Abe Foxman

Just as many CEOs of major corporations manage to increase their compensation despite miserable profits and stock performance, so it is with the leaders of the largest and most influential American Jewish organizations. The Forward, earlier this month, reported the compensation  of many of the most prominent among them. Here are some of them (latest salary information is for 2010 unless otherwise noted and in a few cases I have updated information to include full compensation including benefits, if the Forward didn’t):

Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman
$690,000  (2009)

American Jewish Committee’s David Harris
$736,000

Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Rabbi Marvin Hier
$760,000

Aipac’s Howard Kohr
$581,000

Republican Jewish Coalition’s Matt Brooks
$482,000 (2009)

Conference of Presidents’ Malcolm Hoenlein
$627,000 (2011)

Jewish National Fund
$410,000 (2009)

Zionist Organization of America’s Mort Klein
$363,000

Birthright Israel
$353,000

The Israel Project’s Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi
$200,000

Most of the salaries listed above are borderline obscene. They place their recipients squarely among the Jewish 1% and distance themselves from the rest of us. This is yet another reason most of the organizations listed above have long passed their Jewish “sell-by” date.

One measure of this (though not the sole one by any means) is their fundraising. The two of the three highest paid executives on my list, Harris and Foxman, run organizations whose fundraising has dropped dramatically over the past several years. The ADL’s has declined by over 30% between 2006-2010. AJC’s funding levels dropped by a similar amount in the same period. Their executives’ salaries, of course, have not. While we shouldn’t make the mistake of judging a non-profit’s ongoing relevance solely by it’s fundraising prowess, it is one indication of how much excitement there is for the group’s mission among donors and other funders.

I would maintain that these groups have lost their way and their relevance to all but the oldest members of the community. While times have changed, they have not. They continue to attempt to be all things to all Jews, which actually means being nothing to anyone but the alter-kockers.

I also don’t buy the explanation/excuse offered by the groups themselves for the declines registered. They say it’s because donors want more control over their donations and no longer are willing to give unrestricted gifts. The more likely reason is that as Jews become more integrated into American life, with attendant higher income and social status, they are sought after as donors and directors to local, regional and national non-profits outside the Jewish sphere. Jews now give extensively to the colleges and universities they attended, museums, symphonies, operas, political parties, social justice and environmental groups than they ever did in the past. This is money that in previous generations would’ve gone directly to Jewish causes. Now, it’s gone and there is very little money from the younger generation to replace it. All this means that the general interest Jewish groups are in the midst of an inexorable decline. I’d predict that even the single-interest pro-Israel groups mentioned below will be effected by this decline eventually.

All of which means that as these groups lose funding, their missions will also suffer. The good deeds and projects that benefited the Jewish community, plus the positive values they represented (long ago, though less so now) will gradually disappear. I don’t know what, if anything, will take their place. All this could lead to an inexorable decline in the quality of American Jewish life.

The groups that have thrived in this environment have been the single issue, largely pro-Israel ones like Aipac (+30% over past five years), The Israel Project (+30% from 2008-2010), Stand With Us (+40% between 2007-2010), and J Street (its funding increased by 300% from 2007-2008, the J Street Education Fund increased 400% from 2009-2010, and the J Street PAC increased by 200% from 2008 to 2010). These statistics are an expression of the increasing fragmentation of the Jewish community and its realignment largely around a single issue: Israel. There seems little that holds much of the organized community together except the state formally-known as the Homeland of the Jewish People.

Partially, this reflects a certain impoverishment in Jewish identity. Partially, it represents a major error made by American Jews and their leaders of putting all their eggs in Israel’s basket. When Israel crushes these eggs, then what is left for Jews to believe in?

We need an identity that includes Israel, but is not limited to it. We need to jettison the single issue Jewish identity hawked by fat cat ideologues like Michael Steinhardt and Sheldon Adelson. Their Jewishness is a dead-end. Those who are fooled into following these Pied Pipers will discover in the long run that they’ve made a fool’s bargain. They may have fat coffers, but they will stand for nothing, or at least nothing that will nurture the next generation and offer it something substantial and value-based as sustenance.

Ralph Reed after signing his $140,000 contract to consult for The Israel Project

I reported here a few years ago about The Israel Project’s “Hasbara Handbook,” created for it by Republican master strategist, Frank Luntz.  He was paid handsomely for his work, earning over $200,000 from the group in 2009.  Apparently, TIP is strengthening its ties to the Republican far-right even farther.  Think Progress reports that Ralph Reed has a $140,000 contract to consult in the field of “political affairs” for TIP.  The author of the piece notes Reed has founded a new right-wing group, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, which hosted Likud ultra-hawk Danny Danon at its last convention, which was also attended by most of the Republican presidential candidates.

It would seem that Reed’s main purpose as a paid consultant is to deliver the Christian Zionist community to TIP’s doorstep. I should note that TIP is “bi-partisan” in that sense, as it also contracts with Democratic flacks like Lanny Davis who no doubt was paid handsomely to defend the Israeli killing machine (1,400 Gazan dead) during Operation Cast Lead.  Davis had the dubious distinction of accepting lucre from Laurent Bagbo, the butcher of Ivory Coast, who was recently overthrown in a peaceful coup by Alessane Ouatarra, who trounced him in the country’s most recent election.  Another Democratic pollster and consultant, Stanley Greenberg, is being paid $300,000 by TIP for “research.”

I’ve noted in the past that TIP’s director of global affairs, Laura Kamm is married to the former deputy of mission of Israel’s embassy in Washington DC (and current deputy director general of the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs under Danny Ayalon), Jeremy Issacharoff.  The web of influence between TIP and the Israeli government hasbara apparatus is seamless.

Further, another brilliant husband/wife duo affiliated with TIP are the Ledeens.  Barbara Ledeen is listed as TIP’s Iran “specialist.”  Expertise derived, no doubt from her husband, Michael Ledeen, who believes America should exercise its male dominance on the world stage by kicking around a few crappy little countries every couple of years to remind everyone who’s boss.

The Forward brings to us one of the most unintentionally funny articles of the week exploring how the Israel lobby is trying to get the Arab democratic revolutions to work for Israel, rather than against it.  Jennifer Lazlo-Mizrahi, one of Israel’s premier enablers in the nation’s capital, as usual espouses some wonderfully outrageous views:

“We need to look at the opportunity and the promise,” said Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, founder and president of The Israel Project, which has been among the very few groups to engage in outreach to the Arab world. “We need to ask how can we make it good for the Jews.”

In the meantime, pro-Israel activists are getting used to a new language when communicating with the Arab world. It includes stressing the financial benefits of peace and the shared value of freedom. At the same time, it ignores the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. Israel, in this new public diplomacy reality, is no longer referred to as the “only democracy” in the Middle East, but rather as the “most stable democracy” in the region, pro-Israel activists said.

You should never underestimate the Lobby’s tendency toward irrelevance when it comes to having anything real or probitive to say on any issue concerning Israel.  And they haven’t disappointed here either.  When facing the most momentous development in world history since 1989, all Mizrahi can ask is whether it’s good for the Jews.

And isn’t the new slogan “most stable autocracy” er, democracy in the Middle East a howler?  I am glad though they’re finally giving up the “only democracy” slogan since it’s been a lie since Turkey and Lebanon elected democratic governments.  Do you think if The Israel Project is finally giving up this hoary old piece of hasbara that commenters here will too?

One should ask though what a “stable” democracy means when said democracy presides over 40+ years of illegal Occupation of the lands of another people and refuses to compromise with this people in order to allow each to live in peace with the other.  Is this what stable democracies do?

UPDATE/CORRECTION: Laszlo Mizrahi apparently discovered another website which republished this post and she published the following comment there.  I’m sorry to find that she’s deeply hurt by the mean, mean things I said about her and TIP above.  This grieves my heart so.  I really, definitely plan on begging her forgiveness sometime very soon.

Here’s her comment:

Your work is so careless that you can’t even seem to spell my name correctly or figure out who I am married to (hint — NOT an Israel OR a diplomat). Time and again you belittle our peace work. Mean, mean, stuff — that is devoid of facts. Well, feel free to poke at us again and again. It will not sway us from working day and night for peace and a better future for BOTH sides! Don’t believe me? Go to theisraelproject.org/peace.

And btw — when was the last time YOU were in Ramallah or any other part of the West Bank? I go and I care.

Let’s correct a misimpression first.  I spelled her name correctly in the above post, but the blogger who republished it introduced the error in spelling her name.  Not my fault.

I did write in an earlier version of this post that Laszlo Mizrahi is married to Israel’s deputy chief of mission in the Washington DC embassy.  Actually, Laura Kam, TIP’s “senior advisor for European Affairs” is married to Jeremy Issacharoff, the paid-hasbarist–er, diplomat in question.

I would really, really like to know the last time Laszlo Mizrahi was in Ramallah and I’d really, really, really like to know when she plans to get to Gaza.  That should be quite a event.  They’ll roll out the red carpet for her I’m sure.  And since she’s SO dedicated to peace “for BOTH sides!” I’m sure she plans on visiting soon.

As for me, I don’t have big, fat moneybags bankrolling my propaganda efforts as she does, so it’s a bit hard for me to get out and about and halfway around the world.  But I’ll make her a deal, if she springs for it I’ll arrange a wonderful visit to Gaza where we can both go and study peace efforts and a “better future for BOTH sides!”  I’ll even throw in a visit to Bilin for a Friday demonstration for good measure!

Didi Remez translates a Channel 10 news report of a Frank Luntz survey leaked to the prime minister’s office about the Gaza flotilla attack.  I reported here earlier on an e mail blast disseminated by The Israel Project’s director which warned that Luntz’s survey would be disheartening to supporters of the pro-Israel advocacy group.  Channel 10 now has the goods.  Here is Remez’s summary of the results followed by excerpts of the TV news report:

• 56% of Americans agree with the claim that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza;
• 43% of Americans agree with the claim that people in Gaza are starving;
• [Only] 34% of Americans support the Israeli operation against the Flotilla;
• [Only] 20% of Americans “felt support” for Israel following announcement of easing of Gaza closure.

Criticism of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s current PR messages and Israeli PR in general comes from the international élite of media consultants and pollsters and from the mouth of Frank Luntz…He was asked by…The Israel Project to check the opinions of the American public on the messages Israel issued to the world during and after the flotilla events. The result is a harsh document that primarily criticizes the media strategy of the person considered Israel’s number one propagandist in the world, Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Netanyahu: Once again Israel faces hypocrisy and a biased rush to judgment.

Chico Menashe: Every time Israeli speakers begin with accusing the international community, writes Luntz, they lose their audience [emphasis mine]. For example, Netanyahu’s comments after the flotilla about the world hypocrisy were rejected by most of the American participants who listened to them. The findings were presented last night to senior members of Netanyahu’s Bureau. Luntz checked the opinions with focus groups…He warns of a dangerous slide in the public opinion of the only country considered pro-Israeli…The American public increasingly hesitates to accept arguments that support Israeli positions.

Ehud Barak: There is no hunger in Gaza and no humanitarian crisis.

Netanyahu: There’s no shortage of food, there’s no shortage of medicine, there’s no shortage of other goods.

Chico Menashe: Luntz says Israel must immediately stop using the argument that there is no hunger and no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. He says this fatally destroys Israel’s credibility in light of the images on the television screens. Israel must admit that there is a problem…to gain the listeners’ sympathy [emphasis mine]. Luntz finds the troubling figure that 56% of participants agree with the claim that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and no less astonishing is that 43% of participants from the American public agree with the claim that people in Gaza are starving. But even lifting the closure that was supposed to improve Israel’s image missed the opportunity, according to Luntz.

Netanyahu: Yesterday an important decision was made by the security cabinet. Its meaning is clear. On the one hand, allowing civilian goods into Gaza, and on the other hand maintaining the military blockade of Hamas.

Chico Menashe: The statement by Netanyahu’s bureau of lifting the closure missed the opportunity to gain support in international public opinion [emphasis mine]. Only 20% of the Americans polled felt support of Israel following the statement. According to Luntz, this is the summary of the flotilla damage in American public opinion: Only 34% of the American public support the Israeli operation against the flotilla, and he says that is a dangerously low percentage.

Though Luntz didn’t specifically poll on this subject, I’d imagine Americans would be equally unpersuaded by Israel’s new, more lenient rules concerning importation of items into Gaza.  As human rights activist Steffen Shwartz notes in an e mail to me: this report says nothing about exports from Gaza or movement of human beings.  If Gaza is ever to have any freedom and economic development it will need both.  Israel pointedly has not offered to liberalize measures concerning either.  Something Barack may want to discuss with Bibi tomorrow at the White House?

Similary, Turkey’s foreign minister just dropped a bombshell on the eve of Bibi’s White House love fest: Turkey threatens to cut off all diplomatic relations with Israel unless the latter agrees to apologize for the attack, compensate victims and an international investigation of the incident.

Looks like Bibi and Barack will have a few things to talk about in a few hours when they sit down together.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Israel confirms new Gaza policy (news.bbc.co.uk)

Jon Stewart – The Daily Show – Israeli raid on Flotilla headed to Gaza from Koorosh Vahabi.

Holy cow! The messiah must be on his way.  The Israel Project sent out an e mail blast to its activists which is so nakedly honest (and damaging) that it must be seen to be believed:

Subject: In the “messages that fail” department, please see this…
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:36:40 -0400
From: Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi
To: Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi

As to research on saying that there isn’t a “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza and that no one is starving, we will have that on what Luntz and Greenberg are testing next week. But you don’t need that data to know it is a complete dead-end of a message. Reporters and leaders all over Washington are complaining about this and some say they see Israel and cold and heard hearted.  Given that 6 more flotillas are headed to Israel (including one of Jews from Germany and one of Jews from the UK) we need to make sure we understand this well.

Watch this from Jon Stewart. Watch to the end and listen to how they react to when Krauthammer uses the message…ouch!

http://vimeo.com/12350665

Clearly we need to be saying that “While no one is starving in Gaza because Israel delivers so much aid, there IS suffering in Gaza. We want the suffering to stop. That is why Iran-backed Hamas must stop using supplies for rockets and Hamas must release Gilad Shalit. Hamas must be accountable for their actions and for the suffering they are causing their OWN people.”

On a good note, the topic in the US tonight will shift to energy. Alternative energy is obviously a great topic for Israel as Israel has much to say that could help on this.

Thanks!

Jennifer

Gee, thanks Jennifer for putting Israel’s hasbara effort out there for all the world to see.  You concede Israel cannot win on the Gaza siege and don’t even need your trusty pollster flack Frank Luntz to tell you that.  Though maybe you’ll share the poll results with us so we can see for ourselves how badly the message polls?

Despite your honesty, I’m afraid it doesn’t extend to how Israel should end the suffering in Gaza.  Instead of the obvious lifting of the blockade, you as usual blame the Gazans for their own suffering by falsely claiming that Hamas is responsible for it when you and the rest of the world know that Israel is fully responsible for Gaza’s suffering.

Do keep that hasbara coming about Israel as the beacon of alternative energy.  Why don’t you also recommend that Israel cap that BP well in the Gulf of Mexico.  Perhaps it can spare one of its nuclear weapons to collapse the well in on itself as some experts have suggested?  Don’t you think that would actually be a beneficial use of Israel’s nuclear weapons instead of threatening its enemies with mass destruction as Israel’s leaders, generals, and policy analysts regularly do (viz. Lebanon 2006, Gaza 2008, Iran, etc.)?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Israel eases Gaza blockade (theworld.org)

As you read this, John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel is hosting its annual conference in Washington, DC. It’s instructive to see which Jewish “leaders” and organizations have made common cause with this anti-Semitic slimeball.

On Monday, David Makovsky (Dennis Ross’ best buddy) and Jennifer Lazlo Mizrahi (Frank Luntz’s best buddy) whipped up a nice bit of hysteria about Iran’s alleged commitment to Israel’s destruction.  Let’s not forget that Jennifer’s hubby is a top Israeli diplomat in town.  Gary Bauer, the president of CAMERA, and the director of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem gave a workshop on Israel 101: Basics of the Israeli-Arab Conflict, which should be retitled “Basic Hasbara of the Israeli-Arab Conflict.”  Forcibly retired U.S. senator Rick Santorum and David Frum did a dog and pony show on U.S.-Israel relations (that should be illuminating–yawn).

If you’d only been there last night, you could’ve been illuminated by the cumulative wisdom of Rep. Eric Cantor and Michael Medved speaking to the select wealthy few at the Chairman’s Club Donor Banquet.  Just think how smart you’d be after hearing those two illuminati speak.

If you hurry, you might still be to catch Fred Barnes, Rep. Shelley Berkley (Aipac’s most slavish boot-licker in Congress), and Malcolm Hoenlein (still thinks Obama’s a Muslim) give a Mideast Briefing.  Can you think of anything more toxic than to hear these blowhards talk on a subject about which they know nothing more than what’s in their hasbara playbook?

Buy your tickets now for the Night to Honor Israel Banquet Dinner at which you will be regaled by the sound and fury of John Hagee and Dennis Prager.  What, they couldn’t get Rush to join them?

Jewish neocons and fundamentalist Bible Belters: a match made in heaven!  To quote Tevye: “May the Lord bless and keep them–far away from me.”

Meanwhile, one of the funniest satirical pieces I’ve read in a long was written by Justin Vogt about last year’s CUFI conference.  Here’s a sampling:

At this year’s CUFI gala, beneath a stage framed by massive American and Israeli flags, the country-music star Randy Travis belted out The Star-Spangled Banner. Cornerstone’s choir performed a Dixiefied version of Hava Nagila, the celebratory Hebrew folk-song (“Chicken in the barn, pickin’ up grain/ It don’t matter if it’s sunny or rain / Next year in Jerusalem! / Ve nis’mecha!”) And a jumbo-sized cinema screen bombarded the audience with an infomercial touting the work of the evening’s proud corporate sponsor, Zion Oil & Gas, a company founded by a Hagee supporter who believes that the Bible contains clues that point the way to plentiful deposits of oil in Israel. (“The geology has confirmed the theology,” explained one executive.)

This is part of a series of critiques of  Frank Luntz’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary.

Thanks to reader John Dickerson for coming up with the delightful moniker “Fictionary” to describe Frank Luntz’s bit of hasbara mediocrity written on behalf of the The Israel Project.   Here is more of my detailed critique of the material in the handbook:

In contrast to those in the Middle East who indoctrinate their children to become hate-mongers and suicide bombers, Israel educates their children to strive for progress and peace. Israel is the one place in the Middle East where a young girl can grow up to be anything she wants—from a doctor to a mommy, to a businessperson and even to be prime minister!

Yes, Israel is a feminist paradise.  No problems there.  When I last lived in Israel in 1980 it was still illegal for women to work in jobs that required them to work at night.  I assume that nasty bit of discrimination has been removed from the books.  Israel has a proportionally high degree of domestic violence and rape.  It is, and has always been quite a macho society as are many Middle Eastern societies.  Yes, there has been one female prime minister in its 60 year history.  Tzipi Livni came close in the last election and may have done less well than she might have because she is a woman.  I hope that she or another Israeli woman will become the second prime minister.  But to claim that any Israeli girl can grow up to become prime minister is another exaggeration from Luntz’s playbook.

The Fictionary contains numerous misleading or fraudlent poll results.  One of them claims that 59% of those polled believe the U.S. should favor Israel while only 29% believe we should favor the Palestinians.  There’s only one small problem.  They didn’t ask how respondents believe U.S. policy should favor neither side or be even-handed.  That of course, would radically shift the results.  I am certain that a plurality or even majority of respondents would favor this position.

Talking about Israel in the context of religion is a Luntz no-no:

…Some of those who are most likely to believe that Israel is a religious state are most hostile towards Israel.

…Even the mention of the word “Jew” is many Israel contexts is going to elicit a negative reaction—and the defense of Israel as a “Jewish State” or “Zionist State” will be received quite poorly. This may be hard for the Jewish community to accept but this is how most Americans and Europeans feel.

God forbid, don’t mention Biblical claims to Judea and Samaria.  Don’t mention the Orthodox monopoly on Israeli social institutions like marriage and divorce.  A big turnoff to Americans.  Besides, this only reminds Americans that Israel’s biggest supporter are Christian fundamentalists.  And if you’re reaching out to the undecided middle, as Luntz claims to be, the fundies are an even bigger turnoff.

What’s extraordinary is the Luntz is conceding that one of the central tenets of Zionism, that Israel is a Jewish state, does not resonate with the non-Jewish world.  If only right wing Zionists could actually hear this statement and grasp its meaning and adapt Israel accordingly (turning Israeli instead into a state that embraces both Jews ANDS Arabs as equals), then perhaps it wouldn’t be in the pickle it is now in.

The TIP handbook cynically reminds hasbaraniks that they don’t have to answer hard questions about Israel.  And if they are asked tough questions–change the subject:

No matter what you are asked, bridge to a productive pro-Israel message. When asked a direct question, you don’t have to answer it directly…Remember, your goal in doing interviews is not only to answer questions—it is to bring persuadable members of the audience to Israel’s side in the conflict.

Luntz reminds his audience that browbeating the media is more important than having facts or a good argument:

A simple rule of thumb is that once you get to the point of repeating the same message over and over again so many times that you think you might get sick—that is just about the time the public will wake up…But don’t confuse messages with facts.

I wish some of my right-wing readers and commenters here would remember this worthwhile message:

Spending time giving the public a history lesson on the maps of Israel will put your audience to sleep — at best. At worst…it will be viewed by Americans and Europeans as a game of gotcha…Remember—communications is not a test for who can remember the most facts.

The Fictionary once again expresses fake concern for the Palestinians:

Avoid head on attacks of your opponents. Use a soft tone.  Show regret that the Palestinians have been led so poorly.

No mention of the sterling quality of Israel’s leadership which, much like the Palestinian, has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity for peace.

Here’s more fiction, this time mangling the Road Map:

“How can the current Palestinian leadership honestly say it will pursue peace when previous leaders rejected an offer to create a Palestinian state just a few short years ago and now refuse to live up to their responsibilities as outlined in the Road Map?”

A “few short years ago” was actually 1998 and Camp David, but who’s counting.  As for the offer of a Palestinian state, yes there was one that retained a significant percentage of the Occupied Territories as Israeli.  Both Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak knew in advance that Arafat was unlikely to accept this truncated offer and he didn’t.

As for the Road Map, what Luntz won’t tell you is that Israel has refused to live up to its own responsibilities under that document.  Step 1 calls for a settlement freeze, precisely what Barack Obama is now lobbying Israel to do and which Israel is rejecting.

…If Israel stopped fighting terror, the violence would not end? If the Palestinians stopped terror, Israel would have no reason for curfews, fences, checkpoints, and other defensive measures.”

Actually, if Israel was willing to make the compromises necessary for peace (withdrawing to 1967 borders with minor adjustments) then the Palestinians would compromise as well.  But Frank sees no need for Israel to actually negotiate a peace agreement with the Palestinians.  There one small problem with his logic: if the Palestinians stopped resisting the Occupation as Frank demands, then Israel would be under no pressure to negotiate in good faith to end it.  And it wouldn’t.  You see, in Frank’s world view the Israelis are just like the next door neighbor in your suburban subdivision.  Sure you may have some minor disagreements.  But everyone’s basically good-natured and we can work out any problem with a little good will.  Because–aw shucks–we’re all just good old fashioned Americans at heart.  Aren’t we?  Clearly, Frank sees Israel through American glasses and not as they really are.

There are good Israelis and bad ones.  But they aren’t Americans.  They don’t think like us and don’t act like us.  They don’t live in the same part of the world we do and don’t face the same issues we do.  Their interests are different than our own.  To pretend that they are us is dishonest and misleading.

“Is it too much to ask that the Hamas leadership condemn all terrorist activities, including suicide bombers? Is it unreasonable to insist that they stop killing innocent children before Israelis jeopardize their security and make concessions for peace?”

Actually, none of this would be unreasonable would Frank and Israel do one small thing themselves: condemn Israel’s own violations of international law, the targeted assassinations, Gaza siege, etc.  If the IDF would stop killing innocent Palestinian children as it did in Gaza, then the Palestinians too might be willing to “make concessions for peace.”

Luntz has a real bug up his ass about Hamas:

“Why is the world so silent about the written, vocal, stated aims of Hamas?”

This is Hamas, the bug-eyed exterminationist Islamist militants who want nothing more than to kill Jews and throw them into the sea.  The Hamas of the 1988 Hamas charter.  That’s the document created when the movement was in its infancy.  The one written by some member no one can even remember.  The one no current Hamas member can even quote.  The one Hamas leaders say has absolutely no governance over anything the movement does now.

I’ve challenged Frank in the comment threads here to find a Jew-hating statement by a current Hamas leader.  But surprisingly for someone so deeply attached to truth and accuracy, instead of producing proof for his claim he’s bid our blog a fond adieu.  He wouldn’t want to actually have to support his prejudices with evidence, you see.

The TIP document does know the pro-Israel crowd well enough to acknowledge its rhetorical Achilles heel: a conviction that Israel is always right and the other side always wrong.  Clearly, Luntz believes that Israel IS always right.  But he advises, for tactical reasons, to downplay this arrogant approach.  He suggests that his spinmeisters tone it down a bit.  Don’t clobber an audience over the head with your certitude (a common affliction of this crowd):

Never, never, NEVER speak in declarative statements. Never. Americans and Europeans think in shades of gray – especially when it comes to conflict in the Middle East. They believe both sides are to blame, both sides are responsible for making sacrifices for peace…So every time you say “every,” totally,” “always,” “never,” or the like, the reaction is immediate and negative.

The Fictionary dusts off an old Sharon policy that didn’t work for him and certainly won’t work now.  Sharon used to say that Israel would negotiate with the Palestinians once they stopped violent resistance against the Occupation.  So here’s Luntz’s version:

The situation in the Middle East may be complicated, but all parties should adopt a simple approach: peace first, political boundaries second.

This proposition places the cart before the horse.  There is violence because neither Palestinians nor Israelis know what territorial boundaries Israel is willing to accept.  Territory is precisely at the heart of the conflict.  So to demand the Palestinians become quiescent in order to then negotiate these boundaries is fraudulent.  There can only BE peace once these boundaries are neogiated and agreed upon by the parties.

Here Luntz makes an interesting concession to the truth.  He admits the public doesn’t believe the Israeli government:

Don’t try to stack your credibility up against the media’s...Americans trust the
media to report the situation in the Middle East more accurately than either Israel or the
Palestinian government. Do not attempt to impeach the credibility of a media report head
on. You’ll just end up undermining you own.

This of course doesn’t stop pro-Israel partisans from whining incessantly about how the media hates Israel and is anti-Semitic.  But at least the author of this reports warns them off this bankrupt strategy.

Here’s some more cold water thrown on the typical hasbara approach:

Also, don’t try to stack your credibility up against the global community’s...The public doesn’t want to hear Israeli politicians complain about this fact [that the world is against Israel]. The Israel-against-the-world, woe-are-we approach comes across as divisive.

In the following passage, the TIP handbook concedes that the Palestinians are viewed more sympathetically than Israelis:

The world sees Israel and the Palestinians on completely different plains…It’s David vs. Goliath – only this time the Palestinians are seen as David.

To be continued…

I’ve been writing a serial critique of Frank Luntz’s 2009 Language “Fictionary” written for The Israel Projects hasbara efforts on behalf of the Israeli Occupation.  Comment is Free just published my own account of the project.  It was written after I’d read Douglas Bloomfield’s critique of the document, but before I’d had a chance to delve deeper into it when the full handbook became available at the Newsweeek site.  But my piece is still useful as an introduction to the worst aspects of Luntz’s puerile hasbara handbook.