Opinion: Israel’s PR is Not the Problem
Posted by Glezele Vayne on June 27, 2010
by Ted Belman
Glenn Jasper, Ruder Finn Israel, recently suggested that Israel should have all its spokesmen deliver the same message. After all, that’s what the Palestinians do. That might be a good idea except that Israel is a nation of presidents and each president will deliver his or her own message. They can’t be disciplined.
Alex Fishman suggested that Israel should consider the PR battle as more important than the military battle and organize accordingly.
“Hence, the manager of this war on our side should not be the army via the IDF spokesman, but rather, someone on the highest national level, with the best professionals, who would have the knowledge and ability to write the “scripts” for the war and enforce them on all our executive arms, including the army.”
Good as these suggestions are, they don’t go to the heart of the matter.
To start with there is a coalition of forces including antisemites, leftists and Islamists, who are dedicated to Israel’s destruction. They couldn’t care less about truth and justice, so a better PR campaign would be irrelevant. Then there is the mainstream media that presents news to support their agenda rather than the truth. The fact that they suppressed the flotilla videos, which made Israel’s case better than a thousand words could have, is testimony to this fact. They have constructed a narrative in support of their agenda and any facts that are not in keeping with it, are ignored.
But there is something more going on that is little noticed and much determinative. Governments lead by the US also construct a narrative depending on their agenda and they don’t let truth and justice get in the way.
Long before the Oslo accords, the US began to suppress negative information on Arafat and the PLO as she wished to build a peace process around them. After the signing of the Oslo Accords, the US made no issue of the violation of the accords by Arafat. She was not about to let such violations scuttle the peace process. In effect Arafat could do whatever he wanted, and this included killing American diplomats, so long as he gave lip service to the peace process. Caroline Glick called the “peace process” an “appeasement process” the goal of which was, not peace, but appeasement.
Iran and Syria also learned this lesson. They could keep killing Americans in Iraq as long as they denied their complicity. The US rarely called them on this because if she did, she would have to do something about it.
From Glezele Vayne