Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Column One: Why Israel is losing the information war

It doesn’t take a PhD to understand what the game is. And Israelis – even many with PhDs – understand what is happening.


08/20/2014 11:32
AN ISRAELI army officer explains to journalists how Hamas built tunnels to attack the country. Photo: REUTERS
For most Israelis, the international discourse on Gaza is unintelligible.

Here we were going along, minding our own business.

Then on a clear night in June, apropos of nothing, Palestinian terrorists stole, murdered and hid the bodies of three of our children as they made their way home from school.

Before we could catch our breath from that atrocity, they began shelling our major population centers with thousands of rockets, missiles and mortars, and infiltrated our communities along the border with Gaza through underground tunnels to kidnap and murder us.

And as the Palestinians did all of these things, they used their civilian population and the foreign press corps as human sandbags. They ordered their own people not to evacuate their homes from which Hamas, Fatah and Islamic Jihad terrorists launched their missiles, rockets and mortars at Israel. And they launched missiles at Israeli cities from outside the hotel where the foreign reporters were staying.

It doesn’t take a PhD to understand what the game is. And Israelis – even many with PhDs – understand what is happening.

This is why so many Israelis are up in arms about our government’s failure to impact the wall of lies that comprises the discourse on Israel in the Western world.

The knee-jerk reaction of many Israelis to the sight of UN officials, CNN anchors and New York Times reporters accusing us of committing war crimes is to blame ourselves.

Our hasbara (public diplomacy) is a catastrophe, our defenders are incompetent idiots, we moan and scream.

But the truth is not so simple. Our speakers have gotten much better over the past several years. Some, like ambassadors Ron Dermer and Ron Prosor and IDF Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, are excellent.

Israel’s public diplomacy efforts have been unsuccessful in penetrating, let alone dismantling the edifice of lies that constitutes the Western narrative about the Palestinian war against us because our underlying strategy for contending with it is directed at the wrong goal.

Our PR gurus defined our hasbara goal as getting our story out effectively. To do so, Israel has operated on two parallel tracks. First, we have tried to adjust our policies to adhere to what we perceive as the West’s demands.

We have employed measures unprecedented in military history to protect the Palestinians from their elected leaders who use them as fodder in their propaganda war against Israel.

There is no precedent in the history of warfare to Israel’s practice of warning Palestinians when it is about to attack civilian installations that Hamas has unlawfully used to attack Israel.

Moreover, Israel has accepted interpretations of the laws of war – such as the specious assertion that Israel is required to provide free electricity to Gaza – that have no relationship whatsoever to international law.

The second component of getting out our story has been developing the sort of glitzy, media-friendly PR apparatus that everybody who is everybody says is the be all and end all of a successful media strategy. There is no foreign press corps more coddled than the foreign press corps in Israel. No government is more active on social media sites than Israel.

And yet, for all of our efforts, the UN Human Rights Committee appointed an open hater of Israel who doesn’t have a problem with Hamas to run a phony investigation of the IDF’s imaginary war crimes.

For all our efforts, The New York Times, MSNBC, the European media, CNN and all the rest demonize our soldiers and leaders. They ignore the fact that everything Hamas and its allies in Fatah and Islamic Jihad do is a war crime – from calling for the annihilation of Israel to shooting rockets at civilian population centers, to shooting rockets at civilian population centers from hospitals and from outside the hotel where their reporters are staying in Gaza.

So desperate are we for any truth in reporting that we seize as a major victory the fact that a Wall Street Journal reporter was nice enough to Tweet the fact that he interviewed a Hamas leader in Shifa hospital.

A casual glance at the mountain of distorted and simply false stories reported about Israel and its enemies makes clear that at a minimum, most of the Western media don’t care about the truth. The fact that they sent reporters to Israel and Gaza doesn’t mean they wanted those reporters to publish what is going on.

The reporters knew what they were supposed to say before they even got on a plane to Israel. True, Hamas has openly acknowledged that it prohibited the foreign press from filming its terrorists and their war crimes. But with rare exceptions, the media had no problem with Hamas’s rules.

So too, the UN Human Rights Council didn’t decide to form a commission of inquiry to criminalize Israel because we weren’t good enough at showing the lengths we go to protect Gazans from their elected leaders. And the UNHRC didn’t appoint William Schabas, who has called for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to be tried for war crimes, to lead its star chamber because it didn’t get the press release proving that Israel acts in compliance with international law.

The media, the US State Department and the UN attack Israel for crimes that Hamas commits because they are wedded to a narrative in which Israel is to blame for its enemies’ desire to destroy it.

As the UN, The New York Times and President Barack Obama see it, Israel is to blame because it is inherently guilty by its nature.

The White House and State Department can accuse Israel of conducting a “totally indefensible” and “disgraceful” strike against an UNRWA school, when no such strike occurred, and if it had occurred it would have been totally defensible, because as far as they are concerned, as Martin Indyk claimed in May, Israel’s right to exist is conditional on our willingness to accept their belief that we are inherently morally deformed and in need of direction by our betters.

Netanyahu is Schabas’s “favorite [to be placed] in the dock of the International Criminal Court,” because Netanyahu is the elected leader of the morally deformed Jewish state.

Given this situation, it is clear that Israel’s public diplomacy efforts are directed toward the wrong goal.

The goal of hasbara cannot be to educate the likes of TheNew York Times’ bureau chief Jodi Rudoren about the truth because the problem isn’t one of ignorance. The problem is that they consider the truth an impediment to their goal of reporting the narrative of Israeli criminality.

Rather than striving to educate, we must work to manipulate the Rudorens of the world into covering the truth.

For instance, there is no reason to provide reporters clearly dedicated to hiding the truth with access to national leaders and military commanders. Let them find their own sources. Israel is a free country. There is no reason for The New York Times to be invited to a press briefing by IDF commanders.

Another critical element of a strategy for forcing hostile media and international agencies to contend with the truth is to create events that they can’t ignore.

For instance, the chief military prosecutor together with the state prosecution should indict Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah leaders on war crimes charges and the relevant Israeli courts should begin adjudicating the cases.

The Knesset should begin deliberations on a bill to strip UNRWA of its legal immunity as a first step towards bringing its personnel up on charges of providing material support for terrorism.

True, such actions will be met with howls of condemnation and hysterical reproaches from all the usual suspects.

But at least they will be talking about Palestinian war crimes. At least they will be forced to acknowledge that UNRWA is a force of destabilization and radicalization, not of stabilization and moderation in the Arab conflict with Israel.

Our leaders and spokespeople cannot win the information war by devoting themselves to pointing out the West’s hypocrisy and double standards, or the rank mendaciousness and bigotry that stands at the core of their approach to Israel. No one ever won a war by only playing defense. And we won’t win this one by explaining why we aren’t war criminals.

We will only begin to make progress when we define the goal of our hasbara as forcing an unwilling media and international community to discuss the truth by taking deliberate actions that will make it impossible for them to ignore it.

The writer is the author of The Israeli Solution: A One- State Plan for Peace in the Middle East. caroline@carolineglick.com

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Now I get it

With the discovery of dozens of terror tunnels reaching out to Israeli preschools I think I understand now why the three teens were kidnapped last month. Hamas, better than maybe anyone else, knows that their murderous militarism does not spring up overnight; it has to be cutlivated. Within the Gaza Hamas rules it's easy, but what about the world outside? So Hamas kidnapped the teens first. After some bargaining the teens would be returned, Hamas could declare a victory, and the world would be ready for the spectacle of 400 Jewish kindergartners stolen from their classrooms. But Hamas botched it and the teens were shot dead. The teens couldn't be paraded as a Hamas op, because when the kindergartners got kidnapped Israel would then have no expectation the children would or could be returned alive. So Hamas backtracked and denied everything. They probably judged that if they waited six months to a year everyone would forget about the teens and they could go forward with The Big Kidnapping as originally planned. (EoZ link)

Update, 8:15pm:  Seems I'm mistaken; the tunnels under kindergartens were filled with explosives!

Sunday, June 08, 2014

The Apartheid Libel: A Legal Refutation

Eugene Kontorovich, professor of international law at Northwestern U., destroys many anti-Israel shibboleths.  This is just his latest example, published at The Tower: link


Monday, May 05, 2014

Response to Mirza

Mirza: Hamas has actually been formed by Israel and its support. This was to thwart the leadership of Fatah which according to Israel was a terrorist organization. One only negotiates with their enemies not friends. Nelson Mandela was branded a terrorist and put in jail for quarter of a century. Slavery, occupation, lack of hope and lack of respect and lack of basic civil rights breed terrorism and extremism. The argument “occupied are not ready for negotiation” is baseless. What negotiations when the occupier has all the powers and the other side none. Palestinians have never demanded an Islamic state, it was the Israel which started Hamas and to divert attention toward an Islamic state. It is a struggle for freedom nothing more or nothing less.


Hamas has actually been formed by Israel and its support. This was to thwart the leadership of Fatah which according to Israel was a terrorist organization.
Hamas was originally a social welfare organization; it developed a public appetite for genocide and terrorism afterward.

 One only negotiates with their enemies not friends.
Hamas says it will not negotiate away its self-declared opposition to the existence of the Jewish State.

Slavery, occupation, lack of hope and lack of respect and lack of basic civil rights breed terrorism and extremism.
Gaza and the West Bank are indeed occupied by organizations that enforce such conditions, primarily Hamas and the Palestinian Authority: Israel-hatred and terror-training are part of their school curricula and Arabs exercising deviations from the Israel-hatred line may be labelled "collaborators" and executed with little or no trial.  Thus, the only way to compete for political power is for rivals to assert that they hate Israel more than the party in power and the only check on exercising hatred through violence is external: cutting funds for hate-education, material support for armaments, or Israeli military action.

It is a struggle for freedom nothing more or nothing less.
The Jews of Israel re-settled through fair land purchase from Arabs, or had state lands formerly belonging to the Ottomans deeded to them for settlement under international law, or settled upon land vacated by Arabs who sided with Israel's enemies by flight, thereby surrendering their civil rights under the applicable international law: the British Mandate of Palestine, which references the civil and property rights that existed under the Ottomans. 

Arabs who did not rebel or join the ranks of enemy armies retained their civil and property rights; Israel today is over 20% Arab and its capital, Tel Aviv, boasts over fifty minarets.

The British Mandate also required Arabs to respect the civil rights of Jews who lived on Arab-controlled territory but this has been completely ignored by the international community for generations, even though the ejected Jews settled in Israel itself, often on top of vacated Arab villages.  The Jewish population of Israel's neighbors is nearly zero as a result. The property of the departed Jews was mostly used to bolster the power of ruling tyrants.

Thus the Jews of Israel owe the Arabs of Gaza and the West Bank absolutely nothing, either legally or morally.  There is no "Palestinian Arab struggle for freedom" from Israeli occupation; there is only the desire for conquest mandated by tyrants and reinforced by decades of war-promoting culture.
As long as people don't realize that due to external support the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza cannot escape the bonds of the Hamas and PA tyrants they can never have the hope to even struggle for freedom.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/704144/a-welcome-rapprochement/

Monday, December 02, 2013

Not created equal



'Memories' pass between generations


Generations of a family

Related Stories

Behaviour can be affected by events in previous generations which have been passed on through a form of genetic memory, animal studies suggest.
Experiments showed that a traumatic event could affect the DNA in sperm and alter the brains and behaviour of subsequent generations.
A Nature Neuroscience study shows mice trained to avoid a smell passed their aversion on to their "grandchildren".
Experts said the results were important for phobia and anxiety research.
The animals were trained to fear a smell similar to cherry blossom.
The team at the Emory University School of Medicine, in the US, then looked at what was happening inside the sperm.
They showed a section of DNA responsible for sensitivity to the cherry blossom scent was made more active in the mice's sperm.
Both the mice's offspring, and their offspring, were "extremely sensitive" to cherry blossom and would avoid the scent, despite never having experiencing it in their lives.
Changes in brain structure were also found.
"The experiences of a parent, even before conceiving, markedly influence both structure and function in the nervous system of subsequent generations," the report concluded.
Family affair
The findings provide evidence of "transgenerational epigenetic inheritance" - that the environment can affect an individual's genetics, which can in turn be passed on.
One of the researchers Dr Brian Dias told the BBC: "This might be one mechanism that descendants show imprints of their ancestor.
"There is absolutely no doubt that what happens to the sperm and egg will affect subsequent generations."
Prof Marcus Pembrey, from University College London, said the findings were "highly relevant to phobias, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders" and provided "compelling evidence" that a form of memory could be passed between generations.
He commented: "It is high time public health researchers took human transgenerational responses seriously.
"I suspect we will not understand the rise in neuropsychiatric disorders or obesity, diabetes and metabolic disruptions generally without taking a multigenerational approach."
In the smell-aversion study, is it thought that either some of the odour ends up in the bloodstream which affected sperm production or that a signal from the brain was sent to the sperm to alter DNA.
*
What does this mean for us humans?

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

"Dialogue is the key to peace"

In a worthy opinion piece in Arab News discussing the Saudi King Abdullah's rejection of a U.N. Security Council seat, Abdulateef Al-Mulhim advocates:

"In my opinion, the Arab world instead of relying only on official contacts between the US and their respective governments, should find new ways to engage in dialogue with the American people. The US is one of the most open societies in the world and the American people are good listeners and open to political and social discussions -"
___

I don't doubt King Abdullah has similar thoughts, though the course of action he advocates is rather different. Five years ago he sponsored an "Islamic Conference on Dialogue" that was attended by prominent Muslims throughout the world . The resulting dialogue guidelines include:

1) Most important: is to spread Islam.

2) Refute "the suspicion that Islam and Muslims are responsible for terrorism, extremism and hatred."

3) Reject "the oppression and exploitation of poor people under the excuse of liberating them or guarding their human rights. "

4) Giving "priority to issues of protection of values and ethics against the calls for demoralization on grounds of defending individual freedom" - meaning, I suppose, that Muslims should turn a deaf ear to the complaints or differing priorities of non-Muslims and that Muslims who do listen should be denounced or their interaction with foreigners suppressed from the ears of Muslims.

5) Urge that Muslims worldwide respect their host nations but obey Muslim governments and organizations.

6) Work to ensure that "the United Nations and human rights organizations to criminalize the abuse directed at Islam and its Messenger."

7) Denounce "odious claims of superiority" that one group of people can be superior to another on the basis of race.

Conveniently, the Saudi King believes "dialogue" should be redefined as proselytization, its refinements, and the sort of propaganda needed for himself and his clan to remain in power; Muslims anywhere should obey their leaders - no matter how oppressive; and Muslims should have no hope that improvement could come about through political action of their own, nor that the rest of the world can serve as an example.  

References:
http://www.spa.gov.sa/english/details.php?id=562841

http://www.spa.gov.sa/english/details.php?id=562842
http://solomon2.blogspot.com/2008/06/proposed-islamic-conquest-of-western.html

Friday, October 18, 2013

US Passes Saudi Arabia to become the World’s Largest Oil Producer

"PIRA, a leader in worldwide energy market analysis, has recently announced that the US has finally surpassed Saudi Arabia as the largest oil producer in the world, after an explosion in the use of hydraulic fracking created the largest oil boom in nearly 40 years, only beaten by the production boom in Saudi Arabia between 1970 and 1974."




Should the U.S. join OPEC next?  

This is an important milestone: within five years the U.S. will resume its role as a net exporter of petroleum for the first time in over four decades.  The flow of oil through the Arabian Gulf will no longer be considered  a necessary beverage for U.S. consumers but something of necessity for the rest of the world - and this Administration is very keen to push such responsibilities on others.  

If KSA cannot defend itself, nor cooperate in a regional alliance, the obvious candidates become their prime customers in the Far East: China, Japan, South Korea, and India.  These nations either lack the will or prowess to project decisive naval power to the Gulf.  

Long term, Saudi oil production is declining while domestic consumption continues to rise.  Around 2030 Saudi Arabia may even become a net importer of crude!  

What will happen then?  For comparison, early in the colonial period the West Indies was home to rich and lucrative sugar plantations, a strategic asset prize contested between European powers in war and peace, so highly valued that at the end of the Seven Years' War France yielded its sovereignty of mainland Canada to Britain in exchange for retaining its sugar islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe.

After the development of sugar beet in Europe and cane sugar plantations elsewhere the importance of the West Indies dropped and the region once again became a backwater.  Early in the 20th century Europeans pretty much yielded primacy in the area to the local up-and-coming power, the United States.  Spain lost Cuba in a war and didn't try to win it back.  Denmark sold its islands to the America. In WWII Britain offered the U.S. its naval bases in exchange for American-built destroyers. 

And the oldest independent Caribbean state, Haiti, hit by civil unrest, suffered for a generation the indignity of U.S.-European invasion and occupation, followed by disorder, mass slaughter (by its neighbor), dictatorship ("Baby Doc"), and currently another foreign occupation (this time by Brazilian-led U.N. forces.)