Filmmakers Kari Hollend and Cristina Bishai examine how online influence campaigns, media reporting and antisemitic narratives shaped public perceptions of Israel following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, drawing on research by political strategist Warren Kinsella.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A new documentary examining the spread of antisemitic propaganda following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel is making its theatrical debut in Los Angeles, with filmmakers alleging that coordinated disinformation efforts helped influence international reactions to the violence and the subsequent war in Gaza.
Titled The Campaign: Disinformation in a Time of War, the 93-minute film investigates how online messaging, social media algorithms, organized influence operations and traditional news coverage contributed to competing narratives about Israel, Hamas and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The documentary draws on the work of Canadian political strategist Warren Kinsella, whose book, The Hidden Hand: The Information War and the Rise of Antisemitic Propaganda, examines the methods used to spread anti-Israel messaging and antisemitic content.
Co-directed by Kari Hollend and Cristina Bishai, the film argues that efforts to influence public opinion following the attacks did not begin in October 2023 but developed through years of political organizing, educational messaging and digital communication strategies.
Hollend said Kinsella recognized signs of a coordinated information campaign almost immediately after the attacks, while she initially did not understand the extent of what he believed was occurring.
“He understood very quickly on October 8,” Hollend said of Kinsella, recalling his reaction to demonstrations and messaging that emerged within a day of the violence.
“’I [now] know what a campaign looks like. No way you have a movement that big, organizing the people the next day.’”
The filmmaker said the documentary examines whether organizations and networks that had developed anti-Israel messaging over decades were able to mobilize rapidly after the attacks. While the film presents evidence and arguments concerning coordinated propaganda, the speed of demonstrations alone does not establish that all participants were acting under centralized direction.
“It didn’t happen overnight. it has been a longstanding strategy for 40 years,” Hollend said.
She argued that messaging hostile to Israel had gradually become established within educational institutions and other parts of society, providing a foundation for the responses that followed October 7.
“This was a foundation laid a long time ago,” Hollend said.
The documentary begins with the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel, when Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups crossed from Gaza into Israeli communities, military installations and a music festival. Approximately 1,200 people were killed, and 251 hostages were taken into Gaza, according to Israeli authorities.
The attacks included killings of civilians, hostage-taking and other acts of violence documented through survivor testimony, forensic evidence and footage recorded by the attackers themselves.
Israel subsequently launched a military campaign in Gaza aimed at defeating Hamas and recovering the hostages. The war caused extensive destruction and large numbers of Palestinian civilian casualties, generating international disputes over Israel’s military conduct, humanitarian conditions and the appropriate diplomatic response.
Those developments form part of the context for the documentary’s examination of public opinion. The filmmakers focus specifically on antisemitic messaging and disinformation, while broader criticism of Israeli government policy encompasses a range of positions that cannot automatically be classified as antisemitism.
Hollend said she became particularly concerned about the gap between the events documented on October 7 and the understanding of those attacks among people who relied primarily on social media for information.
“They never really saw or understood what happened on Oct. 7,” she said. “That was by design … so many people still to this day have no idea what happened and how brutal it was. Some still refer to [Hamas] as freedom fighters, people who I’ve known for years. They never saw those images, of bodies beaten and burned and mutilated.”
The filmmakers decided to include selected footage recorded during the attacks, despite concerns about exposing viewers to graphic scenes of violence.
“It was definitely a choice and a difficult one,” Hollend said. “We went back and forth. How far do we go?”
The production team ultimately concluded that some of the footage was necessary to establish the historical events at the center of the film and provide context for its analysis of subsequent information campaigns.
Hollend questioned whether earlier and wider distribution of the footage might have influenced public understanding of the attacks.
“I do wonder what would have happened if some of these images were shown to the world early on,” she said.
Her comments reflect one of the documentary’s central arguments: that the information available to audiences, including decisions about what images are published or withheld, can affect how major events are interpreted.
The film also addresses the risks associated with distributing violent material, particularly through platforms accessible to children and teenagers.
Hollend, who has worked in the arts for approximately 25 years, said she approaches the issue from a background that places considerable importance on freedom of expression.
“I was the most left-leaning progressive,” Hollend said. “I’ve worked in the arts for 25 years. I come from that left side. I’m a big believer in freedom of speech.”
At the same time, she argued that unrestricted access to disturbing material creates concerns for parents and raises questions about how online platforms should protect younger users.
“My kids can’t drive until they’re 16. … Why are my children allowed to open their phones without any barriers or guardrails to some of the most violent images and hate?” she asked.
The documentary examines how content moderation decisions can influence what audiences encounter online. Social media platforms routinely restrict certain graphic images, violent threats and hateful content, but their enforcement decisions have drawn criticism from groups with competing political perspectives.
Some advocates argue that platforms have failed to remove antisemitic material or organized harassment. Others have accused technology companies of suppressing legitimate discussion of Palestinian rights or criticism of Israeli government actions.
The filmmakers contend that algorithms and coordinated accounts can amplify emotionally charged content before its accuracy has been established, creating opportunities for disinformation to spread through online communities.
According to the film’s promotional description, Kinsella investigates the use of automated accounts, false identities and organized influence campaigns in shaping discussion of the conflict. These methods are presented as examples of how digital platforms can be used to influence perceptions without audiences necessarily understanding who originated or promoted particular messages.
The documentary also examines the role of traditional news organizations, arguing that errors in breaking-news coverage can have consequences beyond the original reporting.
One example examined in the documentary concerns the October 17, 2023, explosion at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City, which became an international controversy after Palestinian officials initially attributed the blast to an Israeli airstrike.
Early reporting by several news organizations prominently featured those allegations before independent investigators could establish responsibility. Israel subsequently denied involvement and attributed the explosion to a failed rocket launch by Palestinian Islamic Jihad. American intelligence assessments also indicated that the explosion was not caused by an Israeli airstrike.
The New York Times faced criticism for the presentation of its initial reporting. In an unusual editor’s note published October 23, 2023, the newspaper acknowledged that it had relied too heavily on allegations made by Hamas authorities and had failed to communicate adequately what remained unverified.
The episode, documented in Politico’s coverage of the newspaper’s response, became an example of the challenges facing news organizations reporting under intense time pressure during an armed conflict.
The Times revised its coverage as additional evidence emerged. The incident nevertheless illustrated how an initial account can circulate widely before corrections or updated findings reach the same audiences.
Hollend said the problem extends beyond individual reporting errors because misleading claims can continue circulating through social media even after news organizations publish clarifications.
“Once these things get out, you don’t have the ability to pull them back in,” Hollend said.
The film also examines the political consequences of the hospital explosion controversy, including statements by Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., who initially blamed Israel for the incident.
Tlaib continued expressing doubts about Israeli accounts after American intelligence assessments pointed away from Israeli responsibility. As documented in ABC News reporting on the controversy, the congresswoman declined calls to apologize for her earlier statements.
Her position drew criticism from politicians who argued that she had repeated an unverified allegation. Tlaib maintained that Palestinian accounts deserved consideration and criticized the treatment of Palestinian civilian casualties.
The example highlights a broader issue examined in the documentary: how claims originating during a developing conflict can become incorporated into political arguments before the underlying facts are established.
Hollend argues that established news organizations retain considerable influence over public understanding, even as younger audiences increasingly obtain information through digital platforms.
“Most younger people get their information from social media, but there’s still a huge generation, Gen X and up, that look to the mainstream media,” Hollend said.
She expressed dissatisfaction with how prominent news organizations have handled aspects of the Israel-Gaza conflict.
“None of these organizations have held any journalistic integrity … That’s a huge problem. Where do you go to find any semblance of truth?”
Her criticism reflects the filmmakers’ assessment rather than an independently established conclusion about all major news organizations. Coverage of the conflict has included documented errors, corrections, investigative reporting and disagreements over sourcing, terminology and the interpretation of evidence.
The documentary raises another controversy involving allegations published by a New York Times columnist concerning the treatment of Palestinian detainees.
The American Jewish Committee criticized the publication of claims involving Israeli military dogs and sexual violence, arguing that the newspaper had failed to establish sufficient evidence and had amplified accusations associated with antisemitic narratives.
The dispute prompted objections from readers and Israeli representatives, including discussion of possible legal action. The filmmakers present it as another example of how serious allegations can influence perceptions of an armed conflict, while questions about supporting evidence and sourcing remain central to evaluating the reporting.
Hollend also criticized recognition awarded to a photograph showing the body of Shani Louk, a 22-year-old German-Israeli woman killed during the October 7 attacks.
Louk was among those attacked at the Nova music festival near the Gaza border. Images showing her body in the back of a pickup truck circulated internationally following the massacre.
A photograph depicting that scene was included in an Associated Press team’s award-winning collection documenting the war. The decision to recognize the image generated criticism from people who argued that displaying the victim in those circumstances violated her dignity.
The controversy was examined in an essay published through the Helen Diller Institute for Jewish Law and Israel Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, which questioned whether the image should have received an award.
The essay argued that the photograph’s presentation risked reducing Louk to a symbol of violence rather than recognizing her as an individual whose life had been taken.
The Associated Press defended the journalistic importance of documenting atrocities, arguing that photographs of disturbing events can provide essential historical evidence.
The disagreement reflects a longstanding debate in photojournalism about the ethical treatment of victims, particularly when images contain graphic violence or show bodies in circumstances that could cause distress to surviving relatives.
For Hollend, the decision to honor the photograph represented a failure to treat the victim with appropriate dignity.
“That is so sick to me,” she said.
The documentary’s inclusion of graphic October 7 footage creates a related ethical question for its own filmmakers. Hollend acknowledged that the production team debated how much violence to show before deciding that selected images were necessary to communicate the events being examined.
The film also considers the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies and antisemitic messaging directed at Jewish people collectively.
Public opposition to Israel’s military operations in Gaza encompasses different political and humanitarian concerns, including civilian casualties, displacement and the conduct of Israeli forces. Such criticism is not inherently antisemitic.
The filmmakers, however, focus on messaging that they contend employs antisemitic stereotypes, denies documented attacks against civilians or attributes collective responsibility to Jewish communities for the actions of the Israeli government.
Kinsella’s involvement provides the documentary with a framework for examining those claims through political communication and organized influence campaigns.
His book, The Hidden Hand, traces what he describes as the evolution of anti-Israel propaganda and efforts to influence international opinion. The documentary expands on that work through interviews, historical material and examples drawn from the aftermath of October 7.
The production also features an expert in advertising copywriting who analyzes how slogans and emotionally charged language can influence audiences. The segment examines how repetition, simplified messages and appeals to identity can make information persuasive even when its factual basis is disputed.
The filmmakers argue that such techniques have become more effective as information spreads through digital platforms that reward engagement.
Short videos, photographs and political slogans can circulate across multiple services within minutes, while fact-checking and investigative reporting often require considerably more time.
Algorithms that recommend material based on user activity can reinforce existing beliefs by repeatedly presenting similar content. At the same time, coordinated networks of accounts can make particular messages appear more widely supported than they actually are.
The documentary identifies these features of the digital information environment as mechanisms that can facilitate propaganda and intensify hostility between communities.
Although the film concentrates on disinformation involving Israel and antisemitism, the techniques it examines are not exclusive to one conflict or political movement. Researchers have documented similar tactics involving elections, public health controversies and international disputes.
Hollend has said she hopes the documentary will encourage audiences to examine how information campaigns operate rather than view the film solely as an argument about which side to support in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“It’s not a film about a side,” Hollend said. “It’s about the harm of what digital warfare and misinformation is doing to your city.”
She argued that the effects extend beyond international politics because online hostility can influence relationships among people living in the same communities.
“It’s getting worse by the day, and it’s the oldest play in the world – divide and conquer.”
The documentary began its limited theatrical release October 9 and is scheduled to screen through October 15 at select Laemmle theaters in Los Angeles.
According to the theater’s published schedule, Hollend and Bishai will participate in a question-and-answer session following the 7:30 p.m. October 12 screening at the Town Center 5 theater in Encino. Investigative journalist and writer Jay Solomon is scheduled to moderate the discussion.
The documentary is presented in English, Hebrew and Arabic and runs approximately 93 minutes. Its limited theatrical release is being accompanied by plans for screenings outside conventional cinemas.
Hollend and the production team intend to bring the film to college campuses, embassies, law firms and other institutions where audiences can participate in discussions about propaganda, antisemitism and digital communications.
The campus screenings are a particular priority for Hollend, who argues that university students encounter political messaging during a formative period when their views on international conflicts and social issues are developing.
She described the effort as an opportunity to reach “young students entering into that phase of peak indoctrination.”
The filmmakers have not presented a comprehensive schedule of additional U.S. screenings, although they plan to expand distribution following the initial Los Angeles engagements.
The release comes three years after the Hamas-led attacks that began the latest war in Gaza, a conflict that has profoundly affected relations among governments, religious communities and political movements around the world.
Public disagreements over the war have extended to universities, workplaces, cultural institutions and social media, where competing accounts of events continue to circulate.
The documentary’s central argument is that understanding those disagreements requires examining not only the events themselves but also the organizations, technologies and communication strategies that influence how people interpret them.
By tracing alleged propaganda networks, scrutinizing specific examples of media coverage and revisiting the violence of October 7, Hollend and Bishai aim to show how information can shape public attitudes long after an event first enters the news.
Their film presents coordinated disinformation and the spread of antisemitic narratives as central concerns, while the broader questions it raises involve the responsibilities of news organizations, digital platforms and audiences in distinguishing established facts from advocacy, allegations and deliberate manipulation.
With theatrical screenings underway and additional institutional presentations planned, The Campaign: Disinformation in a Time of War enters a continuing debate over the influence of propaganda, the limits of content moderation and the role of journalism in documenting a conflict that remains politically and socially divisive.
Original article
Comments