Propagande et désinformation à l’israélienne (I)

Leaked Israel lobby presentation urges US officials to justify war on Gaza with ‘Hamas rape’ claims - The Grayzone
▻https://thegrayzone.com/2024/03/06/leaked-israel-lobby-officials-war-gaza-mass-rape

https://thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IMAGE-MAX-MAR-6-version-2.jpg

#Frank_Luntz

Le manuel de propagande israélien n’est plus confidentiel...

Israel-Gaza conflict: The secret report that helps Israelis to hide facts - Comment - Voices - The Independent

▻http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment

Israeli spokesmen have their work cut out explaining how they have killed more than 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza, most of them civilians, compared with just three civilians killed in Israel by Hamas rocket and mortar fire. But on television and radio and in newspapers, Israeli government spokesmen such as Mark Regev appear slicker and less aggressive than their predecessors, who were often visibly indifferent to how many Palestinians were killed.
There is a reason for this enhancement of the PR skills of Israeli spokesmen. Going by what they say, the playbook they are using is a professional, well-researched and confidential study on how to influence the media and public opinion in America and Europe. Written by the expert Republican pollster and political strategist Dr Frank Luntz, the study was commissioned five years ago by a group called The Israel Project, with offices in the US and Israel, for use by those “who are on the front lines of fighting the media war for Israel”.

Every one of the 112 pages in the booklet is marked “not for distribution or publication” and it is easy to see why. The Luntz report, officially entitled "The Israel project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary, was leaked almost immediately to Newsweek Online, but its true importance has seldom been appreciated. It should be required reading for everybody, especially journalists, interested in any aspect of Israeli policy because of its “dos and don’ts” for Israeli spokesmen.

These are highly illuminating about the gap between what Israeli officials and politicians really believe, and what they say, the latter shaped in minute detail by polling to determine what Americans want to hear. Certainly, no journalist interviewing an Israeli spokesman should do so without reading this preview of many of the themes and phrases employed by Mr Regev and his colleagues.

Mark Regev The booklet is full of meaty advice about how they should shape their answers for different audiences. For example, the study says that “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. For instance, support for Israel’s right to defensible borders drops from a heady 89 per cent to under 60 per cent when you talk about it in terms of 1967.”

How about the right of return for Palestinian refugees who were expelled or fled in 1948 and in the following years, and who are not allowed to go back to their homes? Here Dr Luntz has subtle advice for spokesmen, saying that “the right of return is a tough issue for Israelis to communicate effectively because much of Israeli language sounds like the ’separate but equal’ words of the 1950s segregationists and the 1980s advocates of Apartheid. The fact is, Americans don’t like, don’t believe and don’t accept the concept of ’separate but equal’.”

So how should spokesmen deal with what the booklet admits is a tough question? They should call it a “demand”, on the grounds that Americans don’t like people who make demands. “Then say ’Palestinians aren’t content with their own state. Now they’re demanding territory inside Israel’.” Other suggestions for an effective Israeli response include saying that the right of return might become part of a final settlement “at some point in the future”.

Dr Luntz notes that Americans as a whole are fearful of mass immigration into the US, so mention of “mass Palestinian immigration” into Israel will not go down well with them. If nothing else works, say that the return of Palestinians would “derail the effort to achieve peace”.

The Luntz report was written in the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead in December 2008 and January 2009, when 1,387 Palestinians and nine Israelis were killed.

There is a whole chapter on “isolating Iran-backed Hamas as an obstacle to peace”. Unfortunately, come the current Operation Protective Edge, which began on 6 July, there was a problem for Israeli propagandists because Hamas had quarrelled with Iran over the war in Syria and had no contact with Tehran. Friendly relations have been resumed only in the past few days – thanks to the Israeli invasion.❞

C’est le moment idéal pour relire le Global Language Dictionary 2009, par The Israel Project, fuité en 2009 par Newsweek. Avec ça tu pourras facilement apprendre à parler comme Arno Klarsfeld et François Hollande.
▻http://www.webcitation.org/5ipYcwvxr

Par exemple page 50 :

Take some time to talk about Israel’s efforts to prevent civilian casualties. The issue of Palestinian civilian casualties is one of the most damaging in the entire debate. Americans accept Israel’s right to defend itself. They understand that Iran-backed Hamas hides behind civilians.

Nevertheless, they place the burden on the Israeli military to do everything in its power to avoid civilian casualties. They perceive Israel to have significant military superiority and to be held accountable to international standards of conduct. They will accept that some civilian casualties are inevitable, but if your language isn’t correct about how seriously Israel takes this issue, they will refuse to accept your arguments about the vulnerability of Israel’s civilians.

So here is the five-step approach to talking about civilian casualties in Gaza:
– STEP 1 – 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.”
– STEP 2 – Admission: “We admit that Israel isn’t always successful at preventing civilian casualties...”
– STEP 3 - Effort: “We remain committed to doing everything in our power to preventing civilian casualties.”
– STEP 4 – Examples: “Let me tell you how our armed forces are trained, tasked, and operate to ensure that Palestinian civilians remain safe.”
‐ STEP 5 – Turn Tables: “It is a great tragedy that Iran‐backed Hamas shoots rockets at our civilians while hiding in their own. This causes tragic deaths on BOTH sides. What would you do if you were in this situation?”

Si tu ne connais pas ce document, il faut d’urgence que tu te mettes à jour. C’est un des incontournables de la propagande israélienne.

Israel Project - 2009 Global Language Dictionary
▻http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Project

The Israel Project commissioned a study by Frank Luntz who ran polls and focus groups to determine the best language to use to promote Israeli settlements to the American public.[12] The study was marked, “Not for distribution or publication” and was leaked to Newsweek online. It recommends being positive, framing the issue as being about peace not settlements. The document also lists arguments that don’t work, in particular noting that religious, ownership and “scapegoat” arguments failed to sway listeners, that Arab housing is being demolished in East Jerusalem because it fails to meet the building code, the worst claim by this group in the guide is “Israel is so rich and so strong that they fail to see why it is necessary for armored tanks to shoot at unarmed kids” para (3) page 90. This study states that “public opinion is hostile to the settlements - even among supporters of Israel” so instead of dwelling on settlements one should always talk positively and focus on past peace achievement. [12] [13]

Les techniques secrètes pour contrôler les #forums et l’opinion publique | Korben
►http://korben.info/techniques-secretes-controler-forums-opinion-publique.html

Techniques pour manipuler les forums sur Internet

Il existe plusieurs techniques dédiées au contrôle et à la manipulation d’un forum sur internet, peu importe le contenu ou les personnes qui sont dessus. Nous allons voir chaque technique et démontrer qu’un nombre minimum d’étapes suffit pour prendre efficacement le contrôle d’un « forum incontrôlable. »

Technique #1 – « FORUM SLIDING »

Technique #2 – « CONSENSUS CRACKING »

Technique #3 – « TOPIC DILUTION »

Technique #4 – « COLLECTE D’INFORMATION »

Technique #5 – « TROLLING ÉNERVÉ »

Technique #6 – « ACQUÉRIR LE CONTRÔLE TOTAL »

bref on dirait bien que la #CIA a lu uZine
►http://www.uzine.net/article1032.html