Despite Israel’s internationally recognized right to defend itself against terrorist attacks, it appears that Israel’s public diplomacy simply does not convince the international media and Western political elements.
These elements consistently portray Gaza as the victim and underdog, struggling against what is presented to be the military might of Israel. Use of sensational and graphic imagery provided by Hamas propaganda sources, showing widespread destruction and casualties, especially children, serves to generate a mostly negative, biased and often outright hostile viewpoint that is traditionally displayed by the international media.
Sympathy and identification
In the early days of any such operation, Israel is widely seen to be on the defensive, protecting its civilian population against massive rocket attacks, arbitrary shootings and terrorism on its borders, as well as against attempts to penetrate its sovereign territory through offensive tunnels.
As long as Israel is perceived by the world as the victim of terrorism and aggression, most Western leaders and international institutions sympathize and recognize Israel’s fundamental right, under international law, to self-defense.
In this temporary situation, the task of public diplomacy appears to be simple, self-evident and even superfluous.
Condemnation, accusations and psychological warfare
Israel’s right to self-defense in the face of aggression and terrorism has a very brief shelf life.
As soon as the Hamas propaganda machinery provides thirsty Western media sources with graphic images of destruction, any sympathy and understanding for Israel undergo an immediate metamorphosis and disappear.
A curious phenomenon seeks to create a false equivalence between Hamas and Israel in a cynical search for a false balance. This serves to obscure and ignore the logical and necessary distinction between an authoritarian terrorist organization that arbitrarily and illegally targets civilians, and a democratic, sovereign state exercising its international right to self-defense.
This phenomenon deliberately ignores Israel’s measures to uphold humanitarian norms aimed at reducing casualties, including warning calls to civilians to evacuate prior to hitting legitimate military targets.
Perhaps the most ridiculous accusation against Israel is that of “balancing casualties” by comparing the lower number of Israeli casualties due to Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, with the relatively higher number of Palestinian casualties due to the Palestinian practice of placing civilians in danger by using them as human shields.
The cynical message implied by this curious equivalence is that it would be preferable, if only for the sake of balance, if the number of Israeli casualties were higher!
Israel’s public diplomacy dilemma lies in the unique and unprecedented characteristics that typify the region:
• Palestinian use of massive and indiscriminate rocket fire targeting Israel’s civilian population.
• Israel’s Iron Dome system, which significantly reduces the risk of harm.
• Palestinian abuse of its civilian population as human shields, and use of private and public structures for weapons storage and rocket emplacements, in violation of international humanitarian law.
• Endangering their public by extensive tunneling under roads, civilian structures, schools, hospitals and mosques.
• Israel’s practice of minimizing collateral harm to civilians, as is required of a law-abiding state applying international humanitarian norms.
Such unique characteristics are not taken into account by the international media, with its evidently ingrained tendency to negatively prejudge Israel, especially when faced with a far greater news value of graphic images of destruction and casualties.
Sadly, such persistent bias and hostility to Israel may also emanate from a not-insignificant degree of ingrained antisemitism, especially in Europe.
Implications of the propaganda dilemma
The inherent lack of fairness and integrity in global media coverage has serious implications for the efforts of Israeli diplomats and Jewish community leaders around the world, in trying to respond to media and political accusations leveled against Israel.
In light of such public diplomacy challenges, the question arises how Israel may more successfully leverage such unique characteristics in order to create a better understanding of its security and moral challenges.
It would appear to be possible to strengthen the content and credibility of Israel’s public diplomacy by emphasizing a number of points:
• Rather than relying on Israeli officials and experts, prominent foreign military and legal experts, including officers with combat experience, could better explain Israel’s military operations and legal prerogatives, without this being perceived and presented as Israeli political propaganda.
• Senior Israeli military officers and other personnel engaged in the ongoing military operations should not appear before Israeli and international media. Such disclosure not only jeopardizes their personal and family safety, but also exposes them to dangers of possible accusations, international commissions of inquiry, and legal action in international courts.
• Any reporting on combat activity and performance of IDF forces should be solely by the designated IDF Spokesperson’s Unit.
• Media appearances by senior Israeli-Arab citizens, including academics, media professionals, clerics and municipal leaders, who are clearly of high diplomatic and media value and credibility, should be encouraged.
• Public and media support from Arab countries in the Gulf and Morocco, including academic institutions, military personnel and research institutes could be of high international credibility and media value.
• Israel’s diplomatic representatives abroad need to be equipped, in real time, with substantive and professional answers to media allegations and hostile propaganda leveled against Israel.
• The widespread publicity given by Hamas to the use of children in demonstrations and military parades, often wearing military uniforms and holding weapons is, by any standard, a shocking, immoral and illegal exploitation of children and a flagrant violation of international conventions, and should be highlighted, especially in light of the acute international sensitivity to such child abuse.
• The reoccurring use by Hamas and Hezbollah of balloons and incendiary devises aimed at burning fields and destroying agricultural produce, as well as the use of smoke pollution, constitute ecological, biological and agricultural terrorism against Israel’s civilian population, in contravention of a series of international conventions.
• Attempts by Hamas to establish false interdependence between events in Jerusalem, on the one hand, and the actions of Hamas vis-à-vis Israel, on the other, must be assertively blocked, especially since the international media tend to use such linkage as another lever of criticism against Israel in the context of Jerusalem.
The governance of the city of Jerusalem, in all areas, including the protection of multidenominational holy sites, public order, daily life, and legal issues related to the ownership of property in the city, are the sole responsibility of Israel, and bear no affinity or connection with the Gaza Strip.
In the 1995-9 Oslo Accords, countersigned by world leaders and UN-approved, Israel and the PLO agreed that the issue of Jerusalem is subject to permanent-status negotiation. Hamas has no standing and cannot artificially manipulate the international community into accepting this false linkage.
Conclusion
Effective, compelling and credible public diplomacy should utilize these points to better enhance understanding of Israel’s actions against terrorism and counter false propaganda.
Improved public diplomacy will also serve to prevent international political elements, media, and international institutions from prejudging Israel without considering reliable information and facts.
The writer, an international lawyer, served as the legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry and as ambassador to Canada, as well as previous positions in the IDF military advocate-general’s unit. He presently heads the international law program at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.