Imagefare and Message Strategies in Times of War

• In Event: Soft Power and Public Diplomacy in a Fragmenting World Order

Abstract

The contemporary battleground in 21st century warfare extends beyond physical conflict to include a crucial struggle over public image (Esser, 2009; Hoskins & O’Loughlin, 2010). An image war – the battle over public image – is waged alongside military confrontations as political actors seek international support. Antagonists increasingly fight to promote their narrative, justify their actions, and gain public support. Political actors recognize the significance of public image in achieving their goals during conflicts (van Evera, 2006; Yarchi & Ayalon, 2020; Yarchi & Boxman-Shabtai, 2023). Therefore, the competition over the ability to shape narratives represents a critical front in the comprehensive struggle between antagonists in a conflict (Archetti, 2010; Betz, 2008; Douglas, 2007).
If so, we are dealing with a different type of conflict which requires states adoption of different fighting strategies in order to achieve political actors’ goals. Imagefare is the use, or misuse, of images as a guiding principle or a substitute for traditional military means to achieve political objectives. The actors involved in the conflict attempt to promote their preferred messages through the media in an attempt to gain the public’s support and, ultimately, achieve their political goals (Ayalon, Popovich and Yarchi, 2016). Therefore, states should create a strategy that considers, in a prominent way, image considerations while shaping their policies in times of wars, understanding the implications of their image on foreign publics over time.
The 2023 war between Israel and Hamas again emphasizes the battle over perceptions occurring alongside military confrontations and can provide us with unique insights to the phenomenon of image war. On October 7th 2023, thousands of terrorists led by Hamas infiltrated Israel, attacking dozens of Israeli communities while conducting atrocities against civilians (including children, women, and elderly). Over 1200 Israelis were killed and over 240 were taken hostage. Following this attack, Israel invaded the Gaza strip claiming it must dismantle Hamas. This paper is written 14 weeks into the war between Israel and Hamas. Israeli military is still operating in the Gaza strip, with thousands of Palestinian casualties (including children) according to Palestinian sources, thousands of Palestinians are displaced from their homes and there are reports about massive destruction of houses and civilian infrastructures throughout the Gaza strip; at the same time, rockets are being fired into Israeli cities from both the Gaza strip and Lebanon on a daily basis.
In an attempt to examine the notion of Imagefare, as a significant aspect of the image war and the attempt of political actors’ ability to gain international support during conflicts, I had conducted a survey testing the reception of various strategies and message strategies on people’s attitudes and sympathy towards Israel, 7 weeks into the war (November 2023). 502 Liberal Americans had participated in the survey (age ranging from 25 to 80) – examining the issue among a more strategic target audience for Israeli policy makers .
The findings indicate that message strategies focusing on Israeli victimization (in line with the notion of the narrative of compassion, in which people are empathetic towards victims, and is salient in Western media’s coverage of conflicts), and especially identification-based messages - encouraging international audiences to place themselves in Israeli shoes, generate high sympathy. In addition, a representation of the threat poses by Hamas alongside its military capabilities, had also generated high levels of support. Messages presenting Hamas as a global threat were less successful in generating sympathy.
As for the examination of Imagefare, the findings suggests that the creation of favorable strategies emphasizing Israel’s humanitarian actions (opening of field hospitals, expending humanitarian aid etc.), are more effective in generating support towards Israel in comparison to fighting achievements (such us killing Hamas leaders), or presenting Hamas’s terrorist actions (their usage of civilian infrastructure, or actions against the Palestinian people). It appears that Imagefare strategies – taking image considerations while shaping strategies during a conflict - work best in generating international support.
The study’s findings, both in the realm of message strategies but especially in regard to the impact of Imagefare strategies, contributes to the understanding of political communication scholars, as well as security studies scholars focusing on todays’ conflicts that are being fought on the image front alongside the military confrontation. In addition to the scholarly contribution, the findings should be of interest to decision makers and political actors involved in conflicts, as it will assist them in shaping policies that can better generate the international support that is much needed in todays’ conflicts environment.

Author

• Moran Yarchi, Reichman University