Connect with us

RSS

Preparing for the Coming PR War

Mourners carry a coffin during the funeral of Wissam Tawil, a commander of Hezbollah’s elite Radwan forces who according to Lebanese security sources was killed during an Israeli strike on south Lebanon, in Khirbet Selm, Lebanon, Jan. 9, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Aziz Taher

JNS.orgThe pro-Israel community was completely and inexcusably unprepared for the public-relations nightmare following the events of Oct. 7. It took two months for major organizations to create the “10/7 Project” to push “for accurate and complete coverage of the Israel-Hamas war.” Does anyone know anything the project has done in the last 10 months? If it did anything at all, it was a total failure. War with Hezbollah and Iran was as predictable as a confrontation with Hamas, and yet the community seems equally inept, so let me lay out what we know will happen:

The media will:

Ignore Israeli casualties and focus on Arab victims.
Accept fabricated Arab statistics.
Interview unreliable Arab sources.
Air stories without researching their accuracy.
Focus on dramatic photos and stories without context.
Fail to explain Hezbollah dictates what can be reported.

Israel’s accidental bombing of civilians in the Arab town of Kfar Kana in the Galilee shifted opinion against Israel in the last war with Hezbollah. This was not a case of media bias—it reported what happened accurately—but an example of Israel being unable to offer explanations in a timely and persuasive way to mitigate the impact of the stories. This is also an example of a predictable event that PR war planners should have anticipated. On July 18, 2006, an Israeli pilot told a reporter: “One mistake can jeopardize the whole war, like Kfar Kana, in one of the last operations in Lebanon, where artillery bombarded a refugee camp, killing over 100 people, which resulted in international pressure that halted the operation.”

Israeli statesman Shimon Peres argued that good policy results in good PR, but sometimes, Israel’s policy options are limited or poor, as is the case of needing to destroy buildings above tunnels and attack schools, mosques, hospitals and U.N. facilities where terrorists are hiding. Hezbollah uses the same tactics as Hamas, and Israel will need to have explanations for its actions.

We know Israel will be accused of disproportionality, provoking a refugee and humanitarian crisis, denying health care, and committing “massacres” and “genocide.” Israelis will be charged with being aggressors and compared to Nazis. The usual epithets unrelated to the war will be tossed around, such as comparing Israel to South Africa and accusing it of “settler-colonialism.”

It’s always better to get in the first blow and try to set the media’s agenda. Israel’s enemies have mastered this tactic. It’s vital to offer context and facts in those instances immediately; errors should be identified, and corrections demanded. Unfortunately, it’s often too late to change perceptions once a narrative takes root, as in the report falsely blaming Israel for bombing a Gaza hospital early in the war.

The conflict must be explained in simple terms without trying to give a history lesson. Israel is fighting for its existence. The people of Israel want peace. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It shares American values and interests. The war is not with the people but with the leaders whose radical Islamic views threaten America, as we’ve seen from Iranian plots to kill Americans and Iranian proxy attacks on U.S. forces. Publicize what the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran say.

It is always better to strike first and try to set the media’s agenda. Israel’s enemies have mastered this tactic, frequently putting the pro-Israel community immediately on the defensive. If it is possible to find out about a forthcoming negative story; it is vital to immediately offer context and facts. Once a negative report appears, errors should be identified and corrections demanded.

Advocacy must start with the best information, and then the material should be packaged most engagingly to suit the medium or audience. For example, elites and academics may want to read articles with references; Internet surfers may want short tidbits or humorous videos; print reporters may want personal stories; and broadcast journalists will want powerful images. Divisions must be created to attend to the various media and target audiences (blogs, print/broadcast journalists, politicians, academics and students).

Focusing on peace is perhaps the most compelling argument in our arsenal. One reason Israel is losing the PR battle is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to offer any hope or timeline for an end to the conflict.

It is also essential to empathize rather than demonize all Palestinians. Their suffering in Gaza is undeniable. Context does matter, and their anguish is a result of the actions of Hamas. The Lebanese are also victims of Hezbollah, and the inevitable death and destruction from a war should be anticipated. Little to nothing has been done to educate the public about how Hezbollah has insinuated itself into the civilian population and the tunnel network it has built. We know Hezbollah will control the narrative by limiting journalists’ access and freedom to report accurately.

On Oct. 7, Israel had emotion on its side but lost momentum as the months passed. It is vital to keep the stories of the hostages and victims at the forefront. There has been no honest discussion of the hardships of the citizens of the north, the victims of the Hezbollah strikes, or the damage to property, agriculture and the environment.

One of the most important but challenging tools to employ is rhetorical questions. Advocates are accused of “whataboutism,” but the critics must be challenged to answer what they would do if they were in Israelis’ shoes. What would the United States do if terror forced thousands of citizens to leave their homes or if rockets bombarded American cities? What would you do if your family was murdered in front of you, your daughters and wife raped and mutilated, and your house burned down with your grandparents inside?

Israel is always put on the defensive, but you are usually losing the argument if you’re explaining, justifying or rationalizing. Israel should eschew self-flagellation over every mistake. Sometimes, explaining why Israel has taken a particular action will be necessary. Still, advocates should not fall into the trap of the spouse explaining why they don’t beat their partner.

Israel is often put in an impossible position when the other side charges that an atrocity has occurred, without caring whether the allegation is true, and Israel must take time to investigate the incident. Meanwhile, the allegation is virally circulated, and it is too late to undo the damage when the Israeli analysis is complete.

The Israel Defense Forces has improved at providing daily briefings with documentation, photos, maps and videos to influence the narrative. It needs a disciplined campaign that deploys articulate, photogenic and informed spokespeople globally. Israel needs ambassadors who can fluently make Israel’s case. The pro-Israel community needs to marshal spokespeople who are academics and former officials from the government and military to counter the anti-Israel Arabists who are given prominence in the media.

The media’s bias will not change. We must operate with that as a given rather than expect to change it. Another reality is that many enemies among us undermine our case with their “As a Jew” claims. Divisions are inevitable even among friends, as we see in Israel and the American Jewish community. Like the media, we won’t change the culture of “two Jews, three opinions.”

That said, the criticism of Israel in the coming battles is predictable, and there is no excuse to be caught unprepared again.

The post Preparing for the Coming PR War first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Saudi Arabia Ups Anti-Israel Rhetoric Amid Iran Rapprochement, Raising Questions About Abraham Accords Expansion

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attends a virtual cabinet meeting from his office in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, May 28, 2024. Photo: Saudi Press Agency/Handout via REUTERS

Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler accused the Israeli military of committing “collective genocide” in Gaza while also pressing Israel to respect Iranian sovereignty, amid reports that Tehran has postponed its planned attack on the Jewish state.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s remarks, made in Riyadh on Monday during a summit of leaders of Islamic nations, underscored the evolving rapprochement between the erstwhile archenemies Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The crown prince, also known by his initials MBS, urged the international community to demand that Israel “respect the sovereignty of the sisterly Islamic Republic of Iran and not to violate its lands.”

The two regional heavyweights restored relations last year after decades of animosity.

MBS’s anti-Israel rhetoric came days after Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election. For Israel, the statement from Riyadh may signal a setback to the normalization process with Saudi Arabia, a long-sought goal within the framework of the Abraham Accords, brokered by Trump during his first term in the White House, that has seen Israel establish formal ties with several Arab states in recent years.

According to a Sky News Arabia report published two days later and citing Iranian officials, Tehran has shelved a planned third direct strike on Israel, with the delay attributed to possible forthcoming diplomatic talks with Trump. Israel Hayom published a similar report the following day, citing officials in Jerusalem familiar with the matter.

Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref expressed his hope that the incoming Trump administration would put a stop to Israel’s campaigns against its terrorist proxies, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

“The American government is the main supporter of the actions of the Zionist regime [Israel], and the world is waiting for the promise of the new government of this country to immediately stop the war against the innocent people of Gaza and Lebanon,” Aref said at Monday’s gathering.

Observers noted that Saudi Arabia’s shift could stem from both domestic and regional considerations. For the kingdom, improving relations with Iran is a strategic move to de-escalate conflicts in Yemen, where both countries have backed opposing sides. By opening diplomatic channels with Iran, Saudi Arabia also aims to reduce its dependence on Western security guarantees amid growing regional autonomy. According to Dr. Eyal Pinko, a Middle East expert who served in Israeli intelligence for more than three decades, Saudi Arabia is also under pressure from France, a major arms supplier, to maintain a moderate stance and promote regional peace.

“Saudi Arabia understands [it] cannot rely on the Americans” for arms, Pinko told The Algemeiner.

For its part, Iran may be seeking closer ties with the Gulf kingdom as a result of recent Israeli operations that have decimated the senior leadership of Hezbollah, Iran’s most influential proxy in the Arab world that has long served as a strategic partner.

“Iran is spreading its bets all around, not to be on one side or another,” Pinko said.

Hezbollah, along with Hamas in Gaza, had in the past been blacklisted as terrorist groups by Riyadh.

The New York Times last month cited a Saudi tycoon with ties to the monarchy as saying that the war in Gaza has “set back any Israeli integration into the region.”

“Saudi Arabia sees that any association with Israel has become more toxic since Gaza,” Ali Shihabi told the newspaper.

In another blow for Saudi-Israel relations, Riyadh announced it would revoke the license of the Saudi news broadcaster, MBC, after it labeled the late Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar a terrorist.

But according to Pinko, the chance of Saudi-Israel normalization is not entirely lost, pending a ceasefire.

“If nothing extreme happens with Iran until Jan. 20 [when Trump takes office], I believe that the Abraham Accords will come back to the table,” he said.

The post Saudi Arabia Ups Anti-Israel Rhetoric Amid Iran Rapprochement, Raising Questions About Abraham Accords Expansion first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Germany Opposes EU Foreign Policy Chief’s Proposal to Suspend Dialogue With Israel

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock speaks during a session of the lower house of parliament Bundestag, in Berlin, Germany, Oct. 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Lisi Niesner

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on Thursday publicly rejected a proposal by the European Union’s foreign policy chief to suspend regular political dialogue with Israel in response to the Jewish state’s ongoing military campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.

“We are always in favor of keeping channels of dialogue open. Of course, this also applies to Israel,” the German Foreign Office said of top EU official Josep Borrell’s plans, according to the German news agency dpa.

The Foreign Office added that, while the political conversations under the EU-Israel Association Council provide a regular opportunity to strengthen relations and, in recent months, discuss the provision of humanitarian aid to Gaza, severing that mechanism would be counterproductive.

“Breaking off dialogue, however, will not help anyone, neither the suffering people in Gaza, nor the hostages who are still being held by Hamas, nor all those in Israel who are committed to dialogue,” the statement continued.

Borrell on Wednesday proposed the suspension of dialogue in a letter to EU foreign ministers ahead of their meeting this coming Monday in Brussels, citing “serious concerns about possible breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza.” He also wrote, “Thus far, these concerns have not been sufficiently addressed by Israel.”

The regular dialogues that Borrell is seeking to break off were enshrined in a broader agreement on relations between the EU and Israel, including extensive trade ties, that was implemented in 2000.

“In light of the above considerations, I will be tabling a proposal that the EU should invoke the human rights clause to suspend the political dialogue with Israel,” Borrell wrote.

A suspension would need the approval of all 27 EU countries, an unlikely outcome. According to Reuters, multiple countries objected when a senior EU official briefed ambassadors in Brussels on the proposal on Wednesday.

While some EU countries, such as Spain and Ireland, have been fiercely critical of Israel since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, others such as the Czech Republic and Hungary have been more supportive.

Hamas, which rules Gaza, launched the ongoing conflict with its invasion of southern Israel last Oct. 7. During the onslaught, Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people, wounded thousands more, and kidnapped over 250 hostages while perpetrating mass sexual violence and other atrocities.

Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.

Israel says it has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties, noting its efforts to evacuate areas before it targets them and to warn residents of impending military operations with leaflets, text messages, and other forms of communication. However, Hamas has in many cases prevented people from leaving, according to the Israeli military.

Another challenge for Israel is Hamas’s widely recognized military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations, direct attacks, and store weapons.

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said last month that Israel has delivered over 1 million tons of aid, including 700,000 tons of food, to Gaza since it launched its military operation a year ago. He also noted that Hamas terrorists often hijack and steal aid shipments while fellow Palestinians suffer.

The Israeli government has ramped up the supply of humanitarian aid into Gaza in recent weeks under pressure from the United States, which has expressed concern about the plight of civilians in the war-torn enclave.

Meanwhile, Borrell has been one of the EU’s most outspoken critics of Israel over the past year. Just six weeks after Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks, he drew a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas while speaking to the European Parliament, accusing both of having carried out “massacres” while insisting that it is possible to criticize Israeli actions “without being accused of not liking the Jews.”

Borrell’s speech followed a visit to the Middle East the prior week. While in Israel, he delivered what the Spanish daily El Pais described as the “most critical message heard so far from a representative of the European Union regarding Israel’s response to the Hamas attack of Oct. 7.”

“Not far from here is Gaza. One horror does not justify another,” Borrell said at a joint press conference alongside then-Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen. “I understand your rage. But let me ask you not to let yourself be consumed by rage. I think that is what the best friends of Israel can tell you, because what makes the difference between a civilized society and a terrorist group is the respect for human life. All human lives have the same value.”

Months later, in March of this year, Borrell claimed that Israel was imposing a famine on Palestinian civilians in Gaza and using starvation as a weapon of war. His comments came a few months before the United Nations Famine Review Committee (FRC), a panel of experts in international food security and nutrition, rejected the assertion that northern Gaza was experiencing famine, citing a lack of evidence. Borrell’s comments prompted outrage from Israel.

In August, Borrell pushed EU member states to impose sanctions on some Israeli ministers.

Monday’s meeting in Brussels will be the last that Borrell will chair before ending his five-year term as the EU’s foreign policy chief.

The post Germany Opposes EU Foreign Policy Chief’s Proposal to Suspend Dialogue With Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Pro-Hamas Groups Planting Seeds of Domestic Terrorism in US, New Report Says

Pro-Hamas activists gather in Washington Square Park for a rally following a protest march held in response to an NYPD sweep of an anti-Israel encampment at New York University in Manhattan, May 3, 2024. Photo: Matthew Rodier/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect

Domestic terrorism may be the end game for the over 150 pro-Hamas groups operating on colleges campuses and elsewhere across the US to foster anti-Israel demonstrations, according to a new report by the Capital Research Center (CRC) think tank.

“The movement contains militant elements pushing it toward a wider, more severe campaign focused on property destruction and violence properly described as domestic terrorism,” researcher Ryan Mauro wrote in the report, titled “Marching Toward Violence: The Domestic Anti-Israeli Protest Movement,” which was published last week. “It demands the ‘dismantlement’ of America’s ‘colonialist,’ ‘imperialist,’ or ‘capitalist,’ system, often calling for the US to be abolished as a country.”

He continued, “These revolutionary goals are held by the two different factions of the anti-Israel extremist groups. The first faction combines Islamists, communists/Marxists, and anarchists. The second faction consists of groups with white supremacist/nationalist ideologies. They share Jew-hatred, anti-Americanism, and the goal of sparking a revolutionary uprising.”

The group that is most responsible for the anti-Israel protest movement is Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), according to the report.

Drawing on statements issued and actions taken by SJP and their collaborators, Mauro made the case that toolkits published by SJP herald Hamas for perpetrating mass casualties of civilians; SJP has endorsed Iran’s attacks on Israel as well as its stated intention to overturn the US-led world order; and other groups under its umbrella have called on followers to “Bring the Intifada Home.” Such activities, the report explained, accelerated after Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7, which pro-Hamas groups perceived as an inflection point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and an opportunity. By flooding the internet and college campuses with agitprop and staging activities — protests or vandalisms — they hoped to manufacture a critical mass of youth support for their ideas, thus creating an army of revolutionaries willing to adopt Hamas’s aims as their own.

The result has been a series of the kinds of incidents seen in academia during fall semester.

Last month, when Jews around the world mourned on the anniversary of Oct. 7, a Harvard University student group called on pro-Hamas activists to “Bring the war home” and proceeded to vandalize a campus administrative building. The group members, who described themselves as “anonymous,” later said in a statement, “We are committed to bringing the war home and answering the call to open up a new front here in the belly of the beast.”

On the same day, the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) issued a similar statement, saying “now is the time to escalate,” adding, “Harvard’s insistence on funding slaughter only strengthens our moral imperative and commitment to our demands.”

More recently, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) student wrote a journal article which argued that violence is a legitimate method of effecting political change and, moreover, advancing the pro-Palestinian movement.

In September, during Columbia University’s convocation ceremony, Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a group which recently split due to racial tensions between Arabs and non-Arabs, distributed a pamphlet which called on students to join Hamas.

“This booklet is part of a coordinated and intentional effort to uphold the principles of the thawabit and the Palestinian resistance movement overall by transmitting the words of the resistance directly,” said the manifesto, distributed by CUAD, an SJP spinoff, to incoming freshmen. “This material aims to build popular support for the Palestinian war of national liberation, a war which is waged through armed struggle.”

Other sections of it were explicitly Islamist, invoking the name of “Allah, the most gracious” and referring to Hamas as the “Islamic Resistance Movement.” Proclaiming, “Glory to Gaza that gave hope to the oppressed, that humiliated the ‘invincible’ Zionist army,” it said its purpose was to build an army of Muslims worldwide.

“Groups in the pro-terrorism, anti-Israel movement co-exist as our concentric circles of increasing malevolence,” Mauro said of the level of support for revolutionary violence on college campuses. “Groups in the outermost circle avoid risks as they recruit new protest members and seek to integrate as many political causes as possible under the anti-Israel umbrella … Some militants aspire to incorporate the campaign into a broader wear on law enforcement if not an insurgency.”

As The Algemeiner has previously reported, pro-Hamas activists have already demonstrated that they are willing to hurt people to achieve their goals.

Last year, in California, an elderly Jewish man was killed when an anti-Zionist professor employed by a local community college allegedly pushed him during an argument. At Cornell University in upstate New York, a student threatened to rape and kill Jewish female students and”“shoot up” the campus’ Hillel center. Violence, according to a report by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), was most common at universities in the state of California, where anti-Zionist activists punched a Jewish student for filming him at a protest.

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.

The post Pro-Hamas Groups Planting Seeds of Domestic Terrorism in US, New Report Says first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News