The Digital Battle for Legitimacy: Power Plays Built Through Social Media, Israel, and TikTok

On Thursday, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a presidential order requiring the transfer of TikTok’s U.S. operations to a group of American investors including Larry Ellison, co-founder of Oracle. Although the order was initially presented as a step in the U.S.-China rivalry over national security and data privacy, analysts believe far more complex political and strategic calculations lie beneath the surface. Indeed, recent statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offer a different perspective on this process. On Saturday, during an event in the United States ahead of the United Nations General Assembly, Netanyahu described social media as “a weapon of war in the new age”. He noted that following TikTok, X platform has also become a priority and announced plans to meet with Elon Musk on the matter. “We must use weapons of war,” Netanyahu said. “You know, weapons change over time.” He emphasized that social media platforms now occupy the center of international power struggles. The transfer of TikTok’s U.S. operations to a consortium including Larry Ellison and media mogul Rupert Murdoch—figures known for close ties to pro-Israel circles—was viewed as a strategic development aimed at strengthening Israel’s political and social support within the United States.

Since Hamas’s October 7 operation, Israel’s attacks on civilians in Gaza have continued intensively. Nearly entering its second year, this campaign has become a central issue globally, both diplomatically and humanely. Initially, Israel framed its actions as the legitimate defense of a state subjected to a terrorist attack and secured broad international sympathy. However, as civilian casualties mounted, infrastructure was systematically targeted, and humanitarian aid was obstructed, this narrative lost significant credibility. Today, thanks largely to images, testimonies, and independent journalism circulating widely on social media, global public opinion has shifted substantially. There is now a strong consensus in international public opinion that events in Gaza constitute not “legitimate defense” but a “systematic punitive and genocidal policy.” Israel’s actions are sharply criticized by international institutions, including the United Nations, and support from societies around the world—including the United States—is increasingly questioned.

In this context, social media has emerged as one of the most important factors shaping global public opinion, especially among Western democracies. Images from Gaza, reaching millions directly without passing through traditional media filters, have deepened Israel’s crisis of international legitimacy. Particularly among younger generations, anti-Israel sentiment has grown so strong that it is now challenging the unconditional support Western governments have historically offered Israel. Thus, the war in Gaza is no longer merely a military conflict but has evolved into a multidimensional struggle waged at the levels of information, perception, and public opinion. Social media’s ability to transcend time and space is one of its most fundamental distinctions from traditional media. While television, newspapers, and radio operate under specific editorial policies, editorial oversight, and often direct or indirect state control, social media presents an entirely inverted hierarchy. Information here does not flow from center to periphery but from periphery to center—and often entirely outside the center, directly through users’ own interaction networks. In other words, social media breaks the monopoly on information production, turning every individual into a potential publisher, journalist, and opinion leader. This has enabled unfiltered global exposure of events in crisis zones like Gaza, allowing the digital public sphere to speak where traditional media remained silent. Thus, the war continues not only on physical battlefields but also within the dynamic and unregulated spaces of social media; in this context, “information dominance” has become one of the most critical power struggles of the modern era.

Therefore, it can be argued that Israel, clearly recognizing the decisive influence of social media on public opinion, has launched an active campaign on the digital front to reclaim its eroding perception advantage. Just as control over the flow of information and management of global perception have become vital priorities for Israel alongside its military operations in Gaza, the Tel Aviv administration has shifted its strategy toward increasing its indirect influence over social media companies. The transfer of TikTok’s U.S. operations to a consortium including Oracle founder Larry Ellison and media tycoon Rupert Murdoch—both known for their pro-Israel affiliations—is seen as a concrete manifestation of this strategy. In this way, Israel continues its effort to directly intervene in the ownership and control structures of social media infrastructure in order to rebuild its weakening image in the Western public sphere, legitimize its actions in Gaza, and regain dominance in the digital information war. Netanyahu’s statement, “We must use weapons of war; you know, weapons change over time”, clearly reflects the logic of this new era. The battlefield is no longer confined to the streets of Gaza; it now takes shape within the algorithms of social media, the flow of content, and the subconscious of users. Israel’s efforts to carve out space for itself on these platforms stand as one of the most striking examples of the modern struggle for information dominance.

Today, the growing power of digital media relative to conventional media significantly constrains the ability of states, lobbies, and interest groups to control and direct public opinion. Thanks to the egalitarian structure of the digital environment, information now reaches millions in real time, bypassing geographic boundaries, time zones, and political filters in a relatively unmediated manner. A user can share footage of an attack in Gaza within seconds to millions in New York, Istanbul, or Jakarta, thereby limiting the ability of governments and other interest groups to frame events according to their preferred narratives. Moreover, algorithms that prioritize content based on user preferences have rendered traditional state censorship methods ineffective. Under all these constraints, the Israeli government and its allied global interest groups are attempting to overcome its legitimacy crisis and repair its damaged image by exposing social media users to content favorable to their position through algorithmic steering. Although controlling social media is far more difficult than controlling mainstream media, certain algorithmic steering mechanisms and content moderation systems can partially orient this otherwise autonomous platform. While social media platforms rank content based on user interaction data, they also promote certain content while suppressing others. This reveals that despite appearing as a free and user-centered space, social media is in fact vulnerable to intervention by specific actors. Content moderation justified under the banners of “combating disinformation” or “fighting hate speech” further legitimizes these steering and restriction processes. Thus, social media occupies a contradictory position: simultaneously a liberating space and a modern mechanism of control, with significant gray areas.

Nevertheless, whether Netanyahu’s TikTok move will be truly effective remains a major question. The social media ecosystem is highly resistant to centralized control efforts: its user base is diverse, content production is decentralized, and counter-narratives spread rapidly. Even if indirect influence is exerted through actors like Oracle, it is extremely difficult for algorithmic interventions to fundamentally alter global user behavior. Moreover, younger generations’ critical approach to information and their access to alternative media sources may limit the effectiveness of such manipulative strategies. Therefore, while Netanyahu’s strategy of achieving dominance on the social media front may yield short-term narrative gains, it is highly likely to encounter the organic resistance of the digital public opinion. In this sense, the TikTok move can be interpreted less as an offensive maneuver and more as a sign that Israel has gone on the defensive in the information war.

In conclusion, it is now an undeniable reality that modern wars are fought not only on physical battlefields but also in digital environments. Social media has significantly curtailed states’ capacity to shape public opinion through propaganda tools, creating a new public power arena where individuals, movements, and civil society can circulate their own narratives on a global scale. Israel’s attempts to regain control through platforms like TikTok can be viewed as an effort to shift this digital power balance in its favor. However, by its very nature, social media’s autonomous, dynamic, and uncontrollable structure makes it difficult for such strategic interventions to establish long-term hegemony. Thus, while Netanyahu’s phrase “we must use weapons of war” gains increasing relevance in the politics of the digital age, the victors of this new war will not be those who possess information, but those who better harness its power. Social media has broken the state monopoly on acquiring and processing information, redistributing this power downward to society. When all these dynamics are considered together, whether Netanyahu’s efforts will succeed remains to be seen in the coming period.