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 wor ld 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 think whether 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 believe and 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 hear advocacy organizations consistently "defend" Israel and you will see "hasbara" messages that remind us that Israel invented the cell phone 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 they'll never say where that 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.

Well, maybe yes, but more probably no. That's because what makes sense for some makes absolutely no sense to others, especially those the "advocates" are trying to influence. Singing 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 friends about "amazing" things Israel does or "shameful" things Arabs do and urging them to circulate it to everyone they know will not likely change their already set attitudes and will probably have little effect on people beyond their circle. That's because most of those they know already feel the same way they do, and those that do not will not be persuaded by empty, self-serving and "root for us" cheerleading that almost never addresses what those who question Israeli policy are really concerned about. The one question that needs to be asked but is almost never asked 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 issue by looking at Israel as a product to be sold and urging use of clever promotional "techniques," much like the tactics a salesperson would use to get people to buy a product, as if that is what intelligent thinking critics of Israel would "logically" react to. Science tells us that there are limits to one's logic, which is why science also tells us that in order to be sure, to be really sure, 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 p oster wars, the term applied to campaigns by proPalestinian 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 posters that, 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 having a poster highlighting Israels technical achievements or showing the strong historical connection of the Jewish people to the land would persuade those that would think otherwise about Israels behavior towards the Palestinians? That question interested Dalia Leibowitz, a student at MIT and a resident of one of the communities where the posters appeared. Dalia, a science student, 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 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 presented as educational are checkered with half-truths alongside misleading and one-sided information that 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, all the cheerleading and all the 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 empower s students with the necessary tools to counter misinformation about Israel. But what if th e booklet uses misinformation itself? In one example of an inaccurate claim, this much-promoted teaching tool says In 1922, in response to Arab pressure Britain violated 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 gave that right to Britain and they implemented it lawfully when it passed with the assent of the League of Nations. In another somewhat disingenuous move, the booklet includes Israeli Druze in the definition of Arab when touting Israels treatment of minorities. Despite the fact that Israel recognized the Druze, by law, as a distinct and separate ethnic group, the impression is given that Druze are in fact Israeli Arabs, citing several Druze who occupy high-level positions in Israeli society as examples of Israels 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 then given a number o f different sources for the statement. They were to rate how credible or believable the statement was , depending on the source of the information. What resulted is a finding that 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 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 the "need to educate" all those who think differently than we do, whether or not it is true. What donors should insist on is data to show if there is a problem, data to show where the problem is and data to demonstrate whether 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. Irwin J. (Yitzchak) Mansdorf, PhD directs the Israel-Arab studies program and conducts research in political psychology at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.