This article brings up important questions about digital influence in wartime, but it's hard to ignore how one-sided the framing is when it comes to Israel.

There's barely a mention of the October 7 massacre, where over 1,200 Israelis were murdered and hundreds taken hostage some of them are children. That’s the context behind Israel’s messaging. Leaving that out gives a very distorted picture of why these campaigns exist in the first place.

The article criticizes Israel for running ads that target UNRWA, but completely skips the fact that more than a dozen UNRWA staff were accused of actively participating in the massacre and holding hostages, That allegation was serious enough for countries like the US, Germany, the UK, and Australia to suspend their funding. That’s not “disinformation,” that’s a real international response.

There’s also zero mention of Hamas’s own propaganda operations. No discussion of how they use Telegram, TikTok, or social platforms to push graphic and often fake content to manipulate global opinion. If we're talking about the weaponization of information, how is that not relevant?

Instead, the article spends thousands of words dissecting Israel’s side while ignoring everything else. It presents only one narrative and wraps it in a moral argument that conveniently excludes key facts and context.

A fair critique would examine how all sides are using digital tools in modern conflicts, not just the one the author disagrees with politically. Otherwise, it’s not an analysis. It’s just a well-written piece of propaganda in itself.