By – Shreya Maheshwari

Abstract

The swift development of digital technology has changed the character of international conflict by altering the balance of power and the strategic exchanges between superpowers.  The article examines Twitter’s role as an informal diplomatic battlefield during the Israel Hamas war in Oct 2023. The article investigates the reshaping of diplomacy on twitter during the war through persuasive appeals to understand how diplomacy functions on digital platforms. It argues that diplomacy over Twitter (twiplomacy) allowed non-state actors to directly interact with audiences, thereby transitioning diplomacy from negotiations to audience driven performance. This shows a transition towards an inclusive diplomacy as compared to traditional diplomacy, which relied more on formal negotiations.  It analyses how tweets relied more on emotions rather than procedural justifications, making diplomacy emotionally persuasive. Finally, it focuses on how diplomacy on Twitter during the Israel war differed from traditional diplomacy, thereby redefining the idea of diplomacy.

Introduction

Today, diplomacy is not only confined to formal institutions. With the prominent use of social media, platforms like Twitter have emerged as an important medium for discharging diplomatic functions. It allows state actors to directly interact with the public by bypassing traditional media, thereby shaping public opinion, and asserting legitimacy. This transformation was highlighted during the Israel-Hamas war in 2023. The platform provided real time interaction during conflict via immediate updates from both the sides through videos, images and hashtags. The article also focuses on how blue tick accounts on the platform showcased how power controls diplomacy. It further examines how twiplomacy was impacted via rise of false and emotional appeal content by both sides to justify their actions. 

Twitter as an informal diplomatic field

Traditionally, the concept of diplomacy was confined to highly formal settings, where strict protocols were followed, including the exchange of formal letters and the presentation of credentials. It also included limited citizen participation and was seen as a decision of the ruling elite. Unlike this, Twiplomacy shows a transition from elite discussions and negotiations to a public diplomacy whose persuasion includes a wider audience along with states. Both Israel and Hamas via digital platforms frame narratives that justify military actions and influence the global opinion. This helped them gain strategic advantage. This propaganda content was carefully curated to create international sympathy and gain political support.

It also allowed bureaucrats or ordinary citizens to directly interact with the world to share their opinions and perspectives by bypassing traditional gatekeepers of information such as government censors. One of the examples of twiplomacy is the use of Twitter during the Israel Hamas war in Oct 2023. During this period, both Israel and Hamas used the platform to influence a wider audience, including world leaders, ordinary citizens, etc. For example, Israel tweets including “Slaughtering children is not fighting for freedom” or starting its post with “please don’t look away”. Through these emotionally charged and morally appealing quotes, Israel directly appealed to the world. These emotional posts appeal to the audience, thereby attracting more attention and hence it is circulated more on the platform. This makes moral appeal a central force in diplomacy. Thus, this platform focuses on diplomatic claims and bypasses institutional mediation. It is because the idea of diplomacy shows a transition from institutions and verified information to visibility and algorithms. Further twitter provided real-time updates about the event through online videos and images. For example, the Saturday morning news of Palestinian members breaching Israel began surfacing quickly. This blurred the time gap of varying for diplomatic verification, thereby building narratives before formal diplomatic interactions could begin.

Visibility, Power, and the Blue Tick: Who Gets Heard on Twitter Diplomacy

X allows its premium subscribers to display a blue check mark on their profile, which enhances their visibility on the platform. Thus, premium subscriptions have monetized the idea of diplomacy, as they control the visibility of their information. However, about 74 percent of the posts promoting misinformation were from these verified accounts. This impacts worldwide narratives about either side, thereby deciding who is justified and deserves support. Moreover, this shows that twiplomacy during the war was not controlled by who has the authority to talk about the situation, but about who gets more visibility. Further, unlike traditional diplomacy, which was based on states or official persons appointed by the state, twiplomacy during the war was driven by verification and visibility. This provided verified accounts an unfair chance to shape people’s perception about the war, before the formal updates came from the state officials. Hence, solidifying people’s beliefs about either of the side without access to accurate information. In this way visibility and powerful narratives became an important determinant on whose voice gets to shape worldwide narratives. 

Emotional and moral framing in Twiplomacy

One of the important features of traditional diplomacy is its confidentiality and formal communication. However, with twitter diplomats or states can freely interact without following these formal procedures. This can sometimes result in emotional and moral appeals from the state or state officials. Emotional content is deliberately used to gain support from the audience and hence is used as a part of strategic communication.

Circulating information based on emotional appeals does not take into account whether the information is true and accurate. This might shape narratives which are based more on emotions than on neutral facts.  For example, using hashtags like #BringThemHome was a strong, emotionally appealing message from the state to the audience to support Israel. 

Further beginning the posts with “please don’t look away” and pleading with the audience to stand with Israeli hostages, prioritised moral appeals, which might translate into public support. These appeals reduce the space for verifying the information and its context as emotional posts convey moral outrage or high urgency, thereby activating cognitive shortcuts. Thus, reshaping diplomacy into a form of audience persuasion rather than negotiated state communication. Hence, twiplomacy prioritised morals and emotions over information to shape people’s perspectives about the war. This might impact public opinion, thereby being a diplomatic constraint.

 Also, emotional tweets oversimplify a complex situation by focusing only on who is the victim or aggressor. For example, on October 21st, Israel tweeted: “We’ll say it again for those of you who need a reminder. Hamas=ISIS. This tweet, instead of explaining the situation of war, overly focused on gaining public support by showing Hamas as the aggressor. Thus, reshaping the idea of public diplomacy into audience persuasion from state to state negotiations. Unlike traditional diplomacy where information flowed from official communications, diplomacy on Twitter allows people to interact informally and share their opinions, which sometimes can be emotionally charged and might impact political reactions or foreign policy framing. Thus, both sides can appeal to the audience through online images and videos and ask for support by targeting a nation or Individual values. Such emotional appeals, in some cases, can make people overlook the actual factual scenario of the war.  Thus, the idea of legitimacy is sought via visibility on the platform than through formal agreements. 

Who Governs Digital Diplomacy? Platforms, Power, and Accountability

Today, diplomacy is often conducted through social media platforms, including Twitter. It raises a serious question of who actually has the power to govern digital diplomacy, especially on a privately owned platform. The answer to this question in the context of the Israel-Hamas war lies in the algorithms of the platform, which decides who gets visibility on the platform. While the idea of an algorithm has clear technical definitions, the mechanism that boosts the visibility of particular content remains poorly defined. These algorithms are opaque and privately owned. Hence, they do not comply with any treaties or laws. Moreover, these platforms cannot be directly held liable for content posted by its users because of safe harbour principles, as it  protects individual websites that allow third party users to share content from legal liability for any unlawful posts. During the war period, Twitter’s algorithm was designed in a way that prioritised posts from its premium subscriptions to get visibility despite the information not being accurate. Hence the platform focus shifted to maximizing views from verifying facts. Thus, while diplomacy was made accessible to all, who gets to govern it depends largely on algorithms, which decide who gets more views. Hence, shaping the global narrative through visibility.

Conclusion

The analysis shows that diplomacy during the Israel-Hamas war not only unfolded in formal institutions but also through platforms like Twitter. This shows how diplomacy is not only confined to authority but also to algorithms and public appeal.  Twitter made diplomacy more inclusive by allowing audience or states to access real-time updates and give their opinions on it. However, it also constrained the formal diplomatic procedures by shaping public opinions on emotions rather than facts. Further as the platform provided real-time updates of the war to a wider world, in some instances, the accuracy of the information was ignored. Thus, solidifying diplomacy on inaccurate information instead of procedural justification or mediation. As a result, diplomacy during the conflict remained tilted more towards performative legitimacy than institutional mediation. This shows a broader systematic shift in contemporary diplomacy as diplomatic stage has shifted away from collective negotiations toward leader centred performance and digital spectacle.

About the Author–

Shreya Maheshwari, is a second-year law student at O.P Jindal Global University. 

Image Source- https://dig.watch/updates/x-formerly-twitter-declares-removal-of-hundreds-of-hamas-affiliated-accounts