 |
Ami Isseroff is a freelance technical writer and director of .
|
|
|
|
By Ami Isseroff
March 5, 2003
Israeli and Zionist advocates are convinced that we are losing the public relations war with Palestinians through ineptitude. Certainly, Israeli "Hasbara" sometimes leaves much to be desired.
There is no doubt that views of spokespersons like Edward Said and Hanan Ashrawi are often maddening to Zionists of all persuasions, precisely because they are so effective, especially among Europeans, and among Americans who are "neutral," including young minds ready to be convinced.
Said and Ashrawi are both excellent examples of the best of Palestinian public relations. They appeal to American hearts through shared values of democracy and fair play, presenting the plea of the decent, peace-loving, oppressed underdog.
It is an understatement to say that Said is not very consistent. One minute he can be found arguing that a two-state solution is no longer possible, the next he is urging Palestinians to be the unequivocal champions of a two-state solution. One minute he is preaching nonviolence, the next he is throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers from Lebanon. In one article he declares that the PLO is the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and in the next he declares that it is corrupt and represents nobody. Said and Ashrawi do not show a great respect for balance and historical exactitude either, but those traits are not expected of an advocate for a cause.
Said and Ashrawi's arguments are always subtle and sophisticated, and their points require a subtle rebuttal, in the decent and humanistic tone of his writings and approach. They have learned to speak in terms that are acceptable to Americans. They can say "Israel," for example, however reluctantly, and they talk of democracy and two peoples living in peace.
The remedy proposed by some Israel advocate for winning the propaganda war is to "get tough": insist that Israeli newspapers use special governmentspeak terms such as "Judea and Samaria" and "disputed territories" instead of the "West Bank" and "Occupied Territories" accepted by the rest of the world; attack every premise of spokespersons like Said, whether or not they are correct.
Bret Stephen's otherwise thoughtful article "What's wrong with Israeli Hasbara," (Jerusalem Post, 06/11/2002), urges us to call the territories "disputed." However, most of the world calls them occupied. In fact, it makes no difference if the headline reads, "IDF kills a little girl in the occupied territories" or "IDF kills a little girl in the disputed territories." It is the same little girl, with the same photo. Using a special "politically correct" terminology will not change the facts.
You, the reader, recognize the Syrian regime for what it is, whether the Syrian leader is called "President Assad," or "the Syrian dictator." Others will not be fooled by changing names either. An occupation by any other name smells just as bad. Very few Americans are impressed by Arab spokespersons who talk about "the Zionist Entity." There is no point in antagonizing readers by using terminology that is "politically correct" only for a fraction of Zionists. Most of the world calls the West Bank and Gaza, "occupied territories." Calling them "disputed territories" sends up a flag that says to neutrals, "This item was written by someone who is blindly pro-Israel."
Israelinsider recently featured an angry denunciation of Professor Said that is typical of this sledgehammer approach: Professor of lies, hate and terror, by Rachel Neuwirth. It gives no quarter, allows no recognition of any wrongs at all that might have been done to the Palestinians, is short on facts and long on emotive language such as "lies," "hate," "terror," and "diabolical threat." It offers no suggestion for a reasonable resolution. It may cause the convinced to say "good for her," or "right on" but it will not convince fair-minded, neutral individuals.
The article contains a number of easily challenged misstatements of fact. These might possibly be accepted by convinced right-wing Zionists. However, they won't pass muster with anyone else, and for neutral readers, they invalidate the whole by association.
For example, the article states, "...Instead he focused on the main consequence of that war: the creation of Arab refugees, stating that Israel "short of genocide" expelled 800,000 of them. This not only disagrees with UN estimates of a bit over 400,000 refugees."
The lowest Israeli Foreign Office estimate of the number of refugees was 520,000. The UN estimate was 726,000 and slightly over 800,000 refugees were recorded by UNRWA in 1951, the first year reported. No UN source gave an estimate of "slightly over 400,000." No Israel government source ever gave such an estimate.
The article also stated, "He also failed to mention that, as with all other Arab-Israeli wars, it was the Arabs who initiated the 1948 war." Most of the world believes, with some justification, that Israel, Great Britain and France initiated the Suez Campaign in 1956, and that Israel initiated the Lebanon War, AKA "Operation Peace for the Galilee" in 1982.
When a neutral reader stumbles over obvious misstatements such as those, they are unlikely to consider the rest of the message. Those who are convinced, and then find that they have been misled, will be angry and mistrustful of all Zionist "propaganda" in the future.
Palestinian extremists lost many sympathizers in the West by making absurd claims such as stating that Israel is injecting Palestinian children with AIDS virus, or that Israel Intelligence organizations were behind the WTC bombings of September 11, 2001. Obvious errors in Zionist advocacy will alienate support in the same way, by eroding credibility.
However, the best public relations cannot correct a bad policy, and ill-considered actions do much more harm than injudicious words. Time and again, Israeli actions have re-kindled violence just when it seemed as if Palestinians may be ready for peace talks. Palestinians have been discussing naming a prime minister and announced a cease fire, positive steps that cannot fail to win them approbation. To the outside observer, the Israeli response makes no sense. Just at this time, Israel has embarked on an aggressive campaign against the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, which has claimed many civilian casualties. Neither the Israeli public, nor the public abroad were prepared for this campaign. Nobody presented any background giving the reasons why it was necessary to initiate violence in a time of quiet. If there is a good explanation, we should be hearing it from government spokespersons, preferably from the PM himself. If there is no explanation, the campaign should not have been undertaken.
Actions always speak louder than words. It is impossible to paper over a bad policy with the best "explanation" if there is nothing to explain. This lesson was learned by the Palestinians, who found that there is a limited market of sympathy for suicide bombings and barbaric terror operations. The fact is, that for all the vaunted success of people like Edward Said and Hanan Ashrawi, the Palestinian cause is not very popular in the United States, and the Palestinians are slowly beginning to reassess their policies.
Apparently the same lesson has not been learned by the Israeli government. If we want people to understand our side of the story, we had better have a side to understand, a policy that pursues peace and democracy, a readiness to admit the humanity of the other side in word and deed, and a commitment to real democracy in Israel as well as respect for the rights of others. No amount of fancy wordsmithing will persuade neutrals to support Israel because of guilt over the Holocaust or demonization of "terrorists" if we ourselves are engaging in inexcusable actions that we cannot even explain to ourselves.
If we are to make a convincing case for Israel, we have to learn from the best efforts of opponents, not imitate their worst errors.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
