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…
RE: “the typical hasbara approach”
99 bottles of hasbara on the wall, 99 bottles of hasbara.
Take one down and pass it around, 99 bottles of hasbara on the wall.
99 bottles of hasbara on the wall, 99 bottles of hasbara.
Take one down and pass it around, 99 bottles of hasbara on the wall.
99 bottles of hasbara on the wall, 99 bottles of hasbara.
Take one down and pass it around, 99 bottles of hasbara on the wall.
(AD NAUSEAM)
Good one!
You’re on a role.
However dreadful this document might be, I have to confess that I would be grateful if some of its tenets (express sympathy for the Palestinians, don't paint conflict as black and white, don't get bogged down in historic disputes) would be respected by some of our hasbaristas on this and other blogs.
Before stopping I read as far as, “in 1980 it was still illegal for women to work in jobs that required them to work at night… Israel has a proportionally high degree of domestic violence and rape” and I consulted one of the recent United Nations studies of violence and crime which reported that of the top 20 (population) countries participating, plus Israel, the rapes per capita in sorted order are,
CANADA, 1:923
USA, 1:2,435
ISRAEL, 1:9,869
REP OF KOREA, 1:10,094
DENMARK, 1:10,397
RUSSIA, 1:10,561
FRANCE, 1:10,712
ENGLAND & WALES, 1:12,337
ROMANIA, 1:19,271
COLUMBIA, 1:22,587
UKRAINE, 1:26,811
PHILIPPINES, 1:29,900
SPAIN, 1:31,152
MOROCCO, 1:35,926
SUDAN, 1:44,858
ITALY, 1:70,536
INDIA, 1:74,121
JAPAN, 1:77,295
INDONESIA, 1:128,918
TURKEY, 1:216,897
EGYPT, 1:4,210,916
which indicates Canada has the most rapes per capita and has more than 4000x the rapes per capita as Egypt. I don't mean to say Egypt is dangerous or doesn't have a low rate of rape but it seems implausible that Canada is 4000x more dangerous than Egypt for rape.
Rape statistics are notoriously difficult to obtain. A more likely explanation for such a wide range that the UN reports is that the incidence of reporting is a larger factor than the incidence of rape. If this is true, the proper conclusion is that Israel is very good at recognizing and reporting rape as a crime which is good. Unless, you really want to believe that Canada is the rape capital of the world.
Do you have citations to support the assertions quoted above? I highly question the accuracy of at least one of them.
-Adam Grossman
Israel is not especially known for having the highest quality police force in the world, nor are Israeli women especially encouraged to come forward to report rapes. In fact, I'd say women there face just as many or more strictures as American women given that they live in quite a male-dominated macho society.
Israel's former president is now on trial for rape in a case that has lasted for years. He has a long-standing reputation of engaging in similar behavior throughout his career. The national prosecutor was only too happy to let him walk on a lesser charge, but the numbskull rejected the plea bargain & decided to go for it. I hope he gets what he deserves. It's tough as a woman in Israel to be taken seriously as a rape victim.
Do you actually have a job, or do you just spend all day shilling for those who celebrated the 9/11 attacks, hand out sweets when Jewish (and Muslim) men, women, and children are killed and maimed by suicide bombs packed with ball bearings to ensure maximum casualties, and educate fill their textbooks with maps of Palestine stretching from the river to the sea?
Yes, any little Israeli girl can dream of growing up to be Prime Minister, as long as she's not an Arab.
Even if that were the case, which it isn't, would that be so horrible? Do you think a Jewish child can be king/dictator/PM of any of the 22 Arab countries? Of Iran? Why is it such a horrible concept for Jews to have one little state where they can govern themselves?
Why can a future 2-state solution include Israel with a large Arab minority and a Judenrein Palestine?
Did a post on this Fictionary here.
Richard, Americans value a lot statements and quotes as evidence for a given position. Regarding Barak's “generous offer,” it would be interesting to make a list of examples of Israeli criticism of it. For instance, this Shimon Peres quote would be useful:
When I say there is a perception on the Israeli left that Mr Barak was incompetent, he [i.e., Peres] says: “Yes. That is the case. He was warned, including by myself, that asking the Palestinians to declare [at Camp David as part of the “final status” agreements] that they have no further ambitions, saying they had to renounce the right of return and concerns about the rest of Jerusalem, which are insoluble at this period of time, would go wrong.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profil…
“Why can a future 2-state solution include Israel with a large Arab minority and a Judenrein Palestine?”
Yeah, why while we're at it, why can't Israel allow the right of return for Palestinians? That would be fair. In all the years that Israeli Jews were stealing land in the West Bank, Palestinians weren't allowed to move back to Israel and buy land legally.
Now if we want to go even further, why not allow hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to move into Israel proper and take whatever land they want and build roads connecting their settlements which only they are allowed to use and after a few decades of this, when a peace settlement is reached, we can go for one man one vote?
I like how you picked on the last section of my comment while ignoring the first part. You certainly wouldn't hold most of those Arab and Muslim nations to one man/one vote, would you now?
I started to reply to the first part as well, but cut it, figuring it was too stupid to deserve a response. I agree that the Arab dictatorships are awful–I'd like to say I'm a little surprised to see you equate Israel (a supposed democracy) with a bunch of thuggish regimes, but I'm not. I've noticed this about some Israel defenders–their defenses of Israel often sound exactly like criticisms but they don't seem to realize it.
Do you think Israelis enjoy mandatory military service? Do you think they wouldn't prefer living in a barrier-free society where the threat of suicide bombings and missile attacks didn't exist?
Of couse Israel has its problems. Every society does. But the fact remains that Israelis–with the exception of an ultranationalist minority that, contrary to what you may believe, lacks strong government support and would not be able to undermine negotiations–would gladly make heavy concessions (heavier than have been made already) for true peace. Every time Israel tries to open more Gaza crossings, terrorists attack soldiers manning those same crossings. Right now, concessions only bring terror. Sadly, the Palestinians, along with their Arab brethren, have so far been unable–or unwilling–to foster a society that would embrace compromise, good-faith negotiations, and a final-status agreement that would satisfy enough demands all sides are making. Let us all pray that day comes soon.
As in Shas? You’ve probably read Ariel “Jim Crow” Atias’ execrable statements lately.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1097411.html
If a cabinet minister anywhere in the west directed such language at the Jewish minority in his/her country, the Jews (and not only them) would rightly be up in arms, and the minister an ex-minister quicker than you could say “anti-Semitism”.
Shas has in the past already threatened to leave a ruling coalition if negotiations would touch Jerusalem (or what passes for J’lem these days, soon to border the Dead Sea).
It doesn’t matter if the PM himself actively embraces Shas’ or Yisrael Beitenu’s agendas – ultranationalists if there ever were some – as long as they’re welcome to participate in the gov’t and the PM makes the conscious decision to depend on their votes they DO have both gov’t support and the ability to undermine negotiations.
Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu may be part of the coalition, but the fact remains that Israel has pulled back from territory over 3 times its current size (not much more left soon!–but that’s what you want, isn’t it?) without civil war. Israel left Sinai and Gaza under LIKUD governments. History shows that if the right deal comes along, the PM in charge (Netanyahu may be a “hawk,” but he’s also a pragmatist and no idiot and he craves a legacy) will make it happen and the public–or enough of it–will get behind him/her.
Begin had to be dragged screaming and kicking into the Sinai agreement. After Sharon withdrew from Gaza the Likud rebelled against his leadership & essentially planned to throw him out. So much for Likud doing the right thing. The idea that Bibi will negotiate a deal is laughable.
“So much for Likud doing the right thing.”
I never said anything about Likud “doing the right thing.” You are twisting my words. Then again, that’s all you do here, isn’t it? Take any “news” story that portrays Israel in a bad light and expand upon it in a black-and-white fashion? The sick thing is that you want peace even less than someone like Bibi. He at least wants to negotiate. You just say Israel’s wrong about everything and seek a 23rd Arab state in the place of the only Jewish one.
Bibi wants to negotiate??? What planet are you on? He says he wants to negotiate for the benefit of gullible fools & those in the U.S. gov’t he’s trying to hoodwink. He wants to seriously negotiate a resolution of the conflict about as much as I want a root canal surgery.
Yisrael Beiteinu may be “ultranationalist” on your terms, but Lieberman has gone on record supporting 2 states (well before Netanyahu accepted the idea)
What kind of 2 states does he support? An Israel and a bantustan. With a Palestinian state like that they’d be little better off than they are now. The claim that Lieberman supports two-states is close to fiction.
Hmmmm Lieberman lives in a settlement and supports as you say a two state solution. So it can mean that Lieberman will soon be a Palestinian politician leading the Palestine Beiteinu party. Once a populist opportunist, always a populist opportunist. 🙂
The majority of Israelis supported the Gaza War and apparently saw no problem with the blockade on Gaza and the settlements keep growing, so what you see as concessions may not look like much from the Palestinian side of the fence. As for what Israelis prefer, most people tend towards narcissism, I suspect, and see themselves as perfectly reasonable, wanting peace, but they want peace on their own terms. And they see the crimes committed against their side while somehow not noticing the crimes their side commits against the others. Israelis are not unusual in this regard, but it's tiring to read arguments like yours put forward as though it was the simple truth that Israelis want peace, but Palestinians don't.
“Israelis are not unusual in this regard, but it's tiring to read arguments like yours put forward as though it was the simple truth that Israelis want peace, but Palestinians don't.”
Show me that the Palestinians do.
OK. Besides the anecdotal stories do you have any citations to support the assertions quoted above?
You mean other than living in Israel two years, reading the Israeli newspapers online every day, following carefully the work of Israeli femininst groups and anti-domestic violence groups (including New Israel Fund), and speaking regularly with Israeli women about conditions in Israel???
C'mon. If you want links to those sites so you can study the issue let me know. But it isn't my job to prove that Israel isn't the most hospitable place for women. That's well known to many, if not most people.
This is not a right-left debating society in which you get to claim Palestinians are bad guys & Israelis good guys. If that's what you're after go somewhere else. No one here has to prove Palestinians want peace nor should they. The fact is self-evident to anyone who shows good faith & is not a propagandist.
If you keep trying to score debating pts. you may lose yr comment privileges here. And READ THE COMMENT RULES.
Do you have any citations to support the statement, “Israel has a proportionally high degree of… rape”? This has very specific meaning and is stated as fact. Is it fact or speculation?
Adam, you yrself presented a UN report which indicated Israel had the 3rd highest level of reported rapes in the world. You provided the evidence yrself. So unless you disbelieve evidence you presented, then yes it is documented. Independently, I have read of this as being fact as well or I wouldn't have stated it. I'd suggest you do a Google search using appropriate key words & you should find even more documentation.
UPDATE: I couldn’t help myself. According to the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel (ARCCI), one in three Israeli women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. That’s a pretty high percentage. I remember when I heard the 1 in 5 statistic about American women & I thought THAT was high.
I cited UN statistics which I called “implausible” and said they appear to be very inaccurate.
You have cited a speculation (about the future) that one in three Israeli women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, which is sad. This does not say anything about whether Israel has a “proportionally high degree of… rape” as you stated. (Note: 1 in 3 has a large error range and “in her life” is typically 2x “has already experienced”.)
Do you have any citations to support the statement, “Israel has a proportionally high degree of… rape”? This has very specific meaning and is stated as fact.
Adam you’re just trying to be argumentative. 1 in 3 women raped in their lifetime is a ‘proportionally high degree of rape.’ I have personal indirect experience of this phenomenon & I resent your exploiting such a serious social issue to score a debating pt. You can either accept or reject the evidence I’ve brought. If you really care & you aren’t just interested in having a good argument, you can do research yrself.
You’re just going to have to find someone else w. whom to have a mahloket. Good luck.
Do you have any citations to support the statement, “Israel has a proportionally high degree of… rape”? This has very specific meaning and is stated as fact.
If I understand, your answer is that the claim is supported by “personal indirect experience,” the fact that “Israel’s former president is now on trial for rape,” and your belief that “Israel isn’t the most hospitable place for women which is “well known to many, if not most people.”
In summary, this answer is “no”.
I believe the subject is very serious social issue and that speculative proclamations without citation should not be made lightly.
I do not keep score but if you do, I hope it is not 1 in 3.
Now you’ve annoyed me, Adam. My last comment made clear that I was done with this subject. Now let me make it clear: I AM DONE WITH THIS SUBJECT. If you want to play games find somewhere else to do it.
[comment deleted for being a royal pain in the ass]
[comment deleted because commenter needs to have the last word and is a plain pain in the ass and believes in ignoring the owner’s request to stop commenting in a thread]
[comment deleted for violation of comment rules–commenters privileges suspended]
[comment deleted due to ongoing violations of comment rules & incredible immaturity]
[comment deleted for violation of comment rules]
[comment deleted for violation of comment rules]
[comment deleted for violation of comment rules]
I love your Fictionary series Richard (and huge credit goes to John Dickerson for the name)! It’s guys like you that are helping to break the hasbara machine with your wit and dedication to the truth against all of their money and manpower. You are the David to their Goliath too.
I am actually surprised to hear that it was the real Frank Luntz who came to argue and then left. LMAO.