Candidates for Worst Political PR…

Gershom Gorenberg

The Israeli political right is wont to argue that Israel’s only real problem is PR. We’re doing the all the right things; we’re the only real democracy in the Middle East; we want peace and the Palestinians don’t, they proved that in 1947 when they rejected the partition plan and – so goes this brand of kosher whine – we are terribly misunderstand. We need to make our case better. The complaint is sometimes echoed by the kind of “pro-Israel” voices abroad that fail to distinguish between supporting Israel and supporting the policies of the current government, destructive as they may be.

Well, if the government and its supporters want to prove that’s the problem, they’ll have to do a better job at PR than they’ve done in recent days. There are no candidates for best hasbarah (Heb. n.: information, PR, propaganda, bull); only candidates for worst. Readers of SoJo are invited to cast their votes.

  • Avigdor Lieberman’s Foreign Ministry angrily answered criticism from the four European representatives on the U.N. Security Council – Britain, France, Germany and Portugal. A statement by the four countries had blasted settlement expansion as standing in the way of “the two-state solution that is essential for Israel’s long-term security” and expressed concern about attacks by settlers on Palestinians. The Foreign Ministry’s response attacked the Europeans for “interfering with Israel’s domestic affairs, including on issues which are to be solved within the framework of direct talks”  between Israel and Palestinians. There are too many things wrong with this as hasbarah (Heb. n.: PR, propaganda, bull) to list here; I’ll mention just three: 1. Settlements and settler violence against Palestinians are not “domestic affairs” because the West Bank is not part of Israel. There’s an argument between Israel and the rest of the world about East Jerusalem, but Israel itself rules the rest of the West Bank under laws of military occupation, not as part of the state. 2. The statement acknowledges that the future of the West Bank needs to be discussed in talks with the Palestinians – thereby contradicting in the second clause what is fallaciously asserted in the first clause (that the settlements are a domestic Israeli issue). 3. And most important: There is a long history of regimes asserting that the international community should not “interfere in their internal affairs” or those of their allies. The phrase is used most often by regimes with which decent people do not like to be identified, and with which decent countries are not proud of doing business. Like Lieberman’s praise of Russia’s elections, this comment places Israel in bad company.
  • The New York Times invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to write an article for its opinion pages. Netanyahu adviser Ron Dermer wrote back to decline the offer on the grounds that the oped page was biased against Israel. Yup. Offered the chance to balance what the prime minister’s office claims is unfair commentary on his policies, Netanyahu said no because he wouldn’t appear on a page that doesn’t have balance. Netanyahu is supposed to be a master of hasbarah (Heb. n.: propaganda, bull) but he simply ceded the podium. Dermer objected to columnist Tom Friedman’s assertion that applause for Netanyahu when he addressed Congress was purchased by the Israel lobby. But Netanyahu is unwilling to face the wider audience of the Times, which cannot be accused of being bought. At first glance, Netanyahu and his advisers gave into childish petulance. If we assume a more adult, reasoned choice, they decided to plead nolo contendere to the criticisms made on the Times oped page rather than risk new criticism based on the inevitable weakness of their defense of Netanyahu’s policies.
  • Representative Steve Rothman, Democrat of New Jersey, issued a statement that attacked Friedman for the same column. “I gave Prime Minister Netanyahu a standing ovation, not because of any nefarious lobby, but because it is in America’s vital national security interests to support the Jewish State of Israel and it is right for Congress to give a warm welcome to the leader of such a dear and essential ally,” he said. U.S. News reports that the second largest set of organizational and organizational-linked donations to Rothman since 2009 have come from Norpac, which identifies itself as “the largest pro-Israel PAC.” That obviously doesn’t mean Rothman’s applause was bought; he may have meant it sincerely and his sincerity may be what convinces Norpac to give him money. But Rothman wasn’t just applauding Israel, he was applauding a particular Israeli leader whose policies include continued Israeli rule over a disenfranchised population (that is, extreme ethnic discrimination), supporting legislative attacks on basic democratic principles, and extreme free-market economics. I assume that despite Rothman’s American patriotism – or precisely because of it – a Democratic congressman from Jersey would refrain from leaping to his feet to applaud an American leader who had similar policies. Reading Rothman, we can choose two versions. Either Netanyahu has fooled him, or he thinks he can fool the public. And either way, it shows that bad hasbarah (Heb. n.: bull) can be conducted from Washington as well as Jerusalem.

Those are my candidates. Feel free to vote.


10 thoughts on “Candidates for Worst Political PR…”

  1. Whoever decided that the PA’s seeking acceptance into the UN and its organizations is a “crime” for which it needs to be “punished”. Condescending much?

  2. I don’t see why Rothman can’t simply be a Likudnik who is simply following the Jewish establishment party line. He’s certainly no profile in progressive courage.

  3. It’s a really close competition for me – but I really really liked the second. It reflects the absurdity of the current political climate best. Ron Dermer has a certain je ne sais quoi…

  4. ‘I’m voting Netanyahu
    (a phrase I never thought I’d say)’
    I was also telling this to anybody who would listen when I heard about the editorial. Most of my friends were celebrating this ‘calling out’, the same way they celebrated his UN speech. When confronted with the fact that something that feels good to do because it confirms your beliefs, or something that might play well politically (for the same reason) but isn’t necessarily smart or in the best interests of Israel, they demurred…

  5. Bibi What A Yahoo and Rod Dermer win by a nose over The World’s Most Dangerous Man, Avigdor Lieberman.

    Call Caroline Glick and/or Jennifer Rubin, the latter a fine candidate in her own right, for the hasbarah defense of these three.

  6. Although as a Christian who has doubts I have supported Israel more times than I have disagreed with their International and domestic political posture.

    I find Lieberman to be an extreme version of the political “bomb thrower”and seems to delight in alienating 1.5 billion muslims .

    Netanyahu is nothing more than a political hack and is Rothman . That is why many of we former Democrats prefer to be known as progressives which Rothman is not.

    Here in the Midwest, as contrasted to NYC ,Israel is not a big thing or are politicians views on it given much credence. To say that America is bulllish on Israel can be taken with a grain of salt. Even the Republican primary leader in Iowa Ron Paul as little us for Israel and has an anti-semetic track record.

    Israel must view what it does and how it is seen worldwide

  7. hasbarah (Heb. n.: propaganda, bull)

    This is not what the dictionaries say.

    The worst imaginable “Ministry of Information” in the worst imaginable government could spout nothing but egregious lies from morning to night, but it would not change the meaning of the word “Information”. If it did, then we could never go back. We would have defined away truth.

    Israel is by no means any of these worsts. And the word “Hasbara” still means “Explanation”, or “Information”.

    Netanyahu may have taken a risky path in dissing the New York Times, but maybe it was the right thing to do. As you say, he’s good at PR. Gracing the pages of the NYT adds to its prestige. Skipping it is a way of playing hardball.

    Lieberman may have been playing for a domestic Israeli audience, but his position was correct. Replacing the 1-on-1 negotiating process with competing appeals from Israel and the PA to the Quartet is not a good move for Israel. Rejecting the proposal was right.

  8. I vote for Rothman because he offends me since he is being more loyal to the Israel right propaganda, than being true to real American interests and ideals. So I gather his position is about sheer self promotion when in fact if he had any integrity, he could make a difference. I say this because I don’t want to give a thought to the other two at all. I just want them to go away.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.