Controversy over Colombian Influencers’ ‘War Tourism’ in Israel

A recent trip by Colombian content creators to Israeli territory, amid ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip, has unleashed a wave of criticism and sparked an intense ethical debate. The trip of national influencers — invited by the Israeli embassy — to a territory where thousands of Palestinian civilians have lost their lives has been labeled as “war tourism,” “image whitewashing,” and “influencer diplomacy.”

Images of vacations, landscapes, gastronomy, and entertainment stand in stark contrast to reports of bombings, forced displacements, and innocent victims. Furthermore, several media outlets in Colombia believe that the invitation from Netanyahu’s government had an evident propaganda purpose, serving a government accused before international justice bodies of war crimes and even “genocide” against Palestinians.

Among those who participated in the trip were actress Johanna Fadul, influencer Kika Nieto, actor Pedro Jose Pallares, TV host Maria Clara Rodriguez, actor Mauricio Mejia, chef and MasterChef judge Nicolas de Zubiria, and Daniela Vidal, among others.

Controversy over Colombian influencers’ ‘war tourism’ in Israel

Investigations by alternative media suggest that this was not merely a tourist trip but part of a broader public relations strategy by the Israeli government. In this sense, it is described as a “soft power” campaign aimed at improving the country’s image among international audiences and countering negative coverage stemming from allegations of war crimes.

On one hand, the influencers involved argue that their trip was motivated by personal desire, a life experience, and an opportunity to “see another reality.” Kika Nieto stated that “visiting Israel was a personal dream,” while Johanna Fadul spoke of touring Jerusalem, “the chosen people of God.”

On the other hand, criticism has been harsh. Social media users and independent outlets argue that such visits, financed by embassies or governments, end up being vehicles for propaganda. They claim these trips showcase the country’s “best side” — landscapes, tourism, fun — while silencing or obscuring the suffering of thousands of people in a context of war. In this regard, terms such as “genocide-washing” and image whitewashing of Israel have emerged.

Figures related to the public relations campaign, according to an investigation by Middle East Monitor, indicate a budget of around US$900,000 for between 75 and 90 posts over a four-month period, with payments of up to US$7,000 per piece of content.

War tourism or digital irresponsibility?

The term “war tourism” has resurfaced in this context to describe trips that turn a conflict into scenery or a backdrop for digital content, without critical coverage or explicit awareness of the human suffering behind the images. In this case, while influencers posed in tourist locations, attacks on Gaza — denounced internationally — were taking place.

From an ethical standpoint, the participation of high-profile social media figures introduces a dimension of public responsibility: Their images and messages influence perceptions, geopolitical narratives, and ultimately, how a conflict is understood outside the territory in question. An analysis cited by specialized media stresses that influencers “are not neutral,” and that their choices can turn tragedies into branding opportunities or entertainment content.

The contrast is striking: On one side, colorful tourism content; on the other, videos, images, and testimonies of civilian victims trapped in bombings. That imbalance lies at the heart of the criticism and raises the question posed by critical media in Colombia — whether it is possible to mask a theater of war behind Instagram or TikTok filters without acknowledging the depth of the surrounding crisis.

Reactions, consequences, and moral debate

Public reaction in Colombia has been as intense as it is divided. Thousands of comments on social media demand explanations, while some sectors call for moral sanctions. Yet many others limit themselves to posting superficial or empty remarks about the bucolic images shared by these influencers.

In this context, it is inevitable to ask whether the figures who traveled should have been more transparent about their invitation, funding, and the broader circumstances surrounding their trip — something they did not do. What is clear is that there were no concrete statements or acknowledgments of the suffering of the Palestinian population, in a conflict that has claimed more than 67,000 lives, a third of them children.

At the diplomatic level, the fact that an embassy financed or promoted an influencer trip raises questions about the neocolonial or public relations role that may lie behind a “blogger tour.” Israel’s initiative highlights the blurred line between where a personal trip ends and a diplomatic strategy begins.

Some analysts argue that such initiatives could erode the credibility of public diplomacy by linking it to influencer marketing and might even serve as future strategies for distorting journalistic efforts to tell the truth about atrocities such as war.

From the perspective of digital ethics, the episode reopens the debate on the responsibility of content creators who promote destinations, causes, or governments without necessarily confronting the complexity of the context. This episode sadly demonstrates that the new ways of narrating reality — often driven by simple content creators — require serious reflection on the limits of these forms of communication.