Whiffleball
07-12-2009, 04:31 PM
http://www.newsweek.com/id/206105
How do you sell the American public on the idea that Israel has the right to maintain or even expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank? Be positive. Turn the issue away from settlements and toward peace. Invoke ethnic cleansing.
Those are three of the recommendations made by Frank Luntz, a political consultant and pollster, in an internal study he wrote for the Washington-based group The Israel Project (TIP) on effective ways to talk to Americans about the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The 117-page study, titled The Israel Project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary, was commissioned by the nonprofit group, which aims to promote Israel's side of the story, and leaked to NEWSWEEK. It includes chapters with such titles as "How to Talk About Palestinian Self Government and Prosperity" and "The Language of Tackling a Nuclear Iran."
The report is strewn with bolded examples of "Words That Work" and "Words That Don't Work," alongside rhetorical tips such as "Don't talk about religion" and "No matter what you're asked, bridge to a productive pro-Israel message." Taken together, the 18 chapters offer a fascinating look at the way Israel and its supporters try to shape the public debate in their favor.
The full report can be viewed here (http://www.newsweek.com/id/206021).
Frank Luntz is a conservative consultant and pollster who has worked for the US Republican Party and the Conservative Party in the UK. He has said that the key to survey polling is "to ask a question in the way that you get the right answer".
http://i32.tinypic.com/281eyhl.jpg
p.62 SETTLEMENTS
“If we are to have real peace, then Israelis and Palestinians will have to live side by side. The idea that anywhere that you have Palestinians there can't be any Jews, that some areas have to be Jew-free, is a racist idea. We don't say that we have to cleanse out Arabs from Israel. They are citizen of Israel. They enjoy equal rights. We cannot see why it is that peace requires that any Palestinian area would require a kind of ethnic cleansing to remove all Jews. We don't accept it. Cleansing by either side against either side is unacceptable.”
-- The Best Settlement Argument
...
4) The settlements are necessary for the security of Israel. Tell audiences that the settlements weren’t created randomly. They were put on the tops of mountains and in important militarily sensitive areas to provide a security buffer between Israel and her Arab neighbors. Then remind audiences that Israel has faced a full-scale multi-national invasion four times in the past 55 years and that the settlements provide an effective early warning system. Cite the onset of rocket attacks from Gaza after the 2005 pullout as an example of what happens when Israel leaves these areas. Remind them that Israel needs defensible borders and that it would be dangerous to let Iran-backed terrorists control the hills around Israel’s international airport – enabling them to shoot down airplanes with rockets.
HOW NOT TO TALK ABOUT SETTLEMENTS
Whoever came up with the phrase “settlements” set in motion a lexicon that was doomed from the start. Nothing is tougher to articulate effectively to neutral Americans than a message in favor of the settlements.
Let me be clear about this conclusion. Plenty of Israeli and American Jewish leaders have tried, but American and European audiences rejected almost everything we tested. There is no magic language to unify public support.
That being said, there are language components that definitely work more effectively and several that do not. In particular, there are three arguments involving settlements that you should not make:
1) The religious argument. Quoting from the bible in defense of the current settlements will have absolutely the opposite impact. Even your Jewish audiences will recoil at an attempt to use biblical passages to justify the settlements.
2) The ownership argument. Some of those reading this document will reject this advice ideologically but to claim that Israel “owns” the land that the settlements are on will cause most listeners to reject everything else you say. Semantics does matter, but if we correct Palestinians using the words “disputed territory” when they say “occupied territory,” we have to accept that the settlements are disputed territory
as well.
3) The scapegoat argument. Claiming that Palestinians and other Arab groups are using the settlement issue to gain political advantage may be correct but it does nothing to legitimize Israeli policy.
And, finally, a reminder to never speak in terms of absolutes – especially on an issue so controversial and full of shades of gray as settlements are to the public.
WORDS THAT DO NOT WORK
Those who think that the conflict is driven by an Israeli desire to hold onto territories are totally wrong. This may be a perception that some seek to promote, but it’s not our reality. It’s not our policy.
p.99
To non-Jewish college students, all the speeches and all the debates and all the rhetoric and all the violence is, as it is with liberals, are about one thing: land. Israel has it and doesn’t want to give it up. The Palestinians deserve it but don’t have the ability to take it. Hence, conflict. There is no sense of right and wrong – everyone’s wrong. There is no sense of history – the Holocaust doesn’t even register on their radar screen. You have a lot to teach and a skeptical audience to convince.
p.95
With these observations in mind, what follows is a thematic guide to communicating to the American Left:
1) With their heads, most liberals still support Israel. But their hearts go out to whomever looks like the biggest underdog. Right now they feel that is the Palestinians. It explains why liberals have become so openly hostile since the start of the Gaza war and why life for pro-Israeli communicators will only get more difficult in the future. There is far too little sympathy for the plight of Israelis from America’s left, and incredible emotional support for the plight of the Palestinians. It is critical to make sure that Liberals understand this is a fight between Israel and Iran and its proxies, not just a territorial dispute between Israel and Palestinians.
...
The feeling among the liberal elite is that Israel uses all of its advancements and advantages “unfairly” or “immorally” against the Palestinians. Israel is so rich and so strong that they fail to see why it is necessary for armored tanks to shoot at unarmed kids or why Israel needs to level homes or attack villages or, most importantly, why a Palestinian state is a threat to Israel’s existence. Making the argument that Israel is a small country with a tiny land mass with hostile neighbors all around you won’t win either the hearts of the minds of liberal Americans. They think Israel can survive anything.
How do you sell the American public on the idea that Israel has the right to maintain or even expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank? Be positive. Turn the issue away from settlements and toward peace. Invoke ethnic cleansing.
Those are three of the recommendations made by Frank Luntz, a political consultant and pollster, in an internal study he wrote for the Washington-based group The Israel Project (TIP) on effective ways to talk to Americans about the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The 117-page study, titled The Israel Project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary, was commissioned by the nonprofit group, which aims to promote Israel's side of the story, and leaked to NEWSWEEK. It includes chapters with such titles as "How to Talk About Palestinian Self Government and Prosperity" and "The Language of Tackling a Nuclear Iran."
The report is strewn with bolded examples of "Words That Work" and "Words That Don't Work," alongside rhetorical tips such as "Don't talk about religion" and "No matter what you're asked, bridge to a productive pro-Israel message." Taken together, the 18 chapters offer a fascinating look at the way Israel and its supporters try to shape the public debate in their favor.
The full report can be viewed here (http://www.newsweek.com/id/206021).
Frank Luntz is a conservative consultant and pollster who has worked for the US Republican Party and the Conservative Party in the UK. He has said that the key to survey polling is "to ask a question in the way that you get the right answer".
http://i32.tinypic.com/281eyhl.jpg
p.62 SETTLEMENTS
“If we are to have real peace, then Israelis and Palestinians will have to live side by side. The idea that anywhere that you have Palestinians there can't be any Jews, that some areas have to be Jew-free, is a racist idea. We don't say that we have to cleanse out Arabs from Israel. They are citizen of Israel. They enjoy equal rights. We cannot see why it is that peace requires that any Palestinian area would require a kind of ethnic cleansing to remove all Jews. We don't accept it. Cleansing by either side against either side is unacceptable.”
-- The Best Settlement Argument
...
4) The settlements are necessary for the security of Israel. Tell audiences that the settlements weren’t created randomly. They were put on the tops of mountains and in important militarily sensitive areas to provide a security buffer between Israel and her Arab neighbors. Then remind audiences that Israel has faced a full-scale multi-national invasion four times in the past 55 years and that the settlements provide an effective early warning system. Cite the onset of rocket attacks from Gaza after the 2005 pullout as an example of what happens when Israel leaves these areas. Remind them that Israel needs defensible borders and that it would be dangerous to let Iran-backed terrorists control the hills around Israel’s international airport – enabling them to shoot down airplanes with rockets.
HOW NOT TO TALK ABOUT SETTLEMENTS
Whoever came up with the phrase “settlements” set in motion a lexicon that was doomed from the start. Nothing is tougher to articulate effectively to neutral Americans than a message in favor of the settlements.
Let me be clear about this conclusion. Plenty of Israeli and American Jewish leaders have tried, but American and European audiences rejected almost everything we tested. There is no magic language to unify public support.
That being said, there are language components that definitely work more effectively and several that do not. In particular, there are three arguments involving settlements that you should not make:
1) The religious argument. Quoting from the bible in defense of the current settlements will have absolutely the opposite impact. Even your Jewish audiences will recoil at an attempt to use biblical passages to justify the settlements.
2) The ownership argument. Some of those reading this document will reject this advice ideologically but to claim that Israel “owns” the land that the settlements are on will cause most listeners to reject everything else you say. Semantics does matter, but if we correct Palestinians using the words “disputed territory” when they say “occupied territory,” we have to accept that the settlements are disputed territory
as well.
3) The scapegoat argument. Claiming that Palestinians and other Arab groups are using the settlement issue to gain political advantage may be correct but it does nothing to legitimize Israeli policy.
And, finally, a reminder to never speak in terms of absolutes – especially on an issue so controversial and full of shades of gray as settlements are to the public.
WORDS THAT DO NOT WORK
Those who think that the conflict is driven by an Israeli desire to hold onto territories are totally wrong. This may be a perception that some seek to promote, but it’s not our reality. It’s not our policy.
p.99
To non-Jewish college students, all the speeches and all the debates and all the rhetoric and all the violence is, as it is with liberals, are about one thing: land. Israel has it and doesn’t want to give it up. The Palestinians deserve it but don’t have the ability to take it. Hence, conflict. There is no sense of right and wrong – everyone’s wrong. There is no sense of history – the Holocaust doesn’t even register on their radar screen. You have a lot to teach and a skeptical audience to convince.
p.95
With these observations in mind, what follows is a thematic guide to communicating to the American Left:
1) With their heads, most liberals still support Israel. But their hearts go out to whomever looks like the biggest underdog. Right now they feel that is the Palestinians. It explains why liberals have become so openly hostile since the start of the Gaza war and why life for pro-Israeli communicators will only get more difficult in the future. There is far too little sympathy for the plight of Israelis from America’s left, and incredible emotional support for the plight of the Palestinians. It is critical to make sure that Liberals understand this is a fight between Israel and Iran and its proxies, not just a territorial dispute between Israel and Palestinians.
...
The feeling among the liberal elite is that Israel uses all of its advancements and advantages “unfairly” or “immorally” against the Palestinians. Israel is so rich and so strong that they fail to see why it is necessary for armored tanks to shoot at unarmed kids or why Israel needs to level homes or attack villages or, most importantly, why a Palestinian state is a threat to Israel’s existence. Making the argument that Israel is a small country with a tiny land mass with hostile neighbors all around you won’t win either the hearts of the minds of liberal Americans. They think Israel can survive anything.