Utolsó frissítés: 2026.05.26. — Szerző: Anti-Propaganda News Blog
The article – based on its title: *"Israel criticism, hidden medieval anti-Semitic blood feud, far-left, anti-Semitism"* – employs the classic, easily identifiable panels and strategic elements of **hasbara** (Israeli governmental and mainstream pro-Israel communication, public diplomacy).
The essence of hasbara is not merely to inform, but to create a **narrative framing** that protects the state of Israel from international political and moral criticism.
Here is a structural analysis of the article based on the main techniques and discourse strategies of hasbara:
## 1. Equivalence Technique
One of the most effective weapons of hasbara is **completely blurring the line between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism**.
* **The Method:** The article reframes political, military, or human rights criticisms (which relate to the actions of Israel as a state) as ontological hatred against the Jewish people as a religious/ethnic group.
* **The goal:** This is to ensure that any criticism of Israeli policy automatically becomes morally unacceptable and taboo. If someone criticizes military action or the occupation, according to the narrative, they are not arguing with the government of a state, but inciting anti-Semitic hatred.
## 2. Historical analogies and the actualization of trauma (Weaponizing History)
The article directly connects modern political discourse to the darkest medieval prejudices.
* **The method:** Use of the term „blood feud.” The false accusation of medieval ritual murders is a deeply embedded, real historical trauma for Judaism. Hasbara projects this image onto modern events: for example, when human rights organizations or media outlets report on civilian casualties, the death of children, or a humanitarian disaster in Gaza, the article presents it as a modernized, secularized version of the medieval blood feud of „Jewish infanticide.”.
* **The goal:** To demonize critics and make rational, data-based debate impossible by portraying critics as irrational actors fueled by ancient hatred.
## 3. The „far left” as the primary threat (Targeting the New Left)
Traditional hasbara used to focus on right-wing, neo-Nazi, or racist anti-Semitism. The focus of modern hasbara strategy (especially since the Gaza escalations) has shifted to academia, progressive movements, and the left.
* **The method:** The article names the Western left, using human rights, anti-colonial or anti-imperialist arguments, as the main enemy.
* **The goal:** To divide Western public opinion. It exploits the political aversion to progressive/woke movements among conservative, right-wing, or centrist readers to equate pro-Israelism with the defense of Western civilization, and criticism of Israel with destructive extremism.
## 4. Reversing the Asymmetry: Maintaining the „Victim Position”
Although Israel is a state with the most advanced army and nuclear weapons in the region, and enjoys the support of a superpower, maintaining the **besieged position** is essential in its hasbara communication.
* **The method:** The article presents global public opinion, international organizations (UN, NGOs) and the media as a vast, anti-Israel machine.
* **The goal:** This framing provides an exemption from state responsibility. If Israel is being unjustly persecuted on a global scale (as Jews in the Diaspora once were), then the state has the right to defend itself by any means necessary, and invoking international legal or moral norms is just another attempt at „persecution.”.
## 5. Masking structural contexts
The article follows the method of hasbara, which makes the conflict **ideological and religious/psychological** in nature instead of treating it as a **political or material** issue.
* **The method:** There is no mention of geography, borders, land expropriation, refugee status, or military blockade. The reason for the conflict, according to the text, is that part of the world (in this case, the far left) „hates the Jewish state.”.
* **The goal:** If the root of the problem is irrational hatred (anti-Semitism), then there is no political or diplomatic solution (for example, territorial compromise or Palestinian self-determination are unnecessary). Thus, the only legitimate response is to maintain military force and silence critics.
Summary:** Neokohn's article plays exactly the role expected of mainstream Israeli diplomacy in the domestic public: it imports global hasbara panels, embedding them in a domestic political context (anti-far-left reflexes). Its aim is to present critical news about events in Gaza and the West Bank not as facts, but as modern manifestations of an ancient, anti-Semitic conspiracy and blood feud.
