Social media not about being right, but being human

“It’s so important for me to be able to engage with people who disagree with me,” Yirmiyahu Danzig told the audience at Limmud Johannesburg on 17 August, talking about the social media battle for Jewish identity. “Not in a performative way, not in a way that’s trying to get clout, but in a way that’s genuinely trying to build bridges.”

Danzig is an educator specialising in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Jewish diversity, history, and identity. He regularly speaks at joint Israeli-Palestinian events to navigate competing narratives and aspirations. He also produces educational content for Instagram and TikTok as @that_semite, and on YouTube at @unpacked

His emphasis on dialogue with Palestinians framed his discussion on how social media has reshaped the Israel-Palestine conflict. For him, the work isn’t about winning debates, but about humanising the other side. “I can disagree with someone intensely, but if I can do that in a way that shows that they’re human, that I’m human, then suddenly, the conversation becomes something much more meaningful.”

He reflected on his own experience of engaging across divides, even in tense situations. “I’ve been in rooms where the tension was so thick, you could cut it with a knife, but once you sit down and talk, once you start asking questions instead of shouting slogans, something changes.” That same ethos guides his online work. “I’m not interested in entertainment debates. They try to entice me into those things now and then, but I try not to. It’s red meat. It doesn’t produce anything meaningful. What I’m much more interested in is discussion with people I vehemently disagree with.”

The digital battlefield, however, has its unique challenges. “Social media has become a major battlefield in this war. We know that Hamas is investing a lot of money, a lot of time, and a lot of effort in social media to promote its narrative,” Danzig said. “When you go on Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, YouTube, what you see are videos, stories, and narratives that are very much against Israel.” The fight for visibility, he stressed, wasn’t just about facts but about framing. “Israel is losing PR, and as long as the rule is around who is right, Israel will never win. My suggestion would be that you change the narrative.

“The posture of going forward and looking for ways to improve the situation is the narrative shift we need. But in every conversation I’ve had with Palestinian colleagues where we agree that the direction is forward, we end up talking about history. Because this isn’t a conflict about land, borders, or resources. This is a conflict about identities. So, reconciliation has to happen there.”

Danzig is realistic about the online landscape. “My page has already been identified as a Jewish page, with mostly antagonistic comments. But the authentic comments tend to be a little more mixed – ‘I like this, but I hate this’; or ‘I support this, but not that.’ I never shut down the comment section. For the algorithm, you want the comments; they help increase engagement and spread the message. And also, I can check, because I’m not always right. Sometimes I don’t have all the information I need. It’s important to see how people are responding so I can adjust.”

Antisemitism, he acknowledged, is pervasive in online and professional spaces. One audience member described doctors posting ideological content out of context in academic forums, leaving Jewish voices silenced. His response is to broaden the conversation by amplifying nuance, even from those on the other side. “Finding content creators that are perhaps more on the Palestinian side but more nuanced, and maybe platforming them, even though we don’t necessarily agree with what they say.”

For him, the online fight isn’t just about bots or propaganda, but about reaching human beings. “Yes, there’s a bot war going on, and the question is, who’s got the better bot? The purpose of those bots is to win human hearts and minds, and so we have to also be engaged in that. How many people are they convincing with their thousand Palestinian flags? Not so much. But if we can program bots that speak to human beings, to real experiences, then maybe we can start to shift the tide in this war of ideas on social media.”

Still, he saw promise in human-to-human engagement, even online. “We can intensely disagree, but in a way that fundamentally humanises both of us. And that’s what we need more of.” Social media, he suggested, could be used as a bridge rather than a weapon. But it required restraint. “Not everything is about winning the argument. Sometimes it’s about showing that we are people, and that’s what breaks through.”

That people-centred approach extends to his content creation. “Most of it is me figuring out what’s the problem that needs to be solved, what’s the question that needs to be answered, what human beings, what stories, what places can help tell that story in a more meaningful way.”

The work is draining, but he remains grounded. “I pray a lot, three times a day. Rooting myself in mitzvot, in the Torah, has been what saves me. Of course, there are moments where I think that I need a break, I need to go to some island far away where there are no Israelis and Palestinians. But there’s a lot of work to be done, and not a lot of time. One of my favourite quotes from the sages is, ‘It’s not upon you to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it.’”

Ultimately, he reiterated the need for understanding. “Social media can spread lies faster than truth, but it can also spread empathy if we use it right. I can disagree with someone intensely, but if I can do that in a way that shows that they’re human, that I’m human, suddenly, the conversation becomes something much more meaningful.”