Advocating for Israel (Advanced Techniques)

1. Who, Where and What?

Advocacy isn’t therapy, we don’t do it to feel better; we do it to win. What you communicate about Israel must be based
on what your audience needs to hear, not what you want to say. There is seldom such a thing as a “universal” statement or
response when discussing Israel; rather the message must be modulated for the audience and situation you are advocating
within.

1.1. Who?
Be clear who your audience is. Not everyone is open to persuasion, and not everyone needs persuasion. Generally, you are
advocating for the unconvinced.
Find out as much as you can about that segment of your audience, and try and make your messages relevant for them.

1.2. Where?
The context of the interaction is important. What works in one situation will not work in another. Outside an awards
ceremony where Yasir Arafat is being honored as “Humanitarian of the Year”, it’s reasonable to chant slogans (amongst
other actions). In a discussion in a quasi-academic environment it will not usually appear reasonable, even if it is justified.
A nuanced and discursive presentation of Israel’s present dilemmas might be impressive in a one-on-one conversation. It
will be quoted out of context in a news report, even if the reporter is not malicious.
A brief statement in a classroom can be interminably long on television.

1.3. What?
How pro-Israel should you be? When does it make sense to be passionate and unapologetic, and when to appear more
“objective” and “even handed”?
Authenticity can justify passion. The rape victim is seldom berated for her lack of objectivity. The parents of Rachel Corey
cannot be attacked for their anger over their daughter’s death. The mother of Kobey Mandel cannot be urged to be more
objective. Note, this has nothing to do with the justice of the case, but with the perception of justification. In general, if
passion can be portrayed as justified, it is usually acceptable.
How far should your message be from the position already held by your audience? Addressing a group of socialists on the
need to support Israel, because that’s the patriotic thing to do, is unlikely to achieve success! However, quoting Trotsky, or
Fidel Castro could impress them.
The general rule is that, if you are a credible source, you can usually succeed with effective messages, even if they are far
from the audience’s current position. If you are less credible, go for messages closer to their current position.

2. The problem of complexity

Ask yourself what you know about the treatment of the ethnic Chinese in Malaysia, or the lengthy civil war in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo? If I were tell you that, in the former, the ethnic Chinese are officially discriminated
against, and in the latter over two million civilians have been killed, you might be appalled, interested or immediately start
thinking about the world’s hypocrisy when chastising Israel. It is doubtful that many worldly, educated, listeners will ask
for much more information. Most would feel satisfied that now they know the most important things about the countries in
question. But of course, the situation is obviously more complex than can be summed up in two facts.

POB 2534, Jerusalem 91024, Israel · Tel. +972-2-651-2610 · Fax +972-2-652-4968 · e-mail: jccat@iname.com
 Advocating for Israel (Advanced Techniques)

Audiences respond to this un-addressed complexity in two ways:

They will say that the complexity is irrelevant, and hold firm to their position.

Or,

They will reject the possibility of making a judgment, since the issue is complex.

The only exception to this rule is when there is social pressure to accept a particular position. Remember that South Africa
was one of those issues. Israel has become another. Hence, discussion about Israel can lead to a pre-determined
conclusion, even if it is not justified by the arguments offered, or even if the arguments are refuted. The social convention
of perceiving Israel as the problem can create a context in which the more we discuss Israel, the more it is condemned.
Perhaps the best strategy in such a situation is to enlarge the discussion to the wider, and objectively more significant
issues of the Middle-East. Ironically, we – the ones who are concerned about Israel – must often try and limit discussion
about it!

But beware; many “sophisticated” people like to appear nuanced, even if they are not. In order to get them to acknowledge
a simple truth, you must often “throw them a bone” of complexity (“no one’s claiming Israel’s perfect…”, “certainly there
have been isolated instances of abuse by Israeli troops – I know that because the abusers have been brought to trial in
Israel.”). Be careful how far you go with this; remember, the communication objective is to convey a simple truth (“No
one’s claiming Israel’s perfect… but it is a functioning democracy with a free press and an independent judiciary”.
“Certainly there have been isolated instances of abuse by Israeli troops – I know that because the abusers have been
brought to trial in Israel. The Palestinian Arabs, in contrast, extol and lionize their human rights abusers and war
criminals”).

3. Positive v. Negative Messages

Many people in western democracies express dismay at what they perceive as the consistently negative tone of political
advertising. Yet, research shows that the volume of positive advertising sometimes exceeds the negative. The inescapable
conclusion is that negative messages are the most memorable, and therefore the most effective.

When presenting Israel’s case it is important to emphasize positive messages about Israel (international co-operation,
ethnic diversity, contribution to high-tech etc.), but never expect these messages to win an argument. If you look at the
successes of the “bad guys”, you will see that they have not been achieved by talking about Palestinian art, but rather by
viciously attacking Israel!

4. Long Term v. Short Term

Some very important recent research (notably in the US by Frank Luntz) has revealed some of the messages concerning
Israel that are measurably effective. Most of you will be aware that one element of this research calls for the constant
repetition of the word “peace”. When peace seems a distant dream, many feel uncomfortable with mouthing a term that
they feel is, at best meaningless, and at worst, already the property of the “other side”. Some would rather speak of what
they see as the root causes of why there is on peace (rejectionism, culture of violence, dhimitude etc.). Yet the research
shows that such messages are ineffective.

The successful advocate must distinguish between long and short-term advocacy goals. No one can doubt that the
prescribed “Luntz” approach is immediately effective. However, no research has yet been done on the long term effects of
changing the parameters of discourse on the Middle East. Thirty years ago, the parameters of debate on the Middle East
were very different. The assertion that “Zionism=Racism” was met with amusement when it wasn’t met with scorn. Part of
what changed parameters was the long term commitment by Arab advocates, to press what were, at the time, unpopular
messages.

It is important to view the pro-Israel campaign as a long-term effort. Where do we want the debate to be ten, twenty, or
even fifty years from now? We have to start now to spread these messages, even if they are unpopular today.

However, in order to get into the long term, we must pass through the short and medium terms, and these require different
messages. It is important that messages designed for these different time frames, do not interfere with each other, and that
the various stages of the campaign dovetail.

Page 2
 Advocating for Israel (Advanced Techniques)

4.1. Short term messages

Israel wants peace, and has already given up land for it.
Israel is a democracy.
Israel is threatened by atrocious acts of terror.
Israel is like America, and Israelis are like Americans (or whatever Western democracy you are operating in).

4.2. Medium term messages

Israel isn’t the problem in the Middle East; it’s the solution (democracy, rule of law, women’s rights etc.)
Israel is the “canary in the mine shaft”; the dangers it has faced are the dangers that the West faces today, and will face in
the future.
If Israel falls, we all fall.
It’s the Arab/Israel conflict, not the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Focus on massive abuse of human rights in Arab world.

4.3. Long term messages

Islamism is the problem.
Examples of dhimitude.
Focus on massive abuse of human rights in Arab world.

5. Responding
Responding to an accusation – whether in an interview, a debate, or a political campaign – is always problematic. You run
the risk of being trapped inside the conceptual frame of your accuser. A factually correct response to his specific point
may not be enough to overturn the impression created by the accusation. A joke from the “good old days” of the Soviet
Union illustrates this point.

Having declared that half the members of the Politburo are fools, a Jewish dissident is
arrested for the crime of insulting public officials. In court he announces his contrition, and
offers to retract his statement. The court agrees to release him on this condition, and he
solemnly affirms that half the members of the Politburo are not fools!

On the other hand, simply refusing to respond to an accusation can leave you appearing guilty without a defense, or
evasive.

How should one avoid this trap?

6. Techniques of response
An effective response is one that changes the conceptual frame of the discussion. There are three basic techniques of
response.

6.1. Refuting
Quoting a notoriously unreliable source.

The Islamist who quotes information from a neo-Nazi website,
 can be confronted with this fact and accused of being in league with antisemites.
Supplying information that must be false by definition.

A Jewish anti-Zionist says that Ariel Sharon was a member of the “terrorist Stern Gang” during
Israel’s war of Independence, and therefore is a terrorist himself.

Page 3
 Advocating for Israel (Advanced Techniques)

 However, Ariel Sharon joined the Hagganah at the age of 14 in 1942. During the 1948 War of
Independence, he commanded an infantry company in the Alexandroni Brigade. So the accusation
cannot be true.
Supplying information that can be refuted from a widely accepted source.

A leftist claims that, “America's support of Israel is the reason that terrorists hijacked four airplanes
and attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001.”
 “Osama bin Laden made his explosions and then started talking about the Palestinians. He never
talked about them before.” — Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Newsweek, (October 29, 2001).
Supplying information that is self contradictory, or contradicts some other declaration from the same or allied
source.

A Palestinian Authority spokesman claims that Israel’s restrictions on Palestinians are holding
millions of Palestinians in an airtight prison. Further restrictions are not justified since they are
immoral, and couldn’t stop suicide bombers anyway.
 He can’t have it both ways. Israel can’t be both stopping anyone from moving, and be letting suicide
bombers walk around at will!

7. Blocking
If you cannot answer a question, you can say so, justify your refusal, and go on to discuss something else.

A campus activist details an horrific account of an Israeli soldier’s abuse of a Palestinian Arab in
“the West Bank, last month”, and demands that you condemn it.
 You cannot respond to this point, since you have no information on the specific event. But you can
say that in the few instances that Israeli soldiers have abused their position (some isolated examples
of petty theft in Jenin in May 2002) they have been punished for it.

8. Bridging
If you can briefly respond to a specific accusation, and then convincingly go on to address a different, more compelling
issue, you have succeeded in changing the conceptual frame in the most effective way.

A Jewish critic of Israel asserts that it is Israel’s “occupation of Palestinian land” that is the cause of
the conflict.
 Well, Israel’s presence in the disputed territories can’t be the cause of the conflict. If they were, why
was there a conflict before Her presence in the territories? No the real issue is Arab rejectionism of
Israel.

N.B. This handout is intended only as an aide memoir for participants in a workshop designed by David
Olesker. The statements made in it do not stand alone, and indeed if read as such, would give a false
impression of a complex subject.
David Olesker is the founder and Director of J•C•C•A•T the Jerusalem Center for Communications and
Advocacy Training. It is a non-partisan organization specializing in training advocates for Israel.

Page 4