of the group “Who Targets Me,” an organization advocating for political advertising transparency, expressed his concern about allowing accounts with no previous track record to launch massive ad campaigns on sensitive political issues.
In the context of an armed conflict, platforms should implement tailored policies to regulate online ads and prevent the spread of hate speech and misinformation, as they could lead to catastrophic consequences on the ground.
Meta’s ads policy is ambiguous in defining what is considered a political ad. However, their website states that ads violating their policy will be removed and stored in the Ad Library until they comply.
The ads library does not provide access to the content of removed ads or specify the reasons for their removal. Despite the company’s claim of prioritizing transparency over restrictive policies, its approach remains unclear.
The Israeli occupation’s advertising agency has paid Google for ads accusing the UN Relief and Works Agency—one of the last remaining functional entities providing aid for displaced, injured, and starving Palestinians—of being affiliated with Hamas. When searching “UNRWA” on Google, users first see a promotion for the organization that leads to a webpage detailing the false allegations.
According to a Google spokesperson, governments are allowed to run ads on Google and YouTube as long as they adhere to the platforms’ strict ad policies.
YouTube’s policies have also allowed Israeli propaganda to spread hateful content that increased incitement to violence against Palestinians. According to data from the Google Ads Transparency Center, around 200 ads have been promoted by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ YouTube channel since October 7.
One video of a children’s bedtime story asks viewers to support Israeli military action.
Besides the UK, Europe, and the US, pro-Israel groups also launched ad campaigns in the SWANA region, particularly in Lebanon. The proliferation of these ads reflects the unpreparedness of social media companies to regulate harmful advertisements in times of war.
In one example, a verified Facebook page called “The Mossad,” Israel’s national intelligence agency has published and sponsored a post in Lebanon calling people to communicate with them. It reads: “The first step requires courage, and after that, you’ve won.”
Many consider this post as a recruitment call for informants within Lebanon to work for the Israeli occupation. As a reminder, a page with the name of an official entity can only bear the blue mark on Meta if the page proves its ties to the organization.
Another example is the US Central Command (Centcom) running ads on Tinder warning users against taking up arms against the US or its allies and highlighting military readiness in the region.
The ad, aimed at young men, not only sparked controversy over its unconventional platform choice but also over targeting people in Lebanon. While Centcom declined to comment, the ad reflects the pro-Israel stance of the US in its propaganda efforts.
Image 1: The US is ready to protect its allies in facing threats by the Iranian regime and its agents. Image 2: The US Central Command is highly prepared and ready with F-16 jets, Fighting Falcons, and supersonic aircraft type A-10 Thunderbold, currently deployed in the region. Image 3: Do not carry arms against the United States and its allies.
SMEX’s policy team found that some of these organizations are lavishly funded to ensure that only Israeli propaganda reaches their target audience. One of these organizations is called the Digital Dome. This organization has a set of moderators who accept all kinds of reports from viewers for what they describe as “harmful content and unfounded lies,” which translates to any content advocating for Palestinians.
Social media platforms must be transparent about their policies, specifically regarding the war in Gaza. Many civil society organizations have reported discrepancies in how content moderation practices are applied.
While almost all platforms regulate political content ads, especially ads about elections, they do not run a special policy for countries at war. Each country may be allowed to target the citizens of the other for propaganda purposes.
National laws alone cannot adequately regulate the abuse of political ads for propaganda purposes. Platforms must adapt their policies in conflict to prevent arbitrary and biased content removals and the endorsement of lies and hateful content.
Cover Photo by AFP
