Monday, July 17, 2017
Elder of Ziyon
Occasionally, I like to supplement this
longer analysis of war as the best metaphor to use when dealing with BSD and
other anti-Israel campaigns with additional strategies and tactics that are
in the process of being demonstrated in the field.
Supporters of the Jewish state are endlessly frustrated by
the success of the boycotters in getting their “Israel=Apartheid” message
across, regardless of its total lack of truthfulness, even as the truths we
tell barely make headway.
“A lie can travel across the planet while the truth is tying
its shoes” (or something to that effect) is an explanation we tell ourselves as
to why the other side’s fabrications seem to resonate with so many while our
carefully constructed and well-articulated rebuttals fall on deaf ears. And there’s no question that a lie endlessly
repeated (especially one that tells a simple story) can be very impactful on
our story-loving
brains.
But the power of their propaganda message derives not from
its dishonesty, but from its simplicity. “Apartheid Israel” packs within it a wide
range of messages and connections of bigotry and repression, as well as a clear
set of steps to follow (boycott, divestment, and sanctions leading ultimately
to state dismantlement) that need no further elaboration. In contrast, our explanations as to why
Israel is not an Apartheid state
(usually accompanied by long-winded analysis and history lessons) makes
audiences’ eyes glaze over, not because they are false but because they are
complicated.
Many messaging debates within the pro-Israel community boil
down to how to find a similar storyline to counter the BDSer’s
“Israel=Apartheid” slogan, with arguments generally breaking out over whether
our storyline should be negative or positive.
But even here, the messages we argue over tend to be multi-faceted and
complex, whether negative (let’s talk about Arab repression, homophobia and
sexism, as well as the corruption of the Palestinian Authority and depredations
of Gaza’s Hamas rulers – who are really just like ISIS, etc.) or positive
(let’s celebrate Israel’s democracy, open society, tolerance of gay people,
technology, cuisine, beaches, nightlife, yada yada, yada).
In contrast, a storyline that has developed organically over
the last few months demonstrates how the power of simplicity can work in our
favor.
While Israeli governments have complained for years that the
Palestinian government makes regular payments to convicted terrorists and their
families, that complaint was just one of many related to incitement, tolerance of
and even collaboration with terror. But
in recent months, stories of those terror payments have “gotten legs” and
regularly appear in the media, as well as being discussed and debated in high
government circles.
Part of this has to do with the recent changeover in US
government with associated changes in foreign policy priorities. But this doesn’t explain why one particular
aspect of Palestinian perfidy as it relates to terror (payments to terrorists)
has gotten so much more attention than other equally valid points of
controversy.
I would posit that these terror payments have captured the
public imagination due to the fact that the storyline they imply is a very
simple one: “In an age when the US and the world are supposed to be fighting
terror, why are taxpayers also subsidizing it?’
Such a message has the virtue of being straightforward and
common-sensical, as well as aligning with the political goal of exposing
Israel’s enemies for what they are.
In the world of rhetoric, the term synecdoche refers to the part of something standing in for the
whole. The reason this rhetorical device
works as a persuasive technique is that it gives someone a small idea they can
easily grasp (such as the illogic of subsidizing terror while also fighting it)
with a much larger truth (all the corruption and dishonesty and hypocrisy of
Israel’s foes with regard to terror).
When a synecdoche like the current terror payment one takes
hold among the public, it’s incumbent upon the strategic warrior to take
advantage of the situation by reinforcing the simple part (by endlessly
pounding on this one accepted idea) vs. broadening the debate by highlighting
every other complaint we have against Israel’s foes.
As a wordy people with a great deal we’d like to get off our
chests, it’s tempting to jump right in and start explaining why those terror
payments are just the tip of the iceberg, and to provide long lists of
additional outrages routinely practiced by Israel’s enemies. But just as a disciplined warrior making
headway with a bow doesn’t simultaneously fill his hands with additional swords
and spears, we too should focus on driving home our current advantage, rather
than larding up the news with additional storylines that actually dilute,
rather than reinforce, our message.
