Hasbara Management Central

I have so much to blog about... but I'm sooooooo incredibly tired. You can't imagine what it's like to have to drag a huge heavy leather bag filled with humongous books up and down the stairs, with extra bags, because not everything fits... in the below-freezing temperature... early in the morning. And then to have three very intense classes in a row, with only short breaks to grab a quick lunch and do more studying. Tomorrow, hopefully, it'll be a bit better. I only have one class, in the morning, and hopefully, the new computers are ready (though I can't promise...) Which means... blogging time (in between the million other things I have to do - read cases, outlining, applications, research for my brief, some personal things to take care of).

Anyway, despite how busy I am, I was struck by a thought during a post-dinner conversation. My mother, after having read one too many articles about Hollywood's 'tude towards Israel, ranted about Munich and how Spielberg had the chutzpah to pass something like that off as "objective". Well, she didn't see the movie, but I did. (And reviewed it last year). The thought that passed through my mind was... there's a good reason why Israel supporters appear to be losing the propaganda war. Aside from the lack of centralization on Israel's part when it comes to putting forth compelling information for the disaffected secularized left-wing Jews and uneducated everyone else, there's the problem with the activists who fail to take opportunities and make efficient use of what they already have. Let's take Hollywood movies, for instance. Whatever we think of the director's/screenwriter's ideology and personal beliefs in producing what we consider an anti-Israel or at least cowardly movie, we ought to be using that very movie to push forward our interests, instead of wasting time on endless complaints, and attracting the negative attention we don't need.

How so? - you might ask. Well, let's take "Munich", as an example. What did we, as a community, do wrong?

1) Wasting time lambasting Spielberg, who, whatever his liberal sentiments may dictate, is definitely not an anti-Semite. What good did all that negative publicity do? None. He won't back away from his political beliefs and he won't stop producing movies. What we did risk accomplishing was turning away a potential ally... and possibly worsening his own positions on the issue, because of the seemingly irrational reaction from the right. A controversial movie can be an opportunity for division, derision, and flame wars... but it can also be a great opportunity for subtle "whispering campaigns" and behind-the-scenes dialogue with the directors. Unfortunately, we failed to engage that opportunity, with someone who could, potentially, be sympathetic... I fear that the next time someone produces a film dealing with Israel, it won't be Spielberg, and he won't be interested in any type of dialogue at all. A small window of opportunity is better than none at all.

2) Secondly, there were definitely troubling issues with the film... but we overemphasized them. As happens to be the case every time a controversial theme pops out. If you take a look at what I wrote in the review (and believe me, I'm the last person to defend anti-Zionists or terrorist apologists), there were issues we could have presented very differently... and through writings of sharp editorials attracted more attention from everyone else to what we wanted them to see. In other words, many films have their ambiguities... and it's our job to interpret them in the light most advantageous to our own cause. (Even if there's danger of it being exactly the opposite). We avoid the attraction of controversy-mongers, who would support the position we dislike, and imbue our own interpretation in the minds of a more flexible audience. In other words, what most people said was: "Oh my gosh, that Spielberg showed terrorists as human. That's terrible! How could he have allowed that!" I, however, chose to view the situation differently and wrote that in his dialogue between the terrorists and the Israeli team, he showed the absurdity and the flawed logic in the arguments of the terrorists... and what happens when you try to reason with extremists. Had we chosen to emphasize that position... maybe we could have changed a few people's minds differently.

3) But Hollywood films, and Munich in particular, are just a portion of the ambiguous or negative imagery we could have used for own purposes had we controlled our emotions and shown a little creativity and imagination. You see, a good propaganda war is not just about creating new and new images of what you want your audience to see or understand. After all, good propaganda is based on emotional manipulations, and thus, is often short-lived, especially if your resources are limited. Masses of people are fickle and easily swayed by new outbursts from the other side. No, what is much more important in this situation is turning what your opponents are producing into your own asset. We spend so much time dissecting why Palestinian propaganda is so horrible and why everyone's buying into this. What we OUGHT to be thinking about is how we can make THEIR lies, distortions, and accusations work for US. How can we use THEIR own propaganda to discredit them? If our opponents' propaganda is based on lies and hatred than it's more than possible to use subtlety... and help some of those activists dig their own propagandist grave.

So here's my challenge to the Jblogosphere:

1) Find an article, image, film, or any other type of information you think is anti-Zionist or at least ambiguous enough to do our image a serious damage

and

2) Give it another look. See if there's any way to make it into something positive in a response to our opponents.

Maybe we can really go somewhere with this.

Enthusiastic,
Irina