industryterm:public relations efforts

U.S., Israel have few options to stop the Palestinian diplomatic momentum
’Palestine 194’: The energetic global diplomatic and public relations efforts toward Palestinian state recognition that largely bypasses the U.S. and leaves Israel to protest from the sidelines.
By Grant Rumley | Oct. 23, 2014 | Haaretz
▻http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.622436

The Palestinian struggle with Israel has reached its diplomatic stage. In the months since this summer’s Gaza war, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas accused Israel of genocide, while other Palestinian officials threatened to take Israel to the International Criminal Court. With Gaza – and the latest peace talks – in ruins, the Palestinians are confident the momentum is theirs.

They appear to be right. This month Sweden vowed to recognize Palestine as an independent state, and British lawmakers passed a non-binding resolution to do the same. In the corridors of power in Ramallah these developments are celebrated as momentous achievements decades in the making.

In September, Abbas visited France, where he met with his French counterpart Francois Hollande, who hinted France might be ready to assist the Palestinians in their long-anticipated battle for statehood recognition at the United Nations Security Council. This summer, a European Union adopted a ban on poultry products produced in West Bank settlements, and will expand it to all dairy and fish products early next year. While the economic effects of the bans are minimal, Israeli officials have acknowledged their significance on the diplomatic front.

The EU is also preparing a new set of punitive sanctions to level against Israel for any future construction beyond the 1949 armistice line. The Dutch ambassador to Israel recently noted that Israel’s construction past that line places an EU offer for an Israeli “special relationship” with the bloc in jeopardy. 

For the Palestinians, Israel’s isolation in Europe is the fruit of years of diplomatic labor. Palestinian leaders have long-recognized that their primary area of leverage against the Jewish state would be in the court of world opinion. This public-relations campaign, known in Ramallah as “Palestine 194,” has seen the Palestinians upgrade their status at the UN General Assembly in 2012, sign 15 international organizations and treaties this past April and formulate the Security Council draft resolution last month.

With Europe now in their camp, the Palestinians will focus on two objectives: Securing as much money as possible from this month’s international Gaza donor conference in Cairo, (which included a hearty EU delegation) and drafting a Security Council resolution with a date for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territories that could forestall the expected U.S. veto, or at least forcing an international conference on the conflict.

On the first front, the Palestinian Authority recently reaffirmed its reconciliation agreement with Hamas – a sop to international donors who have long been jittery about donating to a Hamas-run Gaza. On the second front – at the UN – the Palestinians might be closer to their goal than even they had realized. Recent estimates put 7 to 9 Council votes in their favor, and with traditional allies of the Palestinians such as Venezuela and Malaysia cycling into the Council, some Palestinian officials have speculated they could get as many as 12. Ten votes in the UNSC is the minimum to maintain a majority and pass a resolution, should the U.S. decide not to exercise its veto.

To be sure, the threat of the U.S. veto is very real. It’s what derailed the Palestinians’ Security Council campaign in 2011, when its mere threat was enough to make them take their efforts instead to the General Assembly, where resolutions are nonbinding.

Reports that Secretary of State John Kerry is contemplating launching a new round of peace talks are likely to fall on deaf ears in Ramallah should he not be able to guarantee the conditions – such as referring to the pre-1967 lines as a basis for negotiations – they consider red lines.

Options may be limited for the U.S. and Israel, but there is a political precedent for the former. In the late 90s, when Yasser Arafat was considering unilaterally declaring a state at the end of the Oslo period, the U.S. deployed Dennis Ross to Europe to counter the Palestinian diplomatic overtures. Even now, the U.S. could employ similar tactics with potential allies. Germany has said it would not follow in Sweden’s footsteps, and instead insisted any recognition of Palestine would still hinge on a negotiated agreement with Israel.

For Israel, it seems likely it will continue to keep this struggle on the rhetorical level. Israeli officials view this campaign as akin to “diplomatic terrorism,” but seem unlikely or unwilling to do more than publicly label it as anything more than “troubling messages” or “short cuts.” Perhaps that’s wisest, too; Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat recently said there are 522 organizations in which the Palestinians would seek membership should their Security Council campaign fail—surely Israel would not want to set a precedent for combating the Palestinians on every diplomatic front.

Whatever happens, it’s clear the Palestinians are now wholly committed to the internationalization of their strategy, and will be looking to other countries to replicate what Europe has begun.

Grant Rumley is a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Patriotism in the service of silencing dissent
Akiva Eldar

▻http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/patriotism-in-the-service-of-silencing-dissent.premium-1.512081

“When Ambassador Michael Oren says the makers of “The Gatekeepers” are compromising the state’s public relations efforts, his are just the latest words in a worrying trend of trying to quiet anyone who dares to be critical.
This past week, Ha’aretz reported that Israeli diplomats were having a hard time dealing with the film “The Gatekeepers.” Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, outdid all the others when he claimed that the heads of the Shin Bet who were interviewed for the film compromised the state’s public relations efforts, which he said were "in a kind of war.”
His statements join other similar ones that have been made of late – statements that express one of many symptoms of a dangerous disease that has been attacking Israeli society over the past few years. Other symptoms include increasing delegitmization of the left wing (and the Haredi population as well), with the purpose of silencing legitimate voices in public discourse; Culture Minister Limor Livnat’s call to artists to practice self-censorship; the Education Ministry’s dismissal of civics studies supervisor Adar Cohen because his liberal views were not to the liking of former education minister Gideon Sa’ar; the barring by Israel of Professor Rivka Feldhay from participating in a joint Israeli-German academic conference, apparently for her support for Israeli soldiers who refuse to serve in the Palestinian territories; and the attempts to shut down the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University. All these are symptoms of the attempts to suppress free speech in Israeli society.
Oren and those who share his opinion claim that criticism of the leadership’s policy is tantamount to damaging the State of Israel’s standing and harming its interests. For the regime’s spokesmen, their methods, ideology and goals are an inseparable part of the state. Therefore, disagreeing with them is equivalent to harming the state, and critics betray the state’s interests. This approach is reminiscent of the spokesmen of the Chinese regime, who use the same reason to silence criticism from within and exert tight control over the media, cultural works and academia. The approach of Oren and his colleagues must therefore justify regimes that attempt to silence criticism of anti-Semitism in their countries for fear that making such criticism public might damage their countries’ image and interests.
In professional terms, the attempt to create an absolute identity between the method of a particular group and the goals of the state is known as “monopolizing patriotism.” This is done by attaching conditions such as support of the leadership and its policies to the definition of patriotism. That is how people who do not meet those conditions are excluded from the patriotic camp and only those who meet those conditions may be considered patriots. Patriotism is thus transformed into an effective mechanism for shunning entire groups within society that do not agree with the leadership’s policies.
Oren and his ilk do not accept the basic principle that patriots who love their country and their people are allowed to disagree with the political leadership’s vision and policy. They deny the approach that heterogeneity of thought is one of the most obvious and necessary signs of an open and pluralistic society. Not for a moment does it occur to them that perhaps their goals and policy are what is causing damage to the state.
Individuals and groups in society have different opinions, and it is important that these opinions be expressed in the public discourse, in cultural expressions, in textbooks, in classroom discussions. Attempts to restrict free speech and weaken critical discussion – whose intent is actually to repair society – harm democracy and lead the state down the road of becoming a totalitarian regime in which everyone must express an identical opinion. The demand to express full support for the leadership’s methods and refrain from criticism sabotages any attempt to promote a solution to the crisis. Defining the situation as “a kind of war” is a demagogic and manipulative use of words whose purpose is to convince people to support the leadership.
Oren and those like him are dictating to the public what the government believes to be the rules of appropriate behavior. Conservative groups operating on the ground strengthen these messages by keeping track of statements that are made or written and then smearing anyone who expresses opinions that differ from the leadership’s. This is how a political climate is constructed in which people are afraid to express their opinions and where free speech, one of the most prominent characteristics of a democratic society, is restricted”.

Daniel Bar-Tal is a professor of political psychology at Tel Aviv University. Akiva Eldar is the political commentator at Al-Monitor.

#Israel #Patriotism# #Free_speech# #monopolizing_patriotism #democracy