As the war in Lebanon raged, the National Brands Index (read current report as pdf download) added Israel as one of 36 countries it would analyze as a “brand.” In other words, it examines in international surveys the reputation and attitudes held by individual consumers toward nations as if they were branded products. And Israel’s brand is about as low as you can go.
Here’s more from Israeltoday on the survey methodology:
The Index surveyed 25,903 online consumers across 35 countries about their perceptions of those countries across six areas of national competence: Investment and Immigration, Exports, Culture and Heritage, People, Governance and Tourism.
Anholt relates the study to the Israeli foreign ministry’s recently announced “rebranding” campaign to improve the nation’s image in the eyes of the world in the aftermath of the shellacing it took during the Lebanon war:
[He] believes that the politics of a nation can affect every single aspect of a person’s perception about a country. In the light of the recent announcement that the Israeli Foreign Ministry has taken upon itself to re-brand Israel, Anholt comments that to succeed in permanently changing the country’s image, the country has to be prepared to change its behavior. He reiterates his strong belief that a reputation cannot be constructed: it has to be earned…
The survey also indicated that Israel came last in each area by a long margin, including the fact that of the 36 countries ranked, there is nowhere that respondents would like to visit less than Israel. Worse yet, the survey indicates that Israel’s people were also voted the most unwelcoming in the world.
And there was one more unpleasant surprise: Whoever thought that the United States is Israel’s best friend and Israel is loved in the US, the index indicated that Americans ranked Israel just slightly above China in terms of its conduct in the areas of international peace and security.
Food for thought for any thinking Israeli political leader. Notice I said “thinking,” because the current crop of leadership wouldn’t know how to follow Anholt’s advice if its life depended on it. And while Tzippi Livni seems a cut above the rest of the ruling coalition, she certainly does not have the political clout to actuate any substantive changes in Israeli policy. So as far as Anholt’s directive is concerned her branding campaign is dead in the water (Anholt put it a little more diplomatically than I did).
It is worthwhile exploring what the report says about the specific reasons for Israel’s ranking:
The Israeli Government is certainly right to be concerned as the international image of the country is in very poor shape indeed. Israel’s brand is, by a considerable margin, the most negative we have ever measured in the NBI, and comes in at the bottom of the ranking on almost every question. Only Bhutan, the first ‘guest country’ we included in the NBI, achieved similarly low scores. However, this was because very few of our respondents in the 35 countries in which the survey is run had even heard of the tiny Himalayan kingdom, let alone held any firm views about it. Israel’s poor scores are clearly not the result of anonymity: it is one of the most famous countries in the world.
It is in the areas of governance that, perhaps predictably, Israel achieves its lowest scores. In response to one of the questions in this section of the survey, “how strongly do you agree with the statement that this country behaves responsibly in the areas of international peace and security?”, Israel scores lowest of all the 36 countries in the NBI. Even the U.S. panel, otherwise one of the more positive panels towards Israel, places Israel 35th out of 36 on this question (China is last).
C’mon, there must’ve been somebody somewhere in the world who likes Israel, you say. Yup, there is–Russia:
Russia gives Israel its highest rankings…On the question of international peace and security, Russia ranks Israel 20th overall.
I guess ranking Israel 20th out of 36 instead of 36th out of 36th must be some kind of blessing. But considering its recent reputation of irradiating its enemies with radioactive poisons, one wonders if Russia is company with which Israel wants to be seen.
Further survey questions plumbed international attitudes toward Israel:
One of the most significant questions in the NBI, that over the last two years we have found to be one of the best indicators of generally positive or negative feelings about countries…asks people how willing they would be to live and work for an extended period in the country.
…Here, Israel is ranked last by every panel including the Americans, and even the Russians only give it a 28th ranking. For the related tourism question about the likelihood of a respondent visiting the country if money were no object, Israel is ranked bottom overall at 35th amongst Americans and 32nd amongst Russians. When we ask whether respondents believe that the people of the country would make them feel welcome if they visited, Israel again comes bottom of the list, 29th amongst Americans and 32nd amongst Russians. [If] Israel’s intention is, as the Foreign Minister says, to promote itself as a desirable place to live and invest in, the challenge appears to be a steep one.
Considering that tourism is generally considered a significant industry for the Israeli economy (at least when there are no war clouds on the horizon), this would indicate how much more successful it could be if Israel ever became a “nation like unto all other nations,” as the early Zionist philosopher, Ahad HaAm once dreamed. Imagine how much revenue could be earned if Israel were ranked say, 10th instead of 35th.
And lest troubled Israel supporters here doubt the objectivity of the survey or its author, he even personally questions the objective basis for some of the views held by survey respondents:
But even a country like Germany, where views on Israel…are likely to be more balanced, seldom ranks Israel above the bottom 10 places in the survey. The highest ranking given to Israel by the German panel is a mere 23rd place on the question that asks whether respondents agree with the statement that ‘this country has a rich cultural ‘heritage’, a ranking which is arguably very much lower than the country objectively deserves.
But his job was not to judge whether the perceptions were based on objective criteria. His job was rather to determine what those views were. And even if you are an ardent supporter of settler nationalism, it should deeply trouble you that the world has forgotten that Israel “has a rich cultural heritage.” Actually, Israel’s heritage is one of the world’s deepest and most profound. For such a fact to be overwhelmed amongst the death and misery going on in the region is yet another one of the tragedies that stains the honor of Israelis and Palestinians alike.
In this passage, Anholt notes how fully the conflict holds Israel hostage in the eyes of the world community. Every single aspect of Israel’s image, even aspects which should not be affected by it, are.
The political aspects of the country’s image appear to be contaminating perceptions of other areas of national interest which, in theory, should be entirely unrelated. However much one might disapprove of the policies of a country’s government or even of successive governments, this shouldn’t really have any impact on one’s views of its natural landscape or its past cultural achievements. Yet the case of Israel shows that there is no absolutely impenetrable barrier between the world’s perceptions of national politics and its perceptions of national culture, society, economics, history or even geography, and if the politics create sufficient disapproval, no area of national interest is safe from contamination. America should take note.
Now, lets return to Livni’s national re-branding campaign which she announced with some fanfare a few weeks ago. On this, Anholt is savagely dismissive:
I find it inconceivable that any country can change the way the world views it as a whole purely through marketing communications and forms of deliberate propaganda…There is no evidence whatsoever…that national ‘branding campaigns’, where governments attempt to alter international perceptions of their country as a whole, have the slightest effect on the images of any countries that undertake them.
This is surely because all countries, at some level, get the reputation they deserve – either by things they have done, or by things they have failed to do – and it is astonishingly naive to imagine that the deeply rooted beliefs of entire populations can possibly be affected by advertising or public relations campaigns unless these campaigns truthfully reflect a real change in the country itself. With questions of national image, both the problem and the solution always have far more to do with the product than with the packaging…
The only thing that can permanently change a country’s image is a change in the country and in the way it behaves. As I have often said, a reputation cannot be constructed: it has to be earned.
Take that, Tzipi and you other hasbaraniks. It just won’t work. Change the substance of the policy and the improved image will flow from it.
And in case those folks I mention in the above paragraph haven’t gotten the message, the survey author reinforces it yet again:
If Israel feels, as it clearly does, that it is misunderstood and misrepresented, simply repeating its own side of the argument is unlikely to achieve very much, no matter how creatively, loudly or persuasively it does so, and no matter how much it spends on media to reinforce the argument. Fighting negative perceptions with commercial communications techniques is akin to fighting terrorism with conventional weapons…
Indeed, Anholt argues that the foreign ministry campaign won’t just ‘not work,’ it could indeed backfire and create even stronger resistance to Israel’s message throughout the world:
Public opinion on such matters tends to be largely immovable except where it is very lightly held, and this is clearly not the case with Israel…People’s views about Israel are notably passionate. Indeed, major publicity or propaganda campaigns like those Israel seems to be contemplating are likely to be counter-productive in such circumstances. The more people suspect that a foreign power is trying to make them change their minds about something, the more firmly they will believe that it is attempting to deny or conceal the truth, and the more fiercely they will maintain their views.
In this final passage, Anholt practically pleads for Israeli policymakers to rethink both their re-branding campaign and the entire rationale for their brutal strategy to fight Palestinian nationalism:
Countries are judged by what they do, not by what they say. As America is discovering to its cost, when public opinion is strongly against a country, even its most praiseworthy and disinterested actions are likely to be ignored or interpreted in a negative light. Nothing less than a sustained and comprehensive change of political, social, economic and cultural direction will ultimately result in a changed reputation. Therefore, it is no surprise if most governments feel that unpopularity is the lesser cost of the two (some even find a grim sense of vindication in their very unpopularity). It is also unsurprising that, like the Israelis, so many governments are tempted against all logic, experience or common sense to pursue the chimerical third option of directly manipulating international public opinion. But it is clear that propaganda can only work well in closed and controlled societies, and in our massively interconnected, media-literate and healthily sceptical globalised world, it is a currency whose value has fallen virtually to zero.
These are very wise words. I only wish that Israelis and their leaders would hear them and ‘harken unto them,’ as the Jewish prayer book say.
The nationalist IsraelInsider site quotes a pro-Israel activist denigrating the survey results because they were taken from July 27-August 18th, smack dab in the middle of the Lebanon war:
“Of course people didn’t think it was a good idea to come to Israel at that time,” Mizrahi said, in a note to the brand survey representatives. “Heck – not a lot of people from around the world wanted to come to NY city right after 9-11, did they? Shouldn’t you have pointed out that such a study is a snapshot of people’s opinions at the time — and that this was a highly unusual time?
To which I and Anholt would retort: the survey makes very clear that while national reputations may take a deep hit during a catastrophic event, they only bounce back to positive if the reputation was positive BEFORE the event. It seems clear that while Mizrahi’s comment has a certain validity, in the broader sense it is mostly peripheral. Israel’s already shaky reputation was further harmed by the war. But it will never bound back because it was never healthy to begin with (at least not in many years).
UPDATE: Mr. Anholt responded to my question on this subject with this statement:
“The survey was carried out at the same time as the Israeli military action against Hizbullah in Lebanon. However, it should be understood that unlike most of the research that people are accustomed to seeing on these kinds of topics, the NBI is not a public opinion survey (i.e. we don’t ask questions like “what is your view of Israel’s current military action in Lebanon?”) – it is a brand study, and rather than ask people their views on current events, the questionnaire is geared to finding out about people’s fundamental, underlying beliefs about countries (e.g. “how much do you think the government of this country contributes to international peace and security?”). Typically, these views don’t change very much over time, and even though events (such as the Danish “cartoons episode”) can create changes in the scores, they tend to go back to where they were fairly soon afterwards.
I certainly think that it would be interesting to measure Israel’s brand again in a few months time so that we can see how the scores change depending on events in the Middle East, and we might well decide to do this. However, all my past experience suggests that the changes will be undetectably small. People around the world have rather fixed views about countries which they have formulated over decades, and it’s very rare indeed for events in those countries – even major events – to affect those views in any long-term way.”
And in her final comment on NBI, she shows a complete misunderstanding of what the survey was meant to evaluate:
Multiple very reliable polls show that support for Israel in the US went UP during the war. At the same time, support for the Palestinians, Iran and Hezbollah went DOWN across Europe at that time.”
NBI was not seeking to determine whether the respondents supported Israel’s political position or military strategy. It rated how well the nation was thought of throughout the world. I may have sympathy for the political-military predicament of a particular country fighting a particular war, but that doesn’t mean that I must, perforce think very highly of that country in broader terms. Admittedly, this is a somewhat subtle distinction, but it’s one that Mizrahi missed entirely, subtlety not being a strong suit of the ultra-Israel crowd.
Thanks to Annie and Bea before her at Moon of Alabama for the linking to this report.
i’m very impressed richard, especially w/your rebranding campaign link. perhaps someday it will sink in . instead of hiring public relations specialists they will consider an overhaul of their approach to security.
all i am saying is give peace a chance. (john said that)
Rather than looking at a single opinion survey, or even multiple opinion surveys, it’s better to look at achievements and facts on the ground.
Israel was very popular after the 6 day war as well through the 1970s. It had that “plucky underdog” reputation in the media. Despite that, Israel was substantively a lot worse off when you look at the actual facts. Israel was not only refused recognition by the Arab and Muslim nations, but by almost the entire non-aligned movement. Spain did not grant recognition until 1986, China did not recognize Israel until the early 1990s.
Israel was effectively boycotted by the Arab League. Not only did Arab countries refuse to do business, but the boycott was enforced on a secondary and tertiary level. Many large corporate concerns simply would not do business in Israel.
Hyperinflation was a serious problem, and overall Israel could be said to have a third world economy.
Tourism was largely limited to the Jewish diaspora and the occasional European or American.
Let’s fast forward to today. Right now, Israel is recognized by everyone except most Arab and many Muslim majority states. The Arab boycott is a joke, it’s not even enforced by most Arab nations, and the secondary and tertiary boycotts are not effective at all.
Foreign investment in Israel has skyrocketed. Warren Buffet just dropped FOUR BILLION dollars into the country, Israel has an amazing high tech industry, including R&D centers run by Google, Motorola and Israel. I always chuckle when I see a call for boycotting Israel over the internet, because there’s a 90% chance that the person calling for the boycott is running their computer on a Pentium chip manufactured in Israel. Beyond high tech, Israel has a modern, diverse and prosperous economy. It has changed from a third world economy into a first world economy.
Tourism is much broader, although it still fluctuates depending on how active the conflict appears to be,
Beyond the borders, you also see the Israeli “brand” in effect with Israeli franchises now operating abroad. Max Brenner chocolates is now opening stores in the U.S.A., (it has already been open in Australia, the Phillipines, and Singapore). Ditto for Aroma coffee. Ditto for the Sigal Dekel fashion house. Israeli products from produce to clothing to diamonds can be found all over the world.
So whatever some “branding” survey says, Israel is in fact thriving, and it is doing a lot better than when it had a better reputation in some quarters.
Before RIchard resorts to form and accuses me of being a right wing Likudnik, let me say that I think a major reason for this turnaround has to do with the Oslo Accords. They were a bold political move that helped solidify Israel’s place in the world diplomatically and economically, a benefit that I think many of their detractors fail to recognize.
But I’ll also say that this doesn’t mean that always making concessions will benefit Israel’s standing in the world. Israel’s reputation, particularly in some leftist political circles, really took it’s hit in the wake of the collapse of the Camp David negotiations in 2000. Despite making a brave offer for peace, Israel’s reputation took a hit in some circles. And even people who are sympathetic to Israel might answer that they are less likely to live, visit or invest in Israel because of the often sensationalist portrayal of the conflict.
On balance, despite what some consumer survey says, the objective evidence show that the Israeli “brand” is doing quite well. Personally, I think that slick “rebranding” campaigns are a lot of fluff. However, I do think it is worth it for Israel to promote itself not simply by arguing ad nauseum over the conflict, but to demonstrate the vibrant society that Israel actually is. It’s actually doing a pretty good job of that.
And I agree that Tzipi Livni is probably one of the few competant ministers in the government. Come to think of it, it seems that the only competant ministers are the two women (Livni and Tamir).
Why is the branding exercise any surprise? Israel is not an authentic country, but a museum of theft of Palestine. It has no authentic culture, only that copied from other countries, with coarseness added. Why visit a grotesque Disney like place with filth, when one can visit a real country
When someone’s got ya licked–just change the subject. So you can’t counter the reality of Israel’s dismal image in the rest of the world so you try to argue that really everything’s just great in Glockamora.
Ok, so let’s argue on yr terms since you can’t seem to mount any argument against the actual subject of the post. In the tsina (period of economic privation) of the 1950s, Israelis were practically starving. Now they’re not. In the early 1970s, Menachem Begin literally printed money to cover government expenditures that exceeded revenues, thus generating enormous hyperinflation. Now there is no hyperinflation. So things have improved. But compared to what?
Do you mean to tell me that Netanyahu’s Thatcherite disdain for the hundreds of thousands of Israeli poor, which destroyed the traditional societal safety net by ending government programs designed to help the indigent–that this has created an economic miracle there? If so, then why do one in three Israeli children live in poverty? Why do you think Peretz’s and the Pensioner’s Party social agenda resonated so well with the electorate in the last election? It garnered them seats because a strong percentage of Israelis agreed with their political analysis of the rich-poor divide.
Everyone in Israel knows there is a devastating problem in Israeli society by which the poor are left to fend for themselves. It is a shame that many Israelis acknowledge. But not Citizen Parkhurst. Israel’s sittin’ pretty–not a care in the world in the world of rose colored glasses.
Israel is not FULLY recognized since almost every country with diplomatic ties does not house their diplomatic missions in Israel’s capital. Why? Because not a single one of these countries recognizes Israel’s claim to Palestinian conquered territory. Israel is a pariah state except to our friend here.
Again, everything is relative. If you were honest you’d admit that if Israel wasn’t a willing world pariah, that its high tech industry would be light years ahead of where it is now. If it had done everything in its power to normalize its relations with its neighbors, the Warren Buffetts would’ve been beating down a path to Israel’s door long ago.. You’d admit that only when Israel does this will it realize its full economic potential and the prosperity that could be a rising tide raising all boats in Israeli society.
Warren Buffett likely would’ve sunk that $4 billion in Israel years ago had there not been an Occupation and intifadas. And when he made his decision, he likely would’ve sunk an even greater sum into Israel’s economy. For you, Israel’s glass is full–economic wishful thinking. For me, Israel’s glass isn’t even half full compared to what it might be.
Tell it to the legions of Mizrachi and Israeli Arab poor who live from hand to mouth and don’t reap any benefits from said wondrous bounty. Yes, your university grads with engineering degrees are doing just fine thank you. But what about less skilled workers? What about those long term unemployed or under-employed whom yr high tech ‘revolution’ has left behind?
Tourism is still almost entirely dependent on Jews visiting from abroad, and Christian and Muslim believers coming to visit holy shrines. There is almost none of the discretionary tourism enjoyed by most western countries considered desirable destinations. Why else would the NBI rank Israel dead last in terms of places the respondents would like to visit?? As I wrote in my post, were there normal relations among Israel and its neighbors, tourism would increase exponentially as Israel has undeniably attractive features to draw tourists from around the world.
Really, you must be kidding. Diamonds are not “Israeli” products. And these supposedly Israeli products are not bought in the same way a fine French wine is purchased. There is not such a thing as terroire involving diamonds (though there should be, which would help lessen the deleterious effect of diamonds on fratricidal African wars). If retail diamond buyers had a choice between a diamond from Israel or one from another country–which do you think the majority would choose? As for the rest, these are international brands?? Of course, the reason why there are so few truly international brands manufactured in Israel is precisely the reasons enumerated by NBI.
I must say I’m rather speechless to read this “falling away” from yr usual rightist views. At least we agree on one thing. But think if Oslo had been truly ratified & realized by both sides (both were responsible for its demise). Think where both the Israeli & Palestinian economies would be were it not for suicide bombings & targeted assassinations and Lebanon wars. It’s heartbreaking to think of the economic powerhouse that could exist right at this very moment were it not for brutality & intransigence on both sides.
Again you revert to form and to making precisely the same mistake made by Livni & the Israeli rebranding campaign. What drives the avg. person away from living, working or investing in Israel is NOT “the sensationalist portrayal of the conflict” but rather the conflict itself. People aren’t fools. They know when people are dying. They know when there is danger. And most people run from danger. Some don’t. Settlers don’t. But they are a distinct minority. Latter day Israel in a constant state of war w. its neighbors is a sow’s ear. No amt. of “rebranding” or more favorable media coverage will turn that into a silk purse.
If I’d been drinking a cup of coffee I would’ve spewed all over the kitchen walls at that one. A pretty good job? Who are you fooling? I don’t doubt that Israel’s current environment pleases you. But who, other than you, ever said your perspective on Israel was a fully informed, balanced & well-rounded one?
I’m afraid the filth isn’t in Israel, it’s in your own foul & filthy brain. Lord protect & preserve us fr. the true believers on either the Israeli and Arab sides. You’re all worthy of damnation for the death & devastation you advocate toward whichever enemy you happen to hate.
I would appreciate it if you could answer my critiques without venom. My solution is entirely peaceful. I think Jews should exercise their right of return to whereever they come from so that Palestinians can exercise their right of return. As a man who purportedly supports social justice, I would expect that you could see that this is the only just solution. Nobel Peace Prize winners like Carter and Tutu know that this is the only just solution, but the world climate is such that even these courageous men are afraid to state the obvious
In a hysterical fit of what psychologists call “projection.” Richard proclaims “When someone’s got ya licked–just change the subject.”
You then go on to ignore the issues and instead dive into a tirade of “everything I hate about Israel” coupled with ad hominem attacks and false labels to boot.
First, you change the subject by talking about income inequality and poverty in Israel. This really doesn’t have much to do with the Israeli “brand.” As a lifelong democrat, I have always been concerned about poverty in the U.S., and also would like to see it eradicated in Israel. But that’s another subject.
The point I made, and which you never really contested, is that Israel was diplomatically isolated and economically a third world country 30 years ago, and now is unquestionably diplomaticaly and economically better off.
In response to that, you claim that Israel is a “pariah” nation because other countries choose to locate their embassies in Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem. Jerusalem is contested political ground, and so it’s no surprise that countries avoid the diplomatic contoversy. Personally, I see no harm in placing an embassy in West Jerusalem, but nor do I see the failure to as evidence of a “pariah” nation. I think you just like to use that word because it makes you feel good.
We then take a turn into Silversteinian speculation. At the very least, you agree (as the facts compel) that Israel has improved its economy from third world to first world status. Instead you claim that Israel would be EVEN BETTER if it had adopted Silverstein’s political manifesto. Certainly Israel would do better if at peace (although its experience in military development is at least partly responsible for the tech boom). But Israel also would do worse if it ultimately took actions that allowed its enemies to destroy it. In some cases, Israel’s peacemaking efforts have been successful in promoting its image (Camp David w/ Egypt, Oslo Accords, treaty with Jordan), in other cases it actually set Israel back (Camp David w/ Arafat, and probably the withdrawal from Lebanon). To simply say, “give them what they want” (or really, “give them what I, Richard Silverstein, demand”) is not a guarantor of peace or stability. Our third interlocutor is unfortunately represenative of a greater role than you care to admit.
We then have the assertion that “Tourism is still almost entirely dependent on Jews visiting from abroad, and Christian and Muslim believers coming to visit holy shrines. There is almost none of the discretionary tourism enjoyed by most western countries considered desirable destinations. Why else would the NBI rank Israel dead last in terms of places the respondents would like to visit?”
You simply beg the question, which is whether the UBI survey accurate reflects the tourism industry, Tourism obviously draws its share of pilgrams, because Israel’s religious history has obvious appeal. But this doesn’t explain the large growth in hotels and other tourist sites in Tel Aviv, which is one of the largest Israeli destinatons. It is almost a completely secular city (well, there is neighboring Jaffa, but that’s not the only reason people go to Tel Aviv) yet attracts tourism. And then there is the large spa industry in Eilat and by the Dead Sea, which brings European tourism.
Tourism does fluctuate based on how much media coverage the violence gets. You seem to think that people who decide not to go to Israel are doing so because they are correct in thinking it’s a dangerous place. While there is perhaps some risk of being killed by a random suicide bomber (much less now that the wall has gone up) the fact is that Israel is much safer for visitors then it is made out to be.
As it happens, I was just there, and the people I met who were also visiting were not religious pilgrims, or even Republicans! They were an incredibly diverse group of people who just wanted to see Israel, and they all loved it!
Now we have this chestnut “Really, you must be kidding. Diamonds are not “Israeli” products.”
They most certainly are. Although Israel imports raw materials, diamonds are cut, polished, set, and again traded in Israel. I certainly never meant to imply that the diamonds are mined there. But that’s just your quibbling over terminology. What’s relevant to the “branding” discussion is that the Israeli diamond bourse is one of the most respected exchanges in the world (including in some other areas you’d be surprised to find them…more on that later).
As to your question “If retail diamond buyers had a choice between a diamond from Israel or one from another country–which do you think the majority would choose?”
We don’t need to ask “what if.” Consumers can purchase diamonds from all over the world, and they choose to buy them from Israel.
“As for the rest, these are international brands??”
Um, yeah, just a few examples. And just in the past week I noticed several others around. Ahava cosmetics, Naot shoes, Maccabi Beer (well, that’s much harder to find, but you get the point. Or maybe you don’t). No, you don’t have a category killer like McDonalds originating in Israel, and frankly I don’t want Israel to have something like that. But Israeli products are widely available around the world.
Ultimately, I think we would all like the conflict in Israel to be resolved, though I suspect that certain participants in this discussion have widely divergent views on what it means to resolve the conflict. Despite that, Israel has done remarkably well for itself, regardless of what an abstract opinion survey says. In the meantime, we can leave with a few more random factoids…..
Israel’s latest trading partner? India. “Indian-Israeli trade – primarily in diamonds, machinery, chemicals, rubber and plastic – grew from $200 million in 1992 to $2.4 billion in 2005.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1164881814444&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Heck, Israel has even improved it’s exports to Arab countries! Exports have risen 19% to the Arab world!
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881811236&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Well, you may say, that’s just Jordan and Egypt, who have peace treaties with Israel. Of course, remember those non-Israeli Israeli diamonds you denigrated? The latest people trading with Israel are from…wait for it! Dubai.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/22/africa/ME_FEA_GEN_Emirates_Unlikely_Partners.php
“We came there, they came here. There is no problem at all,” Paz said in Tel Aviv. “I wish that wherever I go, they’ll host me like they hosted me in Dubai.”
Looks like Israelis are doing quite well itself, even in some hostile parts of the world!
Sorry, Amin, but when you yoke “Israel” and “filth” it is you who have brought venom to this blog. And venom, whether coming from rightist nationalist Jews or Arabs gets answered the same way by me. I have no patience with rejectionist-exterminationist ideology whether from Israeli or Palestinian supporters. Your comments are not a ‘critique’, but rather a diatribe. There are already enough diatribes on both sides. That’s part of the reason there is so much death & suffering.
Your “solution” is no solution. It is not practical, not feasible & wholly disingenuous.
First, Jews have no “right of return” to “where ever they came from.” They were driven fr. those places by Holocaust. You’d have them return to Poland, Hungary, Romania, Germany, Russia, etc. after 6 million of their brethren were already killed in these places? Not to mention the survivors who returned to their homes only to find graffiti scrawled on walls warning them: “Itzik, what Hitler didn’t finish–we will.” This is actual graffiti that a survivor reported to me fr. firsthand testimony. Why would anyone in their right mind wish to resettle in places like that? And where would the 4 millions Jews resettle in these places? What communities would they live in? Who would pay for creating new housing and infrastructure for them? What jobs would they perform? How would they earn a living?
Your “solution” is brutal and hateful. It is flippant, precisely what is not called for in this situation in which real people are dying every day; people who require serious solutions.
No one here (at least not me) denies the suffering & displacement experienced by Palestinian Arabs who were expelled. I truly believe that in the course of time some of them will be able to resettle in Israel should they wish to. But they will never be able to do so in the numbers you envision.
Your vision would be to return to something like the status quo ante of 1947. I’m afraid it’s too late for that. We can’t go backwards. There are too many people on both sides who want to go back to some imagined perfect state of existence. Settlers would like to return to the Biblical period when Israel reigned over territory from the Jordan to the sea. Hamas extremists would like to return to a time when Arabs were the majority in mandatory Palestine, if not earlier. These are all pipe dreams.
You’d “expect” wrong.
I always enjoy when ideologues of either side appropriate public figures as their own who, in reality, don’t come close to sharing their views. Pls. let me know what in Tutu or Carter’s writings ever gave you the impression that they supported a one state solution in which Palestine was Judenrein.
We already know Joshua is a Middle East analyst, free speech expert, marketing executive and now to crown it all–he’s a psychologist. A man of so many talents. Too bad, his expertise is so wide and so very thin.
More lies. My social analysis of Israel was based on facts; based on scores of Israeli newspaper articles; and posts from Israeli bloggers who know firsthand whereof they speak. If it wasn’t, pls. do point out any of the judgments or facts I raised which were false.
Further, these facts were NOT “hate.” I do not hate Israel because one in three children live in poverty. I am angry about this fact as are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of other Israelis. I hate the poverty, but not the nation which allows it to happen.
I hate poverty here in our country too. But the diff. is Israel is rooted in a Biblical tradition which calls for acts of lovingkindness on behalf of the poor and the weak. When demagogues like Netanyahu destroy almost every social program that protected these individuals fr. the ravages of poverty, then I am angry. But not at Israel. Rather, I am angry at the politician which devised these great “reforms” and the party which he leads. And I am angry at their sycophants (that would be you) who sing their praises.
Not at all. You were the one who changed the subject since you refused to argue with the NBI index and instead claimed that it didn’t matter what anyone in the world thought of Israel, since Israel was getting on so swimmingly it didn’t need to care what anyone thought of it. You changed the subject by introducing the fiction of the Israeli economic miracle.
I answered you by pointing that your economic miracle barely concealed economic injustice and inequality which you refused to acknowledge.
What, are you deaf, dumb & blind. Of course I don’t contest Israel is better off now than it was then. But your claim is essentially meaningless since Israel could be exponentially better off than it is now if it wasn’t chained to a dead end military security policy that promised endless war with its neighbors.
Finally, the thousands of Israeli dead going back to 1948 and earlier argue that all is not honky dory in Glockamora as you argue about Israel. No amt. of economic success can paper over a major dysfunction in the nature of Israeli society. And Israel can never be a success as a nation until it resolves that dysfunction. I don’t care if Warren Buffet invests $100 billion in Israel–it won’t make a whit of difference if such a huge percentage of the national treasury is devoted to maintaining the war machine; and such a huge amt. of human labor is devoted to defending the homeland (or maintaining domination over a conquered people).
Further, I do not believe that Israel can continue indefinitely in its present state by attempting to maintain such policies. There will come “a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph” in U.S. presidential politics and Israel will no longer lead the charmed life it has enjoyed essentially since 1967 as a U.S. protectorate. Or there will come a time when an Arab state or states will rival Israel’s military prowess . Then no amt. of U.S. support may save Israel. So I argue why tempt the fates? Why wait for such a thing to happen? Why not be proactive & resolve the conflict before the conflict swallows you whole?
No, you have bowdlerized my views. Israel is a pariah nation because it has conquered territory and subjugated a nation and no one aside fr. the U.S. & a few others recognize this act. Well, even the U.S. officially refuses to recognize it–but unofficially of course winks at it. The failure to house embassies in Jerusalem is but a symptom of the underlying rejection & pariah state.
Only you and yr rightist compatriots believe that a negotiated settlement of the Israeli Arab conflict would “destroy” Israel. Welcome, to your nightmare. But not my nightmare. It is your views which would eventually destroy Israel as it can only die if it tries to maintain perpetual dominance as you would have it do.
Another falsification of my views. Peace treaties with Palestine, Syria and Lebanon will not merely “give them what they want.” It will give Israel AND THEM what they each collectively & individually want.
And besides, it is not just what these particular nations want;and it certainly has nothing to do with anything I want or demand. It is rather what the international community demands. Israel has conquered territory recognized internationally as belonging to them. The only way to resolve the situation is by Israel honoring those international norms. By returning territory, Israel stands to gain all the recognition and security it claims to crave from the Arab nations.
More delusion. Tourism does NOT fluctuate based on how much MEDIA COVERAGE the violence gets. The media covers violence when it happens. People decide not to come because of the violence and not because it is covered. Besides, in yr weird world if there was violence it would NOT be covered and then no one would know about it; tourists would flock to Israel, never know there was any violence, have a wonderful time, tell all their friends to come, and all would be for the best in this best of all possible world. What a crock!
It is not mere safety that keeps tourists away. That is but one major factor among many when people decide where to travel. It is their aversion to visiting a country which subjugates several million people. That is a hump Israel can never get over till it ends the Occupation. You don’t have to take my word for it. The facts & figures are all there in the NBI study.
And on the basis of this entirely anecdotal evidence (anecdotal evidence fr. an entirely biases source I might add) that we’re supposed to believe that the Israeli tourism industry is running at full speed and producing millions of happy, repeat customers. Hey, why don’t you work for the Israeli tourism ministry or the foreign ministry. You’d make an excellent propagandist on their behalf (that is, unless you actually do work as a shill, er employee for them).
I never said they weren’t. But no one outside the diamond industry and perhaps Israelis themselves knows this. Diamonds are not known or marketed internationally by their country of origin (except South Africa). If an ordinary Joe wanted to buy a diamond it would be highly unlikely he would ask specifically for an Israeli diamond and it would be highly unlikely a jewelry store would promote diamonds based on their being cut in Israel. My point is that for most people a diamond being Israeli made would not be a selling point. And I would bet that the diamond industries in New York and Brussels would far surpass Israel’s in size & vitality.
It is an absolutely unprovable statement that someone buying a retail diamond buys it because it comes from Israel. Unless you’re privy to diamond industry consumer surveys.
An entirely debatable pt. But my response would be they would be 100 or 1000 times more available if there were peace.
No, you don’t want the conflict resolved–unless that is it is resolved on Israeli terms that involve no substantial sacrifice or compromise. A pipe dream that means it will never be resolved. So you can’t let yourself off that easy by claiming you love peace as much as the next person.
Indian exports to the EU are $24 billion this year and to the U.S., $14 billion. You’ve got a ways to go.
You’ve got to be kidding. You neglect to mention what the dollar value is: $292 million! Ask yourself how much trade the U.S. does with Canada; Britain does with France; Germany does with Poland or Japan does with South Korea. The comparison would be pathetic. We probably do more trade with Canada in a day or less than Israel did with all its Arab neighbors in 9 months.
I weary of this interchange & no longer have any interest to continue sparring with you. Write at yr own risk since everything from here on out is likely to be dumped in the trash.
I have support for my position
1) Former Archbishop Desmond Tutu said people were scared to say the Jewish lobby in America was powerful. So what? he asked. ‘The apartheid government was very powerful but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.’
2) The title of Jimmy Carter’s new book- Peace, not Apartheid- The use of the word apartheid is not lost on anyone. The concept of a Jewish state is apartheid. You know it and I know it
Amin: The statement & book title you quote are a far cry fr. the claim that Israel should cease to exist. Of course I agree that Israel treats Palestinians like whites treated black South Africans. But both Tutu AND Carter would readily agree w. me that the solution is for Israel to end Occupation, withdraw fr. the Territories, & recognize an independent Palestinian state–so that both sides can live side by side together in peace. That is a FAR CRY fr. yr prescription which neither one would ever agree with.
Dear Richard
When I first visited your blog, I skimmed through it, since I did not have much time to read it in detail. I was impressed. I liked your stance on peace and tolerance, but I must confess that I am disappointed. Firstly I am saddened by your attack on Amin Nusseibeh. There is nothing wrong with suggesting that jews should be able to return to their countries of origin in Europe, but not forcefully ofcourse. Infact a lot of jews have been migrating to Germany, and this emmigration has even surpassed emmigration to Israel. There have been many articles that have stated this, here’s one I googled quickly:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/03/wjews03.xml
secondly, maybe I have misunderstood you, but I am also saddened that you disapprove of the refugee right of return. If someone was forcefully driven of their land, should they not be allowed back? Especially when most of them are still alive? If jews driven out of their land 2000 years ago magically gain a license to return, shouldnt also the Palestinians be given that right?
Tommorow if Canada changed its name to : “The United Anglo Saxon provinces of Canada”, the first people to jump up and down in protest would be Jews. Yet the same jews are more than willing to defend the “jewish” character of Israel. Why the double standard?
I am sorry if you are saddened by my attack on Nusseibeh. I only wish you would be as saddened by his vicious slurs against Israel.
Jews should be free to live wherever they wish. But to think that Israeli Jews would welcome expulsion from Israel and their return to countries they personally never lived in (though their grandparents or great grandparents might have) is beyond ludicrous.
Jews emigrating to Germany are largely doing so from Russia. There may be some Israelis living in Germany, but I doubt the number is very large. Keep in mind that Amin is not merely calling for Jews to be able to live in countries like Germany. He’s calling for the expulsion of Jews from Israel & their forcible resettlement in their so-called countries of origin.
I don’t disapprove of the Right of Return. I disapprove of an open-ended Right of Return & the possibility that several hundred thousand former refugees might physically return to Israel. I AM in favor of a Right of Return that permits a defined number of refugees to return to Israel while providing for financial compensation to those who choose not to return.
I am totally against the forceful expulsion of jews from Palestine, but I don’t approve of Israel expelling Arabs either.
“I don’t disapprove of the Right of Return. I disapprove of an open-ended Right of Return & the possibility that several hundred thousand former refugees might physically return to Israel. I AM in favor of a Right of Return that permits a defined number of refugees to return to Israel”
Hmmm I’m not sure I understand you here. The Arabs that were expelled of their land between 1947-48 numbered between 600,000 to 750,000. Massive populations were driven away by Israeli terror as documented by Benny Morris, Chomsky ect… Lots more were driven out in the 1950s when Israel violated the 1949 peace armistice with Jordan by launching incursions in the DMZs of the west bank. Recall that the bulk of the Fadeyeen members were those that Israel had driven out in the 50s (Chomsky, “Fateful triangle”). And then from 67 to now Israel has expelled several thousand more Arabs in their settlement building routine. Given that Israel has been continuously expelling Arabs over the period of its existence, which arabs according to you, have the right to return to Israel?
But I ask you this: if every jew (wherever he or she is) has the unconditional right of return to Palestine, why not every Arab that was expelled? Isn’t this injustice?
I believe in neither an open ended Right of Return for Palestinian refugees nor an open ended Right of Return for the world’s Jews. For the sake of fairness, both should be limited. Jews in danger of their lives or facing serious discrimination should be able to settle in Israel. Otherwise, they shouldn’t. I don’t feel that I personally need to have a Right of Return.
The Geneva Initiative provides for a reasonable means of determining who & how many Palestinians should return. If enough compensation is provided to those who choose NOT to return then you probably wouldn’t need to determine who should return. The refugees themselves might do so, voting with their feet (or “pocketbook” in this case).
Ok Richard, fair enough. I’m not entirely familiar with the geneva approach with regards to the right of return issue, so I’ll just leave it at this for now. I’ll read about it during my free time (i.e. at work) and then maybe we can resume this discussion. Take care for now