After uncovering in the podcast how the media was used as a weapon in the psychological war against the Lebanese people, we now turn to a hidden yet highly influential arm of this propaganda landscape: Israeli military censorship.

Who Writes the Narrative?

Military Censorship as a Psychological Weapon

 In the Israeli entity, cameras do not roll, and news is not published without first undergoing mandatory review by military censorship, a body that plays a central role in managing collective consciousness within the framework of psychological warfare and media manipulation. The function of this censorship goes far beyond withholding "classified" information; it extends to the production of media narratives that serve political and military agendas, strategically shaping public awareness both within the entity and beyond its borders.

Military Censorship as a Tool in Psychological Warfare

Manipulating Public Opinion

During times of war, certain narratives are amplified while others are suppressed, all with the aim of steering the public toward supporting political and military decisions. This guided messaging helps maintain internal cohesion and bolsters military campaigns.

2

Controlling Morale

Censorship meticulously dictates what gets published, highlighting only content that reinforces the Israeli public's confidence in its leadership, while downplaying or omitting negative news. This approach makes it difficult for audiences to access an accurate and objective understanding of developments on the ground.

1

Undermining the Credibility of Independent Media

Although journalism is a pillar of democratic societies, the restrictions imposed by military censorship weaken media independence and can lead to a loss of public trust in official sources, sometimes resulting in cynicism or skepticism.

4

 Misleading and Confusing Adversaries

Censorship also extends to the external arena, where selective or misleading information is leaked to confuse the enemy and disrupt its military and political decision-making by creating an environment of uncertainty and ambiguity.

3

Between National Security and Press Freedom

Military censorship in the Israeli occupation entity holds broad legal authority, enabling it to impose a tightly controlled media reality. However, it raises serious debate over the balance between safeguarding national security and ensuring transparency.
While authorities justify it as a security necessity, critics argue that it limits society’s ability to engage in critical awareness and evaluate governmental decisions.

How Are Lies Manufactured?

Analysis reveals that censorship controls not only what is said, but how it is said. It is actively involved in the selection of terminology and the framing of narratives in ways that serve strategic objectives.

The Manipulation of Language and Its Impact on Awareness
Language plays a fundamental role in psychological warfare. Instead of using clear terms like “major loss,” they are replaced with vague expressions such as “a difficult security incident” to minimize psychological impact. During the war on Gaza, phrases like “a complex security challenge” were employed to avoid acknowledging failure. Terms such as “a precise surgical operation” are also promoted to suggest calculated control, despite the destructive reality of the airstrikes
Military censorship is employed as a strategic tool in the war on consciousness. By controlling the flow of information, it helps construct a psychological and social reality that serves long-term objectives. While this poses a serious challenge to press freedom, it also clearly reveals the underlying nature of the ongoing conflict.

A Battle for Perception Before It Is a Battle on the Ground

Psychological Warfare Through the Media


Military censorship goes beyond merely controlling the flow of information; it is actively used to construct a specific psychological image in the public mind. Losses are portrayed in ways that align with the official narrative, with setbacks framed to minimize their psychological impact. In instances of military failure, widespread exposure to images of destruction is deliberately avoided, while coverage emphasizes scenes that reinforce strength and internal cohesion. Israeli newspapers are also employed to disseminate narratives rooted in terms like “strategic resilience” a concept used to justify the continuation of operations despite significant losses.

Controlling Coverage of Military Events



Beyond language manipulation, military censorship seeks to impose a predefined analytical framework on news reports, guiding the public toward a specific interpretation of events. For example, in military operations involving heavy losses, emphasis is placed on terms that project strength and superiority, such as “calculated escalation” or “strategic control.” This approach aims to create the impression that events unfold according to a deliberate plan, rather than because of leadership failure or misjudgment.

  Gradual Disclosure of Information and Its Psychological Impact


Military censorship often employs a gradual release of information to mitigate the emotional shock of losses. Instead of announcing casualty figures immediately, details are revealed incrementally and at strategically chosen moments, reducing the initial impact and allowing time to reframe the media narrative in line with political agendas. This method was notably employed in the recent war on Lebanon, where the announcement of troop losses was staggered, accompanied by official Israeli military statements that sought to present events as part of a calculated strategy rather than an operational failure.  

Military censorship in the Israeli entity is not merely a tool for controlling information; it is a fundamental component of psychological warfare. It is employed to shape public perception and control emotional responses. This approach turns Israeli media into a tool of conflict, through which the strategic vision of war is promoted by manipulating terminology, managing how news is conveyed, and directing public opinion both domestically and internationally.

In the modern era, wars are no longer fought solely on the battlefield they have expanded into the media sphere, where control over narratives has become one of the most critical tools of confrontation.

As previously discussed, military censorship is not limited to restricting the leakage of information; it plays a central role in shaping the official narrative of wars and influencing public perception. This media control is not solely aimed at protecting national security, it also functions as a tool of psychological warfare, redefining events and guiding their interpretation in the public mind.

However, in an era of diverse information sources and the widespread reach of social media platforms, this monopoly has begun to face new challenges. Traditional media is no longer the sole producer of narratives; the ordinary citizen, armed with a smartphone, has become an active participant in the media landscape documenting and disseminating events without passing through the official filters imposed by military censorship. This shift has not only disrupted the dominance of state-controlled media but has also reshaped the very notion of truth in times of war.

Here, Jean Baudrillard’s argument in his book "The Gulf War Did Not Take Place" becomes increasingly relevant, as he discusses how the media can create a virtual reality of wars—where events are not transmitted as they truly are, but rather presented in a crafted version that serves specific political and military agendas. This idea is not merely a philosophical theory; it applies to many modern wars, where the role of the media shifts from documentation and accountability to the fabrication of the narrative that is intended to prevail.

In this book, the media did not merely reflect the reality of war as it unfolded; rather, it constructed an alternative narrative for the public one that concealed the actual experience from viewers and recontextualized events to serve specific agendas.

This reality is not far removed from the nature of modern warfare, where the media narrative is, in part, shaped through manipulation or strategic framing. Such practices render certain aspects of war seemingly contrived or selectively presented to align with specific military and political objectives.


In this context, digital media emerges as a genuine challenge to traditional narrative monopolies. Although social media platforms are not immune to misinformation and distortions, they have introduced a new form of accountability for legacy media. Journalists and news organizations are increasingly compelled to keep pace with the multiplicity of sources and to engage with a version of truth shaped by real-time, on-the-ground documentation. Every citizen with a smartphone now functions as a potential media outlet, fundamentally altering the rules of the game and weakening the ability of dominant powers to maintain absolute control over public narratives.

Media manipulation, whether deliberate (disinformation) or unintentional (misinformation), constitutes one of the most potent tools in psychological warfare. In the context of military and political conflicts, information control extends beyond traditional military censorship to encompass sophisticated strategies aimed at disseminating false or distorted narratives that advance specific agendas. This form of manipulation becomes particularly impactful when systematically orchestrated, as various elements mainstream media outlets, influential social media accounts, and agenda-driven websites converge to construct a misleading media environment designed to steer public perception and behavior in predetermined directions.

Disinformation as an Extension of Military Censorship

As previously discussed, military censorship within the Israeli entity plays a central role in shaping the official narratives of war. It exercises tight control over the flow of information to the public, enforcing strict limitations on the publication of content that might undermine morale or reveal military shortcomings. However, with the rise of social media platforms, traditional censorship mechanisms have faced new challenges, prompting the adoption of more sophisticated strategies, including systematic disinformation, as a supplementary tool for shaping public perception. At this juncture, the distinction between disinformation (intentional deception) and misinformation(unintentional inaccuracies) becomes crucial. Disinformation is deliberately orchestrated to influence public opinion, often through fabricated news stories or the use of seemingly credible news outlets designed to disseminate falsehoods. Misinformation, on the other hand, arises from the unintentional spread of inaccurate content. Both forms significantly influence how the public perceives conflicts, either by concealing key facts or reframing them within a narrative that serves specific interests

Exploiting Anger as a Driver of Engagement

Digital platforms capitalize on strong emotions, particularly anger, to amplify content reach. Provocative and polarizing material consistently outperforms neutral or evidence-based information in terms of engagement metrics. Actors engaged in disinformation campaigns exploit this dynamic by crafting narratives that incite negative emotions, especially during times of conflict. The goal is to provoke impulsive reactions and emotional alignment, thereby sidelining critical thinking in favor of visceral response.

Media Bubbles and the Deepening of Polarization

Through content filtering algorithms, users are increasingly confined to filter bubbles, echo chambers where they are exposed only to information that aligns with their pre-existing views. This phenomenon reinforces cognitive biases and diminishes openness to alternative perspectives. The result is a heightened state of polarization, where each group becomes entrenched in its own version of reality. In the context of military conflicts, this polarization profoundly shapes public understanding of events, as information is curated to construct divergent realities among different segments of the population, making rational discourse and shared narratives exceedingly difficult to sustain.  

Conclusion: From Censorship to Systematic Disinformation

While military censorship primarily seeks to control the flow of information through legal and institutional constraints, media disinformation goes a step further it involves the deliberate crafting of content designed to achieve political and military objectives by manipulating public perception. With the growing influence of digital media, this form of disinformation has become increasingly sophisticated, leveraging emotional triggers and interactive platforms to amplify official narratives while marginalizing alternative voices

Ultimately, the question remains open:

How can the public transcend these strategies and come to understand events independently of media bias and digital deception?

In the age of digital engagement, the impact of engagement metrics cannot be separated from the spread of false and misleading news.
Phenomena such as polarization and filter bubbles make users more exposed to information that aligns with their preexisting beliefs, regardless of its accuracy or truthfulness.
When individuals are surrounded by content that reflects their viewpoints and confirms their expectations, they become more inclined to accept inaccurate news—even deliberate disinformation—more easily.
This creates a fertile environment for fueling emotional debates and amplifying controversial content.

In today’s wars, victory is not measured solely by military gains, but by who controls the story that history will remember. As artificial intelligence and digital media evolve, the frontlines of conflict increasingly shift into the realm of perception. In this new battlefield, the struggle is not just over territory, but over the very meaning of truth.