During a discussion on one of my blog posts last week, the brilliant Israelinurse wrote:
“Let’s keep in sight the fact that there are things more important than PR, even if sometimes it appears to be the biggest thing. Israel didn’t board those ships in order to enhance its image in the world. We did so because we have no choice. The minute that blockade is seen to be passable we will get a whole bunch of Karin A style vessels transporting state of the art weapons from Iran into Gaza.”
She’s absolutely right, of course. Her views are echoed by many of my Israeli friends. Not for them the hand-wringing concern about their public image. They are – as ever – most concerned about security and survival. I suppose the counter-argument might be that improved Israeli PR could lead to an improvement in Israel’s security. But it is easy to take the latter stance from the safety of our British homes. We’ve never had to sprint, children in our arms, into bomb shelters under rocket attack. Nor have we faced suicide bombings on the relentless scale that Israelis have.
Evidence of this experiential divide was clear in an article about the blockade by the often-brilliant Nick Cohen in yesterday’s Observer. The article concluded:
“Israelis are not being irrational. The same fears persuade the Egyptian government to blockade Gaza from the south, although we rarely hear about that. But the way to handle hypocrites is not to say as Israelis do that “the world will condemn us whatever policy we follow” but to call their bluff. If Israel were to relax the import restrictions and Hamas were to rearm, reasonable opinion, including reasonable Palestinian opinion, would see it for what it would be: a declaration of war.”
Those are easy words to type in north London, but they would not roll so freely in Sderot. The reality of Hamas re-arming would be a resumption of terrorism unleashed on the population of southern Israel and maybe beyond. We all know what the result of that would be. One wonders how many dead Israelis would be worth some ‘good PR’.
However, speaking of good PR, here is a story of an Arab from Jenin having his life saved in an Israeli hospital: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137921
Israel “called the world’s bluff” when it withdrew from Gaza. The rationale given was that “the world will see that we gave up land for peace, so if we are attacked from Gaza they will understand when we respond”–didn’t exactly work that way, did it?
Quite right cba. Nick Cohen was already proved wrong before he started. HAMAS *is* armed already and *does* attack Israel. It is only Israel and Egypt’s efforts that place any limit on this at all. In any case Nick Cohen, why should Israel “relax the import restrictions”, when other nations do no such thing? I can’t take my own water through Heathrow, but HAMAS should be allowed to import what it wants? Israel should let ships go straight to Gaza unchecked, while the US Coast Guard interdicts vessels suspected of smuggling with deadly force? Can anyone say Judenhass?
I have tremendous respect for Nick Cohen and often find myself agreeing with his opinions, but on this one he’s wrong.
As cba so rightly says, we’ve been there, done that and got the t.shirt. It didn’t work in Gaza and it didn’t work in Lebanon.
Nations have a responsibility which is not only moral but legal to protect their citizens and avoid as far as possible putting them in harm’s way. With all due respect, Nick Cohen’s proposal is irresponsible and reckless and any Israeli government which agreed to it would be deserting its post.
“I have tremendous respect for Nick Cohen…”
Me too. And I agree with everything else in your comment.
Of course, in a war situation the PR question is irrelevant. Hamas has unilaterally declared war on Israel through its charter and de facto by regular acts of aggression, as evidenced by rocket attacks and the intercepted attack today. In support of Israel we should not even debate the issue of ‘PR’ – we should treat it like holocaust denial and just refuse to engage in discussing it. We should make the point that no one has yet created security for its people or stopped an aggressor by engaging in a PR campaign.
“the counter-argument might be that improved Israeli PR could lead to an improvement in Israel’s security.”
There is no Israeli PR that can work. Because Israel will be universally damned no matter what it does, PR needs to be taken out of the equation when making a security decision. This has been Israel’s mistake. It bowed to public opinion in both the Gaza and Hezbulah wars. Israel was condemned thoroughly by the world and now still has to deal with Hamas and Hezbulah, and will be condemned again.
Stan
As soon as I read yesterday’s Pearls Before Swine comic strip I thought of Israel. Then I read today’s strip and now I’m certain that’s what was in the cartoonist’s mind.
http://comics.com/pearls_before_swine/2010-06-06/ and http://comics.com/pearls_before_swine/2010-06-07/
You might also notice the significance of the elephant’s name (and the fact that he’s an elephant, come to that).
as well as agreeing with the sentiment expressed above that combatting immediate threats to national security should take precedence over pr efforts, i would further add that in israel’s case pr is somewhat of a waste of time.
it is obvious that those reporting the story have already made their minds up and allow their preconceptions to colour and distort their reporting of the story, irrespective of the strength or weakness of israeli pr.
equally politicians don’t seem to be concerned with what the actual facts of the case are. this is realpolitik and they are just positioning themselves in a way that best serves their political ambitions and their egos.
even when there are clear cut cases that are seemingly good (israel) vs evil (other), israel can expect to be condemned – stretching right back to the kidnap, trial and execution of eichmann.
This is a serious question, so please bear with me.
Time and time again, I hear about the media and people in general having already made up their mind on this issue. It’s taken as a given here and elsewhere that whenever Israel is talked about in the media, the news channels have already decided that Israel is in the wrong, and that everyone’s sympathies lie with the Muslims and the Palestinians.
My question is this: why are you assuming this? In 2001, it was Muslims who blew up the Twin Towers. On 7/7 it was Muslims who attacked London. Almost weekly, the tabloids have a front-page story (almost always fabricated, btw) about Muslims demanding something, be it the removal of Christmas lights, the words to popular children’s songs being changed, or the right not to sell goods and services in accordance with their faith. Do a poll with the public, and you’ll struggle to find a majority saying Muslims are well-integrated members of society (no matter how wrong this is). So why then, do you believe the media and the general public, on this issue, side with the Arab world?
who said the media aren’t prejudiced against muslims too? especially the ‘audacity’ of those who choose to come in live in britain (the people moaning about this are often british expats in spain, oh the irony).
having said this, 9/11 and 7/7 WERE carried out by muslims, and so it is fair comment for the media to report that muslim extremism is a threat to the enlightened world (and even more so to the unenlightened world, altho this is less widely covered by the media). it is NOT fair comment to report the events of last weekend as a raid on a “humanitarian aid convoy” resulting in “peace activists” being killed.
but i don’t think media prejudice against muslims and against israel are mutually exclusive.
The media aren’t pro Muslim, they’re antiJew (sorry, I meant Zionist)–a small but crucial difference.
Calling their bluff is fine, providing its not you doing the calling. Nick Cohen is brilliant but this is just not one of his best ideas.
I was in Sderot last Christmas and put together this short video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUkQpjnCAq0&feature=channel
Interesting to learn that Hamas fire rockets into Israel aiming for the power station in Ashdod. When the power goes out because the power station has been hit, they call in the media and tell them the Israelis have turned out the power.
A rearmed Hamas might not be the same existential threat to israel with the advent of iron dome http://www.armybase.us/2009/07/israel-successfully-tests-anti-rocket-the-iron-dome-system/
I agree fully with the comments by cba and Israelinurse above.
I mailed Nick Cohen on reading his article with words to that effect, that no sovereign government can simply call the bluff of a group like Hamas…it would be condemning its own citizens to certain fear and death because we know Hamas would arm to the teeth, with much more advanced weaponry than before. They would be able to target any corner of the country.
The potential downsides are too serious and too likely, compared with the potential upside of, well, Nick Cohen doesn’t even pretend it will bring peace – only that “reasonable opinion” will be on Israel’s side if Hamas does arm and attack. As I pointed out to him (and as has been posted above), “reasonable opinion” certainly didn’t rally behind Israel while Sderot and other towns suffered. The world seemed to barely notice, until Israel decided enough was enough that is.
I see Nick Cohen as being friendly to Israel and I think he genuinely believes his suggestions are in Israel’s interests, but his perspective is flawed. Would he be happy as an Israeli for his government to put his life at grave risk, on the outside chance that some Guardian columnists might take a softer line in future?
What’s very surprising is how many solidly pro-Israel commentators in Britain have commended his article.