OPINION:
With the war in Iran on a slow economic burn, the anti-Israel grievance industry will soon return to claims of genocide in the Gaza Strip.
It is a good time to review the foundations and sources for those claims before they resurface. Nearly three years after the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre, Israel is fighting several wars. The first two are against the militant Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. The third is for public opinion.
Modern wars are fought as much with smartphones as missiles. America’s adversaries understand that winning the information war can be just as valuable as winning on the battlefield. That second battle may prove just as important as the ones with guns and rockets in Gaza.
Past accusations of indiscriminate killing in Gaza provided headlines for social media and informed college campus protests. They have been repeated by politicians, celebrities, media commentators and international organizations.
The sloganeering has worked. Current polls show younger Americans increasingly view Israel more negatively than previous generations. How did that happen?
It has often been said that truth is the first casualty of war. The quick adoption of manufactured truths is what led so many supposedly smart students at Columbia University and other schools to sound so ignorant.
Yet the curious timing — disparate student bodies erupting within days of one another with similar chants and grievances — is no coincidence.
The campaign began with emotionally powerful narratives. Facts alone, however, rarely determine public opinion. Stories do.
Amnesty International, among others, has repeatedly accused Israel of committing genocide and deliberately starving civilians in Gaza. When Israel allowed hundreds of aid trucks into Gaza during pauses in the fighting — a rare humanitarian action during war — numerous reports documented Hamas seizing food shipments intended for civilians and reselling them at inflated prices.
You did not hear that from Amnesty International.
Despite repeated claims of widespread starvation, new research from United Nations-affiliated agencies and World Bank data has debunked claims of populationwide acute malnutrition.
Likewise, military analysts have concluded that despite Hamas’ deliberate strategy of embedding fighters among civilians, Israel’s civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio is low compared with other major urban conflicts. These are real facts that dispute claims of genocide.
Although the demonstrations after Oct. 7 appeared spontaneous, protesters received legal assistance, professional organizing, printed materials and logistical support from established activist networks.
Numerous student participants displayed passionate convictions despite having a superficial understanding of the Gaza conflict or its history.
The movement was also amplified by America’s geopolitical rivals. After the Oct. 7 massacre, China’s TikTok became saturated with anti-Israel content. Multiple studies found that pro-Palestinian messaging vastly outnumbered pro-Israel content, helping shape the views of millions of young Americans.
Businessman Neville Roy Singham, whose funding network has been linked by public reporting to organizations supportive of Chinese government interests, has financed activist groups including The People’s Forum and the ANSWER Coalition — both active in nationwide anti-Israel demonstrations.
Russia has pursued its own campaign, using fake social media accounts, artificial intelligence and coordinated disinformation operations to inflame political divisions inside the United States. Some campaigns have even promoted Holocaust denial.
Qatar is another case study. With billions of dollars flowing to American colleges and universities, Qatar has become the largest foreign donor in higher education. Foreign donations do not automatically buy influence, but they inevitably buy sustained financial relationships, which in turn shape campus culture, academic priorities, faculty appointments and public debate surrounding the Middle East.
Viewed individually, these developments appear unrelated. Taken together, they reveal something more troubling: America’s principal adversaries are investing enormous resources to shape the way Americans think about our foreign policy involving Israel.
Open debate on campus without consequence is one of America’s greatest strengths. Yet debate becomes something entirely different when it is fueled by propaganda, amplified by foreign adversaries and accepted without skepticism.
The greatest victory for America’s enemies would not be persuading Americans to support or oppose our alliance with Israel. It would be convincing Americans that they reached that conclusion entirely on their own.
• Rick Berman is president of RBB Strategies.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.