As Libya conflict increases, anti-Israel voices seek to spin the narrative
Israel’s name was moved above Saudi Arabia, France, the UAE and Syria, as one off the supposed “belligerents” on the Wikipedia list of supporters of eastern Libya House of Representatives.
By SETH J. FRANTZMANMembers of Libya's internationally recognised government flash victory signs after taking control of Watiya airbase, southwest of Tripoli, Libya May 18, 2020.(photo credit: REUTERS/HAZEM AHMED)
A new agenda is quietly bubbling up in the wake of Turkey’s increased involvement in Libya. Ankara’s official policy is to support the government in Tripoli, and Ankara’s rhetoric has increased to a crescendo, portraying the other faction in Libya as “warlords” and “terrorists” or even involved in “genocide.” Alongside the rising rhetoric there is a trend on social media networks to support Turkey’s involvement by portraying Tripoli’s enemies as linked to a series of adversaries, including “Israel.”In recent weeks, more voices on social media have emphasized links of Libyan General Khalifa Haftar, the head of the eastern Libyan forces that are fighting Tripoli, with a variety of his supporters, including France, Russia, Egypt, the UAE and now Israel.There is no evidence of Israeli involvement in Libya. However, the way the Middle East works, where antisemitism and anti-Israel views go hand-in-hand with conspiracies, everything that is seen as “bad” is often seen as “Zionist” or “Israel.” So when pro-Turkey social media want to portray Haftar as bad they use the term “Israel.” For instance, one person on Twitter writes that Haftar was supported by “European Greeks, Russia, Israel, Sisi [of Egypt]” and that “allah never helps Kaffirs [infidels], you will lose.” This attempts to make the pro-Tripoli cause a kind of “jihad” or “Islamic” cause against Haftar. Haftar’s forces are also Muslim.To try to link Israel to the conflict these social media campaigners also added Israel’s flag to the list of “belligerents” supporting the eastern Libya House of Representatives in the battle for Tripoli on Wikipedia. The agenda is clear because Israel’s name was moved above Saudi Arabia, France, the UAE and Syria, as one of the supposed “belligerents.”What is the evidence that the Wikipedia editors used to add this? Links to articles at Middle East Eye, which is generally pro-Turkey, The New Arab, Middle East Monitor and Al Jazeera. What do these article say? The Middle East Monitor article form 2018 quotes an anonymous source. Al Jazeera’s May 2019 article claimed that satellite images discovered a Russian-made Ilyushin 76 aircraft that has travelled via an ‘Emirati-Kazakh” company to Egypt, Israel and Jordan. The New Arab 2017 article had an even more salacious headline that included the word “Mossad” in quotes and claims of another anonymous source telling them about Israeli connections to the UAE. The UAE supports Haftar, so the article’s logic was to try to link all three together. Then Middle East Eye also had 2017 article by an anti-Israel commentator who claimed to have also met an “anonymous” source. Oddly that anonymous source seems to have made the rounds in 2017 feeding the same story to several outlets.Based on these three anonymous sources, who may not exist or may all be the same person, three articles and a fourth article about a cargo plane, were created and then laundered to add weight to a Wikipedia article. In contract to these stories the actual involvement of Russia and Turkey in Libya is clear. Russia sends MiGs and Turkey sends drones. Russian military hardware, in the form of Pantsir air defense, is on the ground.Now, as Turkey’s involvement grows, the social media campaign against Israel increases slightly. But wait, it’s not all one narrative. Pro-Haftar accounts, that tend to be anti-Turkey and thus sometimes linked to pro-Iranian or pro-Assad social media, also claim Israel is supporting NATO and thus supporting Turkey and Tripoli.On May 22 a new aspect of the story emerged with claims that Israel has asserted that Haftar received Iranian anti-tank weapons. Then the social media discussion shifts as people try to argue that if Israel is on Turkey’s side and Tripoli then therefore Haftar must be good, because Israel is seen as bad.The story about Libya reveals that whenever there is a conflict in the Middle East both sides will often try to blame Israel for it. This well-worn narrative has gone back to the 1950s and often fueled western commentators who asserted that Israel was the reason for various problems in the Middle East. That narrative was pushed by Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser and then later by the Assad regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran and sometimes by pro-Turkish or pro-Muslim Brotherhood accounts. In each decade the idea was to reinvent the notion that Israel was behind various conflicts.During the war on ISIS, for instance, some conspiracies tried to blame Israel for ISIS, while others asserted Israel was both backing the Syrian rebels and the Assad regime, Israel was either behind the “terrorists” or part of the “imperialism.” In many conflicts in the region both sides will claim the other is either “Zionist” or linked to Jews or Israel. It is part of the corroding influence of obsessive anti-Israel views that looms over conflicts. As Libya has come into the spotlight the social media whisper campaign on this issue has increased.
