The Secret Report That Helps Israelis
Cover Atrocities
How Israel Spins War Crimes
by PATRICK COCKBURN
Israeli spokesmen have their work cut out explaining how they have
killed more than 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza, most of them civilians, compared
with just three civilians killed in Israel by Hamas rocket and mortar fire. But
on television and radio and in newspapers, Israeli government spokesmen such as
Mark Regev appear slicker and less aggressive than their predecessors, who were
often visibly indifferent to how many Palestinians were killed.
There is a reason for this enhancement of the PR skills of Israeli
spokesmen. Going by what they say, the playbook they are using is a
professional, well-researched and confidential study on how to influence the
media and public opinion in America and Europe . Written by the expert
Republican pollster and political strategist Dr Frank Luntz, the study was
commissioned five years ago by a group called The Israel Project, with offices
in the US and Israel, for use by those “who are on the front lines of fighting
the media war for Israel”.
Every one of the 112 pages in the booklet is marked “not for
distribution or publication” and it is easy to see why. The Luntz report,
officially entitled “The Israel project’s 2009 Global
Language Dictionary, was leaked almost immediately to Newsweek Online, but its
true importance has seldom been appreciated. It should be required reading for
everybody, especially journalists, interested in any aspect of Israeli policy
because of its “dos and don’ts” for Israeli spokesmen.
These are highly illuminating about the gap between what Israeli
officials and politicians really believe, and what they say, the latter shaped
in minute detail by polling to determine what Americans want to hear.
Certainly, no journalist interviewing an Israeli spokesman should do so without
reading this preview of many of the themes and phrases employed by Mr Regev and
his colleagues.
The booklet is full of meaty advice about how they should shape their answers for different audiences. For example, the study says that “Americans agree that
How about the right of
return for Palestinian refugees who were expelled or fled in 1948 and in the
following years, and who
are not allowed to go back to their homes? Here Dr Luntz has subtle advice for spokesmen, saying that “the right of return is a tough issue for Israelis to communicate effectively because much of Israeli language sounds like the ‘separate but equal’ words of the 1950s segregationists and the 1980s advocates of Apartheid. The fact is, Americans don’t like, don’t believe and don’t accept the concept of ‘separate but equal’.”
are not allowed to go back to their homes? Here Dr Luntz has subtle advice for spokesmen, saying that “the right of return is a tough issue for Israelis to communicate effectively because much of Israeli language sounds like the ‘separate but equal’ words of the 1950s segregationists and the 1980s advocates of Apartheid. The fact is, Americans don’t like, don’t believe and don’t accept the concept of ‘separate but equal’.”
So how should spokesmen deal with what the booklet admits is a
tough question? They should call it a “demand”, on the grounds that Americans
don’t like people who make demands. “Then say ‘Palestinians aren’t content with
their own state. Now they’re demanding territory inside Israel ’.” Other suggestions
for an effective Israeli response include saying that the right of return might
become part of a final settlement “at some point in the future”.
Dr Luntz notes that Americans as a whole are fearful of mass
immigration into the US , so mention of “mass
Palestinian immigration” into Israel will not go down well
with them. If nothing else works, say that the return of Palestinians would
“derail the effort to achieve peace”.
The Luntz report was written in the aftermath of Operation Cast
Lead in December 2008 and January 2009, when 1,387 Palestinians and nine
Israelis were killed.
There is a whole chapter on “isolating Iran-backed Hamas as an
obstacle to peace”. Unfortunately, come the current Operation Protective Edge,
which began on 6 July, there was a problem for Israeli propagandists because
Hamas had quarrelled with Iran over the war in Syria and had no contact
with Tehran . Friendly relations have been resumed only in
the past few days – thanks to the Israeli invasion.
Much of Dr Luntz’s advice is about the tone and presentation of
the Israeli case. He says it is absolutely crucial to exude empathy for
Palestinians: “Persuadables [sic] won’t care how much you know until they know how
much you care. Show Empathy for BOTH sides!” This may explain why a number of
Israeli spokesman are almost lachrymose about the plight of Palestinians being
pounded by Israeli bombs and shells.
In a sentence in bold type, underlined and with capitalisation, Dr
Luntz says that Israeli spokesmen or political leaders must never, ever justify
“the deliberate slaughter of innocent women and children” and they must
aggressively challenge those who accuse Israel of such a crime.
Israeli spokesmen struggled to be true to this prescription when 16
Palestinians were killed in a UN shelter in Gaza last Thursday.
There is a list of words and phrases to be used and a list of
those to be avoided. Schmaltz is at a premium: “The best way, the only way, to
achieve lasting peace is to achieve mutual respect.” Above all, Israel ’s desire for peace
with the Palestinians should be emphasised at all times because this what
Americans overwhelmingly want to happen. But any pressure on Israel to actually make peace
can be reduced by saying “one step at a time, one day at a time”, which will be
accepted as “a commonsense approach to the land-for-peace equation”.
Dr Luntz cites as an example of an “effective Israeli sound bite”
one which reads: “I particularly want to reach out to Palestinian mothers who
have lost their children. No parent should have to bury their child.”
The study admits that the Israeli government does not really want
a two-state solution, but says this should be masked because 78 per cent of
Americans do. Hopes for the economic betterment of Palestinians should be
emphasised.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted with approval for
saying that it is “time for someone to ask Hamas: what exactly are YOU doing to
bring prosperity to your people”. The hypocrisy of this beggars belief: it is
the seven-year-old Israeli economic siege that has reduced the Gaza to poverty and misery.
On every occasion, the presentation of events by Israeli spokesmen
is geared to giving Americans and Europeans the impression that Israel wants peace with the
Palestinians and is prepared to compromise to achieve this, when all the
evidence is that it does not. Though it was not intended as such, few more
revealing studies have been written about modern Israel in times of war and
peace.
The following video was from Mondoweiss on 30 July 2014 see note below video:
Video: Mark Regev, deciphered
This is good. The video above was created by Alex Nunns, who subtitled a BBC interview with Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev. The interview follows the Israeli bombing of a UN school in Beit Hanoun that killed at least 16 Palestinians.