Given that from this week we will start to explore some case study of public diplomacy in relation to particular countries, I have decided to introduce one more to the list. I would like to spend a couple of world about Israel’ Public Diplomacy.
It has been forcefully argued that Public diplomacy was the missing component of Israel’s foreign policy, that since the second intifada in September 2000 Israel’s international reputation has heavily deteriorated, and that Palestine was winning the PR battle against Israel (Gilboa, 2006). It has also been suggested that this was mainly due to fact that Israel missed the importance of the role of PD (ibid.).
However over the past years Israel has completely changed its attitude towards PD, and has greatly enhanced it. First and foremost Israel has re-branded itself as desirable tourist destination, stressing its beautiful beaches, beautiful women and wild nightlife.
Moreover Israel has gone so far in enhancing its PD that it has even used the smart tools of the new media and the social networks. Striking is the case that the Israeli MFA has, among others, twitter, facebook, you tube accounts. (have a look at the video on you tube where a Israeli representative of government explains Israel's PD at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQfgaqy3K4 )
The step from zero to hero that Israel has done in the field of PD is impressive.
However Israel PD is not without criticisms.
In fact, first of all it has been noted that it targets mainly the USA and EU publics, while the Arab world - which probably should be regarded as the most important target - is either dismissed or written off as an implacable enemy. Noteworthy is the fact that in the Israeli MFA website there is a window devoted solely to the “Iranian threat” (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs), which quite clearly exacerbates tensions rather than promoting understanding between the two countries.
The second weakness of Israel PD is the fact that often it is completely disconnected from its foreign policy. In the MFA website there is a section entirely devoted to Israeli peace process, which present the Arab world as unwilling to do peace negotiations, but for instance it makes not mention of the fact that Israel did not stop building settlements in Palestinian lands, or that it maintains a suffocating blockade of the Gaza strip so leaving Palestinians in desperate poverty (Amnesty International, 2010).
It is undeniable that the situation of Israel in relation to its regional context is a thorny one. However a good deal of PD could help to smooth the tension over there.
The fact that Israel has done so many progresses in its public diplomacy strategy toward Europe and America should be the spur to progress its PD in the Arab world as well. Quite obviously PD has to be supported by deeds, and the Israeli political and military elite should make an effort to promote dialog with the Arab world rather than constantly blame, and physically attack it.
PD won’t be the solution for this century-old conflict, but it could be a step forward, therefore it must be recognized as a starting point.
Amnesty International on Israel blockade of the Gaza strip at http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/israel039s-gaza-blockade-continues-suffocate-daily-life-20100118
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs at http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/
Gilboa, 2006, Public Diplomacy: The Missing Component of Israel’s Foreign Policy at http://arcdc.org.il/attachments/article/24/gilboa_israel_publicdiplomacy_Oct06.pdf.
Israeli Foreign Minister explains Israel’ PD at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQfgaqy3K4.
This is a very interesting subject and post. Israel appears to be quite involved with all sorts of diplomacy now, not only public diplomacy but also training its citizens to go abroad and present Israel in a favourable light. These efforts seem progressive and I agree with you that, if further and seriously pursued it could have a positive impact on Israel's foreign relations.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, the fact that the PD campaign appears quite biased, is worrying and seems to bring us back to the connection between public diplomacy and propaganda. Could we argue that calling something "public diplomacy" but only using it selectively and with double standards is propaganda? If so, does that make the campaign less valid?
Just some thoughts I had while reading your blog...