Rethinking Advocacy J Post July 5 2013

7/28/2019 Rethinking Advocacy J Post July 5 2013

1/4

Magazine

http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Rethinking-advocacy-318720

Rethinking advocacy

07/04/2013 14:07 By IRWIN J. (YITZCHAK) MANSDORF

Make sure you can convince more than your own fans when you cheer for

Israel.

Photo by: Marc Israel Sellem/The Jerusalem Post

In the highly charged, emotional and biased world of political advocacy, logical is

often defined as what makes sense for a few people who sit around a table and offer

judgments about what other people should thinkwhether or not they really know

anything about those they are trying to convince.

Many of those who see Israel through a narrow and focused lens often act like everyone

else should as well. When it comes to Israeli hasbara, or public diplomacy, we see people

and organizations whose heart may be in the right place, but whose logic is governed by

what they would like to believeand not what is actually supported by acceptable

evidence and backed by impartial research. In fact, it is astounding how many opinions

are offered that are devoid of any real evidence other than Well, everyone knows that.

So you will hearadvocacy organizations consistently defend Israel and you will see

hasbara messages that remind us that Israel invented the cellphone and that gays serve in

the military. People will be urged to tell the truth and just give the facts, and will

even admit that Israel is not perfect once in a while, but theyll never specify where the

imperfection lies. You will see pictures of beautiful people on a Tel Aviv beach, articles

that point out all the great things that Israel does and emails with the subject line 65

reasons I love Israel. And, we are told, these are the logical messages that will tip the

scales of sympathy in Israel's favor.
http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Rethinking-advocacy-318720http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Rethinking-advocacy-318720http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Rethinking-advocacy-318720


2/4

Well, maybe yesbut most likely no. That's because what makes sense for some makes

absolutely no sense for others, especially those the advocates are trying to influence.

Preaching to the choir is an old practice that makes people feel good, but does not

necessarily have too much effect beyond the choir itself. Sending messages to friendsabout the amazing things Israel does or the shameful things Arabs do and urging

them to circulate it to everyone they know will probably not change their already set

attitudes, and will probably have little effect on people beyond their circle. That's because

most of the people they know already feel the same way they do, and those who do not

will not be persuaded by empty, self-serving and root for us rhetoric that almost never

addresses the true concerns of those who question Israeli policy.

The one question that needs tobe asked, but almost never is in advocacy circles, is: How

do you know? How do you know that the approach you are taking, what you are saying,

how you are saying it, is what will change the attitudes of those who feel differently than

you do about Israel? The answer we often hear from practicing advocates skirts the issueby looking at Israel as a product to be sold and urging use of clever promotional

techniques, much like the tactics a salesperson uses to get people to buy a product, as if

that is what critically thinking critics of Israel would logically react to.

Science tells us that there are limits to ones logic, which is why science also tells us that

in order to be certain, you need to check things out. Checking things out means using

objective means of collecting data and analyzing evidence, and not simply asking your

Facebook friends what they like. Checking things out also means admitting you may be

wrong and challenging potential or real donors for whom ideology rather than evidence

guides philanthropy.

Take for example the issue of poster wars, the term applied to campaigns by pro -

Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups that take the form of public advertisements, often in

commuter rail stations.

When one such poster depicted Israel as responsible for taking Palestinian land and

creating a refugee problem, pro-Israel groups responded with their own ads. While it is

clear that these campaigns cost quite a bit of money, it is less clear that they did any good

for either side.

When a pro-Palestinian poster appeared last year in New York stations, one pro-Israel

advocacy organization immediately responded by placing their own posters in these

stations, which they claimed would make sure that Americans are not misled and

persuaded to support enemies of peace, disguised as supporters of peace and justice.

That sounds wonderful, but exactly how did they know that a poster highlighting Israels

technical achievements or showing the strong historical connection of the Jewish people

to the land wouldpersuade those who would think otherwise about Israels behavior

towards the Palestinians? THAT QUESTION interested Dalia Leibowitz, a science

student at MIT and a resident of one of the communities where the posters appeared.

Leibowitz went about answering the question in a direct but quite simple manner. She

asked people who commute regularly about their reaction to the posters. Her findings? It


3/4

appeared that most people did not even notice the posters and those few that actually did

felt they made no difference in their thinking on the issue of Israel or the Palestinians.

Lack of accountability is not restricted to public campaigns by pro-Israel organizations.

Some of the more popular advocacy approaches and material disseminated and presentedas educational are checkered with half-truths alongside misleading and one-sided

information, which may confirm the beliefs of fans of Israel but do little to intelligently

deal with the serious questions others may have.

Despite all the flag-waving, cheerleading and self-promoting messages in social media,

no one really has a clue if what they are doing has made an impact unless it is

independently measured, confirmed and replicated.

Take for example one such educational booklet that says it empowers student s with

the necessary tools to counter misinformation about Israel. But what if the booklet itself

employs misinformation? In one example of an inaccurate claim, this much-promotedteaching tool says, In 1922, in response to Arab pressure, Britain violate d the Mandate

and cut off 77 percent of Palestine, granted it exclusively to the Hashemites, and forbade

Jewish settlement in what became Jordan. The only problem is that this is not

completely true. While Britain did in fact cut off the territory as part of the proposed

Jewish homeland, and while it may have been a political move, it was also within their

rights at the time to do so. Article 25 of the Mandate granted that right to Britain and they

implemented it lawfully, passing it with the assent of the League of Nations.

In another somewhat disingenuous move, the booklet includes Israeli Druse in the

definition of Arab when touting Israels treatment of minorities. Despite the fact that

Israel recognized the Druse, by law, as a distinct and separate ethnic group, the

impression is given that Druse are in fact Israeli Arabs, citing several Druse who

occupy high-level positions in Israeli society as examples of the Jewish states

enlightened approach to Arabs.

It is abundantly clear that many pro-Arab propagandists present distorted and misleading

information as facts and make outrageous claims that are patently false. The use of big

lie techniques is not without precedent in diplomacy, but basing a serious advocacy

campaign on tendentious presentations may ultimately blunt the credibility of the sources

that do so.

It could be that students themselves are beginning to see this as well.

In a study of over 100 randomly selected American students studying in Israel, they were

asked to rank the credibility of a variety of sources related to common Israeli talking

points. For example, they were asked to consider the statement Israel is in no way an

apartheid state, and were given a number of different sources for the statement. They

were then asked to rate how credible or believable the statement was, depending on the

source of the information. The results may be surprising, but should be taken to heart.

More than half this group of young, traditional and clearly pro-Israel students ranked the

easily identifiable pro-Israel sources as less than somewhat credible, while ranking

possibly dubious sources such as media organizations and human rights groups closer to


4/4

mostly credible.

There is only one truth in advocacy, and that is the truth that can be verified. Until

advocacy organizations stop the ritualistic and often juvenile cheerleading, and

incorporate serious and impartial objective research into their activities, we are likely to

continue hearing about Israel's hasbara problem, the crisis on the campus and theneed to educate all those who think differently than we do, whether it is true or not.

What donors should instead insist upon is data, to demonstrate if there is a problem; if so,

where the problem is; and if their contributions are doing anything other than making

themselves feel good.

In other words, aim before you shoot and then verify that you hit your target.

So by all means continue to cheer for Israel.

But make sure you can convince more than your own fans.

The writer directs the Israel-Arab studies program and conducts research in political

psychology at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Documents

Rethinking Advocacy J Post July 5 2013