18 hours ago
10
ARTICLE AD BOX
The ultimate and explicit goal is the destruction of the State of Israel through a combination of international and military pressure.
By EMMANUEL NAHSHON SCHLANGER DECEMBER 29, 2024 02:47
DEMONSTRATORS HOLD a banner which reads: ‘Stop genocide! From the river to the sea, Palestine will win!’ in Madrid, earlier this year. The ultimate and explicit goal is the destruction of the State of Israel through a combination of military pressure, including terrorism, and international pressure,
(photo credit: REUTERS/Isabel Infantes)
Since October 7, 2023, Israel has faced a grueling military campaign on seven fronts. To these military arenas – Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran – another front was added the day after the massacre: the international front. This eighth front is as perilous as the military ones, and it must not be underestimated.
The international campaign against Israel is expressed through various actions: mass demonstrations, incitement of hatred and violence against Jews and Israelis, calls for comprehensive boycotts of Israel, activities by student groups and academics across Western universities, hostile media coverage, and pervasive anti-Israeli rhetoric on social media.
These efforts aim to complement the military campaign by creating an international climate designed to isolate Israel and weaken its ability to defend itself diplomatically and in the global arena.
The ultimate and explicit goal is the destruction of the State of Israel through a combination of international and military pressure, including terrorism. In the words of our enemies: “From the river to the sea.”
The intensity of hostility toward Israel on the international stage is extraordinary, indicating meticulous preparation. This effort capitalizes on global trends, particularly among progressive youth, and demonstrates a deep understanding of modern communication tools and contemporary discourse, particularly on social media.
Faced with this campaign, which has been growing over the past two decades, Israel has done little and certainly not enough. Much like the tragedy of October 7, the data was known but the necessary conclusions were not drawn. We saw isolated points but failed to connect them into a coherent picture.
The eighth front is as dangerous to Israel as the seven military fronts, yet the Israeli establishment has not developed the necessary defensive tools to combat it. Israel’s public diplomacy apparatus currently faces a highly efficient and deadly machine without even the minimal tools required – akin to waging a military campaign without tanks, planes, missiles, or trained soldiers.
October 8: A moment of reckoning
The term “October 8” encapsulates the wave of events and developments that began the day after Hamas’s attack. The speed of response by anti-Israeli elements was so swift that it appeared as if they had prepared “contingency plans” in advance, ready to deploy instantly. Israel, on the other hand, lacked such preparedness for an extreme scenario.
For years, Israel prepared for what could be described as an “emergency routine,” characterized by relatively short, focused military operations that provided temporary calm. This routine bred complacency, with “Hamas is deterred” becoming a widespread mantra. Meanwhile, dramatic political events earlier in 2023 had turned governmental public relations into a highly politicized domain, severely impairing its capacity to operate effectively.
The failure of public diplomacy
If there is one issue on which most Israelis tend to agree, it is the failure of Israeli public diplomacy since October 7. This consensus, however, represents only a partial diagnosis of reality. Public diplomacy reflects broader governmental policy, and in this case, it would be accurate to say that the failure of public diplomacy is a symptom of policy failure.
Stay updated with the latest news!
Subscribe to The Jerusalem Post Newsletter
The argument that sound policies negate the need for public diplomacy is fundamentally flawed. Every policy, even the most positive and successful, requires explanation. In Israel’s case, the situation is far graver: the absence of a coherent policy, or worse, the presence of harmful policies, serves as an unstable foundation for public diplomacy, rendering it doomed from the start.
How can Israel articulate a compelling narrative to the world when it cannot answer its own fundamental questions? What is Israel’s desired political outcome after the war? Is there room for renewed negotiations with the Palestinians? What are Israel’s envisioned borders? What does Israel want the Middle East to look like in 5, 10, or 20 years? How does Israel envision itself within the same time frame?
Without clear answers to these basic questions, how can Israel hope to “market” itself to the world?
Meanwhile, the other side, the enemy, has spent over 20 years conducting a sophisticated campaign on two parallel tracks: garnering sympathy for the Palestinians as the “underdog,” while simultaneously inciting outright hatred against Israel. Terms such as “apartheid” and “genocide” are aggressively and persistently marketed, turning Israel into an illegitimate entity in the eyes of many.
What does Israel offer in response? Not only does it lack vision or strategy, but it is also mired in internal conflicts – embroiled in judicial upheaval, wasting precious energy in trying to exempt certain populations from military service, undermining and weakening its legal institutions.
Attempts to present “Israel beyond the conflict,” the nice and positive aspects of Israel that make us proud, have become irrelevant and even absurd post-October 7. Extreme statements by Israeli officials have caused harm on legal, diplomatic, and reputational levels.
The challenge is not merely external. It is internal, requiring real reform – not superficial propaganda campaigns. Israel’s public diplomacy cannot mask the visible cracks, such as disturbing videos of soldiers’ actions in Gaza or Lebanon, which are disseminated with pride. These incidents demand substantive change.
The challenge
Israel’s public diplomacy professionals have proven their ability to achieve success in the past as seen during the Second Intifada. The primary challenge now is crafting a unified policy that can be marketed globally. Initial steps should focus on rhetoric: fewer extreme statements and the adoption of positive language (even during war, terms like “peace,” “hope,” and “empathy” can be used). Simple humanitarian gestures can also enhance Israel’s image before delving into broader political visions.
It is critical to recognize that public diplomacy is a profession, requiring years of experience and expertise. It must be entrusted to professionals – not amateurs. While the importance of digital influencers cannot be dismissed, their efforts often resemble an orchestra without a conductor – individual players making noise without cohesive strategy, planning, or leadership.
What is needed is a coordinated, strategic effort to unify these voices into a harmonious symphony rather than a cacophony of scattered noise. We don’t need to say the same things but we do need to adhere to basic common principles.
This requires the establishment of a broad Israeli consensus on a narrative. We need a common story, based on the accepted beliefs of most of us. Otherwise, how can we tell the story of Israel to the world if we do not agree on its fundamentals?
Not alone
Despite the challenges, there are reasons for cautious optimism. Israel is not alone. Contrary to appearances, it has allies and friends worldwide, from Jewish communities to high-ranking officials who understand the complexity of the situation and admire Israel’s resilience. This solidarity has been evident in the mobilization of pro-Israeli donors and the withdrawal of funds from universities promoting terrorism and violence.
A new US administration signals its willingness to act decisively against Israel’s adversaries on the international stage, offering an opportunity that, if managed wisely, could significantly mitigate the risks. This is an opportunity not to be missed.
Ultimately, Israel must heal its internal divisions to achieve a national consensus. A critical step is the return of hostages – a prerequisite for meaningful national dialogue and the construction of a shared narrative.
If and when Israel’s government and institutions recover from their current shortcomings, this rehabilitation could also restore and enhance its public diplomacy capabilities. With a solid national narrative and a clear vision, Israel can translate internal unity into effective public diplomacy, positively transforming its global standing.
The writer is a retired Israeli ambassador and former deputy director-general of the Foreign Ministry.
English (US) ·