Israel - Palestine Conflict Discussion Thread

[Azor Ahai 18,861]

 Palestine is a less powerful country so they attack it to get its lands in order to expand their country.

And since USA got Israel's back they can do that without anyone hurting them. 

I think everything else is just an excuse .

[bionic 50,111]

If it's just about getting rid of Hamas then why are they taking Palestinian land?

[bionic 50,111]

I'm shocked at the fact that these are words coming from a young female.

 

Right?

[kennji 546]

the idiot is strong with this one

[Economy 52,861]

One of the most disgusting things I have read in my life. It's actually scary to hear that someone in 2014 would saying something like this - it's even scarier that someone DID say this. Something has to be done, but I just don't know. War should NEVER be the answer to any problem or dilemma in the world. :(

and people wonder why aliens still havent landed on our planet. They dont want to get involved in this mess :megaflop:

 

they avoid Earth like a plague and for good reason

[Whispering 18,865]

The only restrictions on free speech in the US is for common sense things such as yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded movie theatre

There are several exceptions to free speech protection, and yes...causing panic, such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is an exception to Freedom of Speech.

Some exceptions include:

Defamation (includes libel and slander)

Obscenity: The Supreme Court test for obscenity is as follows: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, s-xual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and © whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Fighting words: As defined by the Supreme Court, fighting words are "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Causing panic: The classic example of speech causing panic is someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Speech may be suppressed where a reasonable person would know that his speech is likely to cause panic and/or harm to others.

Incitement to crime: Speech that spurs another to commit a crime.

Sedition: Speech that advocates unlawful conduct against the government or the violent overthrow of the government.

The government also has the right to restrict speech in order to promote a "compelling government interest," such as national security.

[MJHolland 12,725]

There are several exceptions to free speech protection, and yes...causing panic, such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is an exception to Freedom of Speech.

Some exceptions include:

Defamation (includes libel and slander)

Obscenity: The Supreme Court test for obscenity is as follows: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, s-xual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and © whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Fighting words: As defined by the Supreme Court, fighting words are "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Causing panic: The classic example of speech causing panic is someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Speech may be suppressed where a reasonable person would know that his speech is likely to cause panic and/or harm to others.

Incitement to crime: Speech that spurs another to commit a crime.

Sedition: Speech that advocates unlawful conduct against the government or the violent overthrow of the government.

The government also has the right to restrict speech in order to promote a "compelling government interest," such as national security.

basically that's common sense tbh

 

It's absolutely nothing like restricting what people can say/protest about

[Whispering 18,865]

basically that's common sense tbh

 

It's absolutely nothing like restricting what people can say/protest about

There are restrictions and exceptions. There will be times when certain groups are not allowed to say or do as they would like.

The same holds true for individuals.

[theMonster5 74]

Time to bring in the Maus tank! LOL

 

 

[lego 44,165]

A week of ceasefire calls, efforts and proposals has not stopped Israel from launching a ground invasion of Gaza in tandem with its aerial and naval bombardments. Developments suggest that Israel, while accepting an Egyptian proposal, used it as a pretext to intensify and widen its offensive. Cairo, which since the ouster of President Mohamed Morsi last summer is as hostile to Hamas as Israel is, may have enabled such a plan, deliberately or otherwise.

Hamas, which has roots in Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, said it was never consulted about Cairo's ceasefire proposal, having learned of it from media reports. It is extraordinary that a supposed mediator between two warring parties would exclude one of them from the process.

This would almost ensure that party's rejection, regardless of the proposal's content, because it would be humiliating to accept something presented as a fait accompli. As such, Hamas' rejection was hardly surprising, describing the initiative as one of "bowing and submission".

A ceasefire trap?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's statement that "the Egyptian proposal gives the opportunity to address the disarmament" of Gaza was likely intended to ensure rejection by Palestinian militants there. After all, this was not stipulated in the plan, as described in media reports. Netanyahu said Hamas' rejection "leaves us no choice but to expand and intensify the campaign against it" and to do so with "international legitimacy".

Egypt contributed to this deluded sense of legitimacy by blaming Hamas - as well as Qatar and Turkey - for the failure of its proposal. The next day, Israel launched its ground invasion. This week's developments could not have been better scripted in favour of such an outcome, with Israel portraying itself as having no choice against a belligerent foe, and the traditional mediator over Gaza helping to foster that impression.

Given the regular contact between Israel and Egypt, it is not outlandish to suspect that this was a trap designed to ensnare Hamas. The latter rejected Cairo's proposal "in its current form" - not outright - and notified it of desired changes. However, there has been no attempt by Egypt to modify its plan. Indeed, Cairo had been criticised from the outset for the sluggish nature of its mediation, leading to speculation that it was happy to see Israel deal a decisive blow to Hamas.

If the Palestinian faction was uninterested in a ceasefire, it would not have subsequently floated its own proposal for a 10-year truce. This was announced on Al Jazeera and reported by Israeli media. If Netanyahu genuinely sought an end to hostilities, he would have taken Hamas' plan into consideration.

He did not even respond - nor did Egypt - despite the terms being eminently reasonable. They include lifting the siege of Gaza, economic development of the territory, UN supervision of borders, crossings, the airport and seaport, easing conditions for permits to pray at Jerusalem's Al Aqsa mosque, respect for the national reconciliation deal, and the freeing of Palestinians detained since the abduction and killing of three Israeli teenagers last month.

The problem for Hamas is that in terms of accepting the Egyptian proposal, it would have been damned if it did and damned if it did not. One of its primary objections was negotiating longer-term issues after a ceasefire was agreed, preferring instead to do both simultaneously.

This thinking was borne out of the experience of the last ceasefire agreement in 2012. The terms stipulated that after 24 hours, talks would begin on opening crossings into Gaza and allowing free movement of people and goods. That did not happen, and the two sides disagreed on what that meant. Hamas said the deal covered the opening of all Gaza's border crossings with Israel and Egypt, but Israel said it would not lift its blockade.

A repeat of this would mean Hamas not having anything tangible to show the Palestinians of Gaza for all the death and destruction Israel is inflicting on them. This could undermine its popularity and its image as an effective resister of Israeli aggression.

However, agreeing short- and longer-term issues simultaneously would provide no guarantee of Israel's abidance. Indeed, it has left behind a trail of violated deals. Within just a week of the 2012 ceasefire taking effect, Israel had killed a Gaza Palestinian civilian, injured at least 15, arrested nine fishermen at sea, and sunk several fishing boats, not to mention numerous provocations in the West Bank. No Palestinian factions responded to these clear violations.

Hamas' defiance

A fundamental difficulty facing Hamas is that Israel feels no need for comprehensive negotiations. The latter has maintained its siege of Gaza without international repercussions, and is being aided and abetted by Egypt. International calls for a ceasefire have largely ignored the underlying issue of the blockade.

In addition, Hamas' current domestic and regional positions are weak. At home, in Gaza, it has failed to improve the lot of Palestinians or bring them any closer to statehood. It is also openly at odds with the Palestinian Authority despite the reconciliation deal, which now exists in name only. Regionally, it has lost an ally in Morsi, as well as backing from Damascus and Tehran due to its support for the Syrian revolution. It is also viewed unfavourably by certain Gulf states.

As such, it is unlikely to be able to push for better terms from Israel. Neither can Hamas indefinitely sustain an onslaught from a much more powerful enemy. For all the rockets it has fired, and their increased range, the vast majority have been intercepted, and they have only managed to kill one Israeli.

Contrast this with more than 300 Palestinian deaths and almost 2,000 injuries (the vast majority civilians), tens of thousands displaced, more than 15,000 homes partially or totally destroyed, and the water, health, sewage, electricity and education systems in ruins. Such death and destruction will skyrocket now that a ground invasion is under way.

Many Palestinians in Gaza say they refuse to go back to the status quo ante. Such sentiments are understandable given their miserable existence in what is the world's largest open-air prison. As UNRWA's Gaza director Robert Turner said: "A return to 'calm' is a return to ... confinement," with "no external access to markets, employment, or education - in short, no access to the outside world".

However, it would be highly risky for Hamas to base its defiance on that of the civilian population - given that the latter are bearing the brunt of Israel's onslaught - because it would not want to be seen as callous with Palestinian life. Meanwhile, the more iron-fisted Netanyahu's policies, the more domestic popularity he seems to gain.

Hamas may be counting on increased international condemnation putting a stop to Israel, however, by the time that happens, Gaza Palestinians' losses - and those of Hamas - may dwarf what they have already endured.

The Palestinian faction is in an unenviable, perhaps impossible, situation, and Israel is taking advantage of this. As if Netanyahu's actions are not shameful enough, regional positions and circumstances are helping him wage a war whose primary target, despite the rhetoric, is Gaza's captive civilian population. Unfortunately, it is he who will decide how long this conflict lasts and at what cost to the Palestinian people.

Sharif Nashashibi is an award-winning journalist and a--lyst on Arab affairs. He is a regular contributor to Al Jazeera English, Al Arabiya News, The National, The Middle East magazine and the Middle East Eye.

[Stefani 25]

Poor Palestine. They are in a conflict with one of the worlds greatest country with warfare.

For all the rockets it has fired, and their increased range, the vast majority have been intercepted, and they have only managed to kill one Israeli.

Contrast this with more than 300 Palestinian deaths and almost 2,000 injuries (the vast majority civilians), tens of thousands displaced, more than 15,000 homes partially or totally destroyed, and the water, health, sewage, electricity and education systems in ruins. Such death and destruction will skyrocket now that a ground invasion is under way.

[Dolev 867]

Balanced and objective journalism at its best.

 

Hamas broke 2 ceasefire, 1 by Egyptian mediation (which even Mahmoud Abbas, prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, supported) and an humanitarian 1 asked by the UN. There is not a thing in the world that could justify it and I don't get how any of you expect Israel to sit and watch how its citizens are being attacked and how terrorist are digging thier way in tunnels into Israel in order to kill and kidnap Israeli citizens. Hypocrisy.

 

Israel only respons when Israel is provoked. That's all.

[lego 44,165]

Israel's media strategy: What lies beneath

How the Israeli government is misleading the world one press conference at a time.

Do you wonder why there are many questions left unanswered regarding the Israeli escalation in Gaza? Why the questions are so meek, the responses so murky, the phrases come in cliches and soundbites you've heard before? Do you feel watching certain interviews is an assault on your intelligence?

Do you wonder why official Israeli spokespersons sound so calm, smiley and kind when their popular base sounds so angry, so aggressive, and so racist? How they are likely to say something like, "thank you it's nice to be with you", even after being grilled by a probing frustrated anchor. Why, when asked about the expansion of illegal settlements, Israeli spokespersons speak of the need for a peace settlement, and when asked about bombing civilians, they speak of a better future for all children, Israeli and Palestinian?

Wonder no more. This is all part of a well-thought, well-orchestrated media strategy to mystify, mislead and even misrepresent the reality. And much of it can be found in The Israel Project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary.

But this is not unique to Israel. Governments set up entire ministries and/or institutions to defend their policies and advance their narrative, at times to mislead their enemies or competitors. Indeed, it's naive to expect otherwise. Like cynicism, gullibility is especially dangerous for journalists.

Don't say that, say this

Five years ago, US-based "The Israel Project" asked a Zionist Republican pollster, Frank Luntz, to prepare a new updated media guide for "leaders who are on the front lines of fighting the media war for Israel". The project builds on some of the best examples of Israeli leaders' own success at mystification, in order to devise a strategy that neutralises Israel's critics and promotes and improves its media standing.

It's a step-by-step guide that underlines "the words that work" and the "words that don't work" when speaking to westerners. Like any marketing or PR campaign, much of the suggested code words, phrases and sound bites are based on polls.

INTERACTIVE: Gaza Under Attack

The report came after Israel's 2008 Gaza war and following US President Barack Obama's denouncement of Israeli settlements and his overtures towards Iran. It was prepared for internal use only and kept secret, until it was finally leaked in the fall of 2009.

So for example, how to sell Americans on the Israeli settlements: "Be positive. Turn the issue away from settlements and toward peace. Invoke ethnic cleansing."

And how to gain the support of viewers: The pro-Israel pundits are instructed to be careful with their tone.

"A patronising, parental tone will turn Americans and Europeans off" because it's at a time in history when Jews in general - and Israelis in particular - are "no longer perceived as the persecuted people".

Among sophisticated, educated, opinionated American and European audiences, "Israelis are often seen as the occupiers and the aggressors. With that kind of baggage, it is critical that messages from the pro-Israel spokespeople not come across as supercilious or condescending."

And since the US evangelical base already supports Israel, the Dictionary warns against using religious arguments when speaking to western leftists or liberals. But since to "much of the Left", both sides are equally at fault, and because the Israelis are more powerful, the most effective way to build support for Israel is to talk about "working toward a lasting peace" that "respects the rights of everyone in the region".

And why is it so important to always speak of peace? The report signals two reasons: One: If Americans see no hope for peace - if they only see a continuation of a 2,000-year-long episode of "Family Feud" - Americans will not want their government to spend tax dollars or their president's clout on helping Israel. Reason two: "The speaker that is perceived as being most for peace will win the debate."

And this is one of my favourite attempts at deception:

"Americans agree that Israel has a right to defensible borders. But it does you no good to define exactly what those borders should be. Avoid talking about borders in terms of pre- or post-1967, because it only serves to remind Americans of Israel's military history. Particularly on the left, this does you harm."

Gaza sequel

Chapter six of the 18-chapter, 117-page guide focuses on the lessons from the last Gaza war and proposes a more effective public diplomacy for the next time around, i.e. this round.

One of the first recommendations goes as follows:

"Israel made painful sacrifices and took a risk to give peace a chance. They voluntarily removed over 9,000 settlers from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, abandoning homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship in the hopes of renewing the peace process."

And "Despite making an overture for peace by withdrawing from Gaza, Israel continues to face terrorist attacks, including rocket attacks and drive-by shootings of innocent Israelis. Israel knows that for a lasting peace, they must be free from terrorism and live with defensible borders."

Needless to say, much of the formulation is misleading. Most of the illegal settlers had already moved out because of mounting Palestinian resistance, pushing Israel to finally redeploy its military without any coordination with the Palestinian Authority. The decision was motivated by the need to disengage demographically from 1.5 million impoverished Palestinians and was based on cost-benefit a--lysis, not peace strategy. All of which partially explains why Israel has being laying siege to Gaza and reckons it has the right to intervene militarily at will ever since.

At any rate, the guide suggests that defenders and promoters of Israel's war need to use the kind of language that "may be hard for some of you to say, but every result of research confirms that an approach like this is the best way for an Israeli spokesperson to truly be heard and therefore make a difference".

Consider these choice tidbits: "Israel should not be bombing Gaza. I will repeat that. Israel should not be forced into a situation where they have to bomb Gaza. Likewise, Hamas should not be deliberately firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel. If the rockets stop, we can achieve that peace where Palestinian and Israeli children live in safety."

"When it comes time to talk about rockets, the best word is 'deliberate'. Don't say that Hamas is 'randomly rocketing Israel'. Do say 'Hamas is deliberately firing rockets into Israeli towns, communities, and civilian populations'."

"Paint a vivid picture of what life is like for Israeli civilians and children under the constant threat of rocket attack. You have to humanise why Gaza happened and what Israel has faced for weeks, months, even years."

Five-step guide to winning hearts

The guide advises the pro-Israel camps to "use rhetorical questions to gain permission from the audience for Israel's actions".

For example: "What should Israel do? Imagine, if thousands of rockets were fired into your community every day and every night? What would your country do? What would you want them to do? Don't we have a duty to protect our citizens?"

And here comes the worst bit of deception:

"Americans recognise that rocket attacks are an impediment to peace; but they do not accept rockets as an excuse to abandon peace. It is utterly expected that Israeli spokespersons will talk about proportionality and prevention of rocket attacks. But if you take the unexpected approach of talking about another 'p' word - the most important 'p' word to the public - you generate immense credibility."

So here's the five-step approach to talking about civilian casualties in Gaza:

Empathy: "All human life is precious. We understand that the loss of one innocent Palestinian life is every bit as tragic as the loss of an Israeli life."

Admission: "We admit that Israel isn't always successful at preventing civilian casualties..."

Effort: "We remain committed to doing everything in our power to preventing civilian casualties."

Examples: "Let me tell you how our armed forces are trained, tasked, and operate to ensure that Palestinian civilians remain safe."

Turn tables: "It is a tragedy that Iran-backed Hamas shoots rockets at our civilians while hiding in their own ... This causes tragic deaths on both sides."

The guide concludes this chapter on the worst possible advice: "Israel should not give any more land for peace, because every time it does, it just gets more war."

Marwan Bishara is the senior political a--lyst at Al Jazeera.

.....

This exact rhetorics we've seen on this forum. Like people literally follow this guide.

[Luc 4,776]

Israel's media strategy: What lies beneath

How the Israeli government is misleading the world one press conference at a time.

Do you wonder why there are many questions left unanswered regarding the Israeli escalation in Gaza? Why the questions are so meek, the responses so murky, the phrases come in cliches and soundbites you've heard before? Do you feel watching certain interviews is an assault on your intelligence?

Do you wonder why official Israeli spokespersons sound so calm, smiley and kind when their popular base sounds so angry, so aggressive, and so racist? How they are likely to say something like, "thank you it's nice to be with you", even after being grilled by a probing frustrated anchor. Why, when asked about the expansion of illegal settlements, Israeli spokespersons speak of the need for a peace settlement, and when asked about bombing civilians, they speak of a better future for all children, Israeli and Palestinian?

Wonder no more. This is all part of a well-thought, well-orchestrated media strategy to mystify, mislead and even misrepresent the reality. And much of it can be found in The Israel Project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary.

But this is not unique to Israel. Governments set up entire ministries and/or institutions to defend their policies and advance their narrative, at times to mislead their enemies or competitors. Indeed, it's naive to expect otherwise. Like cynicism, gullibility is especially dangerous for journalists.

Don't say that, say this

Five years ago, US-based "The Israel Project" asked a Zionist Republican pollster, Frank Luntz, to prepare a new updated media guide for "leaders who are on the front lines of fighting the media war for Israel". The project builds on some of the best examples of Israeli leaders' own success at mystification, in order to devise a strategy that neutralises Israel's critics and promotes and improves its media standing.

It's a step-by-step guide that underlines "the words that work" and the "words that don't work" when speaking to westerners. Like any marketing or PR campaign, much of the suggested code words, phrases and sound bites are based on polls.

INTERACTIVE: Gaza Under Attack

The report came after Israel's 2008 Gaza war and following US President Barack Obama's denouncement of Israeli settlements and his overtures towards Iran. It was prepared for internal use only and kept secret, until it was finally leaked in the fall of 2009.

So for example, how to sell Americans on the Israeli settlements: "Be positive. Turn the issue away from settlements and toward peace. Invoke ethnic cleansing."

And how to gain the support of viewers: The pro-Israel pundits are instructed to be careful with their tone.

"A patronising, parental tone will turn Americans and Europeans off" because it's at a time in history when Jews in general - and Israelis in particular - are "no longer perceived as the persecuted people".

Among sophisticated, educated, opinionated American and European audiences, "Israelis are often seen as the occupiers and the aggressors. With that kind of baggage, it is critical that messages from the pro-Israel spokespeople not come across as supercilious or condescending."

And since the US evangelical base already supports Israel, the Dictionary warns against using religious arguments when speaking to western leftists or liberals. But since to "much of the Left", both sides are equally at fault, and because the Israelis are more powerful, the most effective way to build support for Israel is to talk about "working toward a lasting peace" that "respects the rights of everyone in the region".

And why is it so important to always speak of peace? The report signals two reasons: One: If Americans see no hope for peace - if they only see a continuation of a 2,000-year-long episode of "Family Feud" - Americans will not want their government to spend tax dollars or their president's clout on helping Israel. Reason two: "The speaker that is perceived as being most for peace will win the debate."

And this is one of my favourite attempts at deception:

"Americans agree that Israel has a right to defensible borders. But it does you no good to define exactly what those borders should be. Avoid talking about borders in terms of pre- or post-1967, because it only serves to remind Americans of Israel's military history. Particularly on the left, this does you harm."

Gaza sequel

Chapter six of the 18-chapter, 117-page guide focuses on the lessons from the last Gaza war and proposes a more effective public diplomacy for the next time around, i.e. this round.

One of the first recommendations goes as follows:

"Israel made painful sacrifices and took a risk to give peace a chance. They voluntarily removed over 9,000 settlers from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, abandoning homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship in the hopes of renewing the peace process."

And "Despite making an overture for peace by withdrawing from Gaza, Israel continues to face terrorist attacks, including rocket attacks and drive-by shootings of innocent Israelis. Israel knows that for a lasting peace, they must be free from terrorism and live with defensible borders."

Needless to say, much of the formulation is misleading. Most of the illegal settlers had already moved out because of mounting Palestinian resistance, pushing Israel to finally redeploy its military without any coordination with the Palestinian Authority. The decision was motivated by the need to disengage demographically from 1.5 million impoverished Palestinians and was based on cost-benefit a--lysis, not peace strategy. All of which partially explains why Israel has being laying siege to Gaza and reckons it has the right to intervene militarily at will ever since.

At any rate, the guide suggests that defenders and promoters of Israel's war need to use the kind of language that "may be hard for some of you to say, but every result of research confirms that an approach like this is the best way for an Israeli spokesperson to truly be heard and therefore make a difference".

Consider these choice tidbits: "Israel should not be bombing Gaza. I will repeat that. Israel should not be forced into a situation where they have to bomb Gaza. Likewise, Hamas should not be deliberately firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel. If the rockets stop, we can achieve that peace where Palestinian and Israeli children live in safety."

"When it comes time to talk about rockets, the best word is 'deliberate'. Don't say that Hamas is 'randomly rocketing Israel'. Do say 'Hamas is deliberately firing rockets into Israeli towns, communities, and civilian populations'."

"Paint a vivid picture of what life is like for Israeli civilians and children under the constant threat of rocket attack. You have to humanise why Gaza happened and what Israel has faced for weeks, months, even years."

Five-step guide to winning hearts

The guide advises the pro-Israel camps to "use rhetorical questions to gain permission from the audience for Israel's actions".

For example: "What should Israel do? Imagine, if thousands of rockets were fired into your community every day and every night? What would your country do? What would you want them to do? Don't we have a duty to protect our citizens?"

And here comes the worst bit of deception:

"Americans recognise that rocket attacks are an impediment to peace; but they do not accept rockets as an excuse to abandon peace. It is utterly expected that Israeli spokespersons will talk about proportionality and prevention of rocket attacks. But if you take the unexpected approach of talking about another 'p' word - the most important 'p' word to the public - you generate immense credibility."

So here's the five-step approach to talking about civilian casualties in Gaza:

Empathy: "All human life is precious. We understand that the loss of one innocent Palestinian life is every bit as tragic as the loss of an Israeli life."

Admission: "We admit that Israel isn't always successful at preventing civilian casualties..."

Effort: "We remain committed to doing everything in our power to preventing civilian casualties."

Examples: "Let me tell you how our armed forces are trained, tasked, and operate to ensure that Palestinian civilians remain safe."

Turn tables: "It is a tragedy that Iran-backed Hamas shoots rockets at our civilians while hiding in their own ... This causes tragic deaths on both sides."

The guide concludes this chapter on the worst possible advice: "Israel should not give any more land for peace, because every time it does, it just gets more war."

Marwan Bishara is the senior political a--lyst at Al Jazeera.

.....

This exact rhetorics we've seen on this forum. Like people literally follow this guide.

Exactly. But that's because they're mostly repeating their government's propaganda

and they forgot to mention calling Hamas terrorists and that they therefor can't work together with them.

[Jjang 2,262]

Israel's media strategy: What lies beneath

How the Israeli government is misleading the world one press conference at a time.

Do you wonder why there are many questions left unanswered regarding the Israeli escalation in Gaza? Why the questions are so meek, the responses so murky, the phrases come in cliches and soundbites you've heard before? Do you feel watching certain interviews is an assault on your intelligence?

Do you wonder why official Israeli spokespersons sound so calm, smiley and kind when their popular base sounds so angry, so aggressive, and so racist? How they are likely to say something like, "thank you it's nice to be with you", even after being grilled by a probing frustrated anchor. Why, when asked about the expansion of illegal settlements, Israeli spokespersons speak of the need for a peace settlement, and when asked about bombing civilians, they speak of a better future for all children, Israeli and Palestinian?

Wonder no more. This is all part of a well-thought, well-orchestrated media strategy to mystify, mislead and even misrepresent the reality. And much of it can be found in The Israel Project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary.

But this is not unique to Israel. Governments set up entire ministries and/or institutions to defend their policies and advance their narrative, at times to mislead their enemies or competitors. Indeed, it's naive to expect otherwise. Like cynicism, gullibility is especially dangerous for journalists.

Don't say that, say this

Five years ago, US-based "The Israel Project" asked a Zionist Republican pollster, Frank Luntz, to prepare a new updated media guide for "leaders who are on the front lines of fighting the media war for Israel". The project builds on some of the best examples of Israeli leaders' own success at mystification, in order to devise a strategy that neutralises Israel's critics and promotes and improves its media standing.

It's a step-by-step guide that underlines "the words that work" and the "words that don't work" when speaking to westerners. Like any marketing or PR campaign, much of the suggested code words, phrases and sound bites are based on polls.

INTERACTIVE: Gaza Under Attack

The report came after Israel's 2008 Gaza war and following US President Barack Obama's denouncement of Israeli settlements and his overtures towards Iran. It was prepared for internal use only and kept secret, until it was finally leaked in the fall of 2009.

So for example, how to sell Americans on the Israeli settlements: "Be positive. Turn the issue away from settlements and toward peace. Invoke ethnic cleansing."

And how to gain the support of viewers: The pro-Israel pundits are instructed to be careful with their tone.

"A patronising, parental tone will turn Americans and Europeans off" because it's at a time in history when Jews in general - and Israelis in particular - are "no longer perceived as the persecuted people".

Among sophisticated, educated, opinionated American and European audiences, "Israelis are often seen as the occupiers and the aggressors. With that kind of baggage, it is critical that messages from the pro-Israel spokespeople not come across as supercilious or condescending."

And since the US evangelical base already supports Israel, the Dictionary warns against using religious arguments when speaking to western leftists or liberals. But since to "much of the Left", both sides are equally at fault, and because the Israelis are more powerful, the most effective way to build support for Israel is to talk about "working toward a lasting peace" that "respects the rights of everyone in the region".

And why is it so important to always speak of peace? The report signals two reasons: One: If Americans see no hope for peace - if they only see a continuation of a 2,000-year-long episode of "Family Feud" - Americans will not want their government to spend tax dollars or their president's clout on helping Israel. Reason two: "The speaker that is perceived as being most for peace will win the debate."

And this is one of my favourite attempts at deception:

"Americans agree that Israel has a right to defensible borders. But it does you no good to define exactly what those borders should be. Avoid talking about borders in terms of pre- or post-1967, because it only serves to remind Americans of Israel's military history. Particularly on the left, this does you harm."

Gaza sequel

Chapter six of the 18-chapter, 117-page guide focuses on the lessons from the last Gaza war and proposes a more effective public diplomacy for the next time around, i.e. this round.

One of the first recommendations goes as follows:

"Israel made painful sacrifices and took a risk to give peace a chance. They voluntarily removed over 9,000 settlers from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, abandoning homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship in the hopes of renewing the peace process."

And "Despite making an overture for peace by withdrawing from Gaza, Israel continues to face terrorist attacks, including rocket attacks and drive-by shootings of innocent Israelis. Israel knows that for a lasting peace, they must be free from terrorism and live with defensible borders."

Needless to say, much of the formulation is misleading. Most of the illegal settlers had already moved out because of mounting Palestinian resistance, pushing Israel to finally redeploy its military without any coordination with the Palestinian Authority. The decision was motivated by the need to disengage demographically from 1.5 million impoverished Palestinians and was based on cost-benefit a--lysis, not peace strategy. All of which partially explains why Israel has being laying siege to Gaza and reckons it has the right to intervene militarily at will ever since.

At any rate, the guide suggests that defenders and promoters of Israel's war need to use the kind of language that "may be hard for some of you to say, but every result of research confirms that an approach like this is the best way for an Israeli spokesperson to truly be heard and therefore make a difference".

Consider these choice tidbits: "Israel should not be bombing Gaza. I will repeat that. Israel should not be forced into a situation where they have to bomb Gaza. Likewise, Hamas should not be deliberately firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel. If the rockets stop, we can achieve that peace where Palestinian and Israeli children live in safety."

"When it comes time to talk about rockets, the best word is 'deliberate'. Don't say that Hamas is 'randomly rocketing Israel'. Do say 'Hamas is deliberately firing rockets into Israeli towns, communities, and civilian populations'."

"Paint a vivid picture of what life is like for Israeli civilians and children under the constant threat of rocket attack. You have to humanise why Gaza happened and what Israel has faced for weeks, months, even years."

Five-step guide to winning hearts

The guide advises the pro-Israel camps to "use rhetorical questions to gain permission from the audience for Israel's actions".

For example: "What should Israel do? Imagine, if thousands of rockets were fired into your community every day and every night? What would your country do? What would you want them to do? Don't we have a duty to protect our citizens?"

And here comes the worst bit of deception:

"Americans recognise that rocket attacks are an impediment to peace; but they do not accept rockets as an excuse to abandon peace. It is utterly expected that Israeli spokespersons will talk about proportionality and prevention of rocket attacks. But if you take the unexpected approach of talking about another 'p' word - the most important 'p' word to the public - you generate immense credibility."

So here's the five-step approach to talking about civilian casualties in Gaza:

Empathy: "All human life is precious. We understand that the loss of one innocent Palestinian life is every bit as tragic as the loss of an Israeli life."

Admission: "We admit that Israel isn't always successful at preventing civilian casualties..."

Effort: "We remain committed to doing everything in our power to preventing civilian casualties."

Examples: "Let me tell you how our armed forces are trained, tasked, and operate to ensure that Palestinian civilians remain safe."

Turn tables: "It is a tragedy that Iran-backed Hamas shoots rockets at our civilians while hiding in their own ... This causes tragic deaths on both sides."

The guide concludes this chapter on the worst possible advice: "Israel should not give any more land for peace, because every time it does, it just gets more war."

Marwan Bishara is the senior political a--lyst at Al Jazeera.

.....

This exact rhetorics we've seen on this forum. Like people literally follow this guide.

*