An Open Letter to Israel

 Before any hard information could be verified, all the news sources I rely on-the television network channels, National Public Radio, CNN, and the major newspapers-were unanimous in their immediate condemnation of Israel for its takeover of the Mavi Marmara on the morning of May 31.  As the reports had it, nine unarmed, peaceable Turkish activists had been brutally murdered by Jewish commandos without cause.  Such phrases as “public relations disaster,” “botched raid,” “fiasco,” “disproportional force,” and “irreparable damage to Israel’s image,” were ubiquitous.  Every public announcement by Israel’s sworn enemies was taken as credible while Israel’s efforts to explain its actions were given short shrift or suppressed altogether.  The fact that truth was in short supply during the first hours following the incident did nothing to deter editorial writers all over the world from originating their dispatches-not when they could draw upon their deep reservoirs of animus to fill in the gaps.

In short, as Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has acknowledged, Israel has an image problem.

THE UNISRAELI-LIKE ISRAELI POSTURE

Israel may not have deserved the reception it got as a result of the Turkish flotilla incident, but, in my opinion, it does deserve criticism for the poor job it is doing in the field of public relations.  Having just read “Start-up Nation” and gained some appreciation of Israel’s bold, innovative culture, I am dismayed that your efforts in this crucial area have been so weak and unimaginative.  On the whole, my impression of your reaction to events is that it is defensive, often sluggish, and sometimes disorganized.  This in contrast with your adversaries’ propaganda that is typically timely, vivid, craftily worded, and consistent (not to say, predictable.)  In one-on-one contests, Israel, it seems, often comes out second-best even without the help of hostile reportage.

To an outsider like myself, it would appear that, by and large, you have judged your differences with the Arab (I use the word “Arab” loosely as a catch phrase to encompass all of Israel’s Muslim enemies in the Near East regardless of their ethnicity) world to be irreconcilable and the rest of the world hopelessly prejudiced in their favor.  In a word, your posture strikes me as defeatist.

From what I gather, these are not the characteristics that have won your past military battles nor, in my opinion, are they likely to win a just peace in the future.  In view of the above, I believe a radical shakeup in your information policies is in order.  More specifically, I suggest Israel take the initiative and launch an aggressive peace offensive.  In this connection, I humbly submit the following suggestions in the hope that a few may be worthy of your consideration.

 PROPOSAL 1: ADDING A PEACE PORTFOLIO

To emphasize the importance Israel places on peaceful coexistence with its neighbors, thought might be given to the creation of a new cabinet position devoted to that objective.  As an initial step, the new Peace Minister could issue a number of lists containing in all some fifty to a hundred country-specific (or countries specific) projects -each independent of the other and each approved in advance by Israel for automatic enactment if the other side were to accept.  One such project might be, for example, a swimming pool for Arab kids on the West Bank.  Any Arab country could pick and choose any (or all) of its designated items it considered to be in the best interest of its people.  The cooperating Arab state would, of course, have to guarantee the safety of any Israeli contractors on its territory, clearly identify the project as Israeli built (or funded), and safeguard the project when completed.  Hopefully most items would be at no cost to the recipient.  To prevent later bickering over those projects carrying a recipient price tag, payment would be required in advance deposited with a third-country acting as escrow agent.

The lists might include projects related to:

• Steps to improve the living standards of the general population
• Medical services, disease prevention, vaccination, dentistry
• Infrastructure improvements such as water supply, electrification
• Cultural exchanges
• Student exchanges
• Technical assistance
• Sport competitions
• Joint commercial ventures, etc.

Should some of the items be accepted, then the peace offensive would, I believe, begin to ameliorate the now embittered relationship between Israel and its neighbors.  Even if all the Arab countries rejected the entire set of lists out of hand, Israel would gain an important moral victory and the Arab states shown to be recalcitrant and obstructionist not only to the non-Muslim world but to at least a few in the Arab “street” as well.

 PROPOSAL 2: SPONSOR A VIDEO SERIES

The following three video productions could, I believe, be an effective means of counteracting the all-to-prevalent prejudice against Israel held particularly by Europeans:

VIDEO 1: ISRAEL’S CAUSE

I picture a program that begins by asking viewers to participate in a brief thought experiment in which they imagine themselves living in Switzerland.  Let them further imagine that the countries surrounding them-France, Italy, Germany, and Austria-have declared their implacable hatred of Switzerland expressed in a continuous stream of anti-Swiss vitriol issuing from their political leaders, their press, their Internet sites, their media, and, most intensely of all, from their pulpits.  The French premier is quoted as “(provide a quotation from, let’s say, a Hamas source),” the German minister as having wished Switzerland wiped off the face of the earth “(provide a quote from Iran),” Italy wishing everyone of their countrymen dead and Austria…etc.  Now add to their dilemma the fact that Italy, let’s say, is developing nuclear weapons, Germany does nothing to prevent bands within the country from launching continuous rocket attacks on their cities, France encourages terrorist strikes against their fellow civilians, and Austria is busily strengthening its offensive forces.  To make matters worse, these countries have formed a European Union to unite militarily. Thus, from whichever direction the Swiss look across their borders, they see nothing but a sea of faces distorted by hatred and waves of raised arms thrashing about and brandishing weapons.

In a better world they might hope to find safety or, at least an easing of tensions, by appealing to the United Nations.  Unfortunately, in the real world, the overwhelming political and commercial influence of their enemies overrules any chance for impartiality from that source.  Instead the UN insists that the Swiss people deserve at least some of the calumny heaped upon them on account of their past aggressiveness-never mind that the said aggressiveness was, in fact, a defense against the belligerence of the four European powers.  In any case, the only impact that the United Nations exerts on their dilemma is to worsen it by providing a legalistic rationale for the enmity arraigned against them.

What then is left for the Swiss citizens to do other than to depend on their own resources and pluck to defend themselves as best they can in the hope that, some day, sanity will return to their part of the world.

It must be said, of course, that analogies are never perfect representations of the circumstances they are meant to portray and the one I’ve described is no exception.  On the other hand, in one respect at least, the modeling is nearly perfect.  The combined population of Switzerland’s imagined enemies (France, Germany, Italy, and Austria) is about twenty-eight times that of Switzerland itself.  And that same twenty-eight-to-one multiple holds true for the population of Israel’s real enemies (Egypt, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories) over that of Israel’s vulnerable population.  In a comparison of areas, the preponderance against Israel is even more pronounced.  The countries arrayed against Switzerland in the analogy are 31 times larger; those arrayed against Israel are 161 times her size.

The program could then go on to enumerate the contrast between Arab and Israeli positions on a number of issues.  Examples might include:

• The toleration shown to the Arabs living inside Israel versus the unwillingness of the Palestinians to countenance the presence of a single Jewish community within the borders of their future country.
• The existence of Arab cultural artifacts such as books, music, dance within Israel and the absolute prohibition of anything remotely connected with Judaism in the Arab world
• The willingness of Israel to contemplate a Palestinian state contrasted with the Arab’s refusal to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state
• The commitment to democracy in Israel as opposed to the totalitarian nature of the political systems of its adversaries.
• The freedom of expression and religious practice in Israel and their often violent suppression by the Arabs.
• The liberal education of Jewish children versus the hate-filled indoctrination of children in Arab schools
• Israel’s good-faith evacuation of Gaza compared to the Arab’s virulent reaction to this gesture
• Israel’s record of trustworthy official announcements contrasted with the Arab’s habitual disregard for the truth
• Israel’s policy of keeping religious sites open to all faiths compared to Jordan’s refusal to allow Jews access to their holy sites under its administration

Given how horridly Israel is portrayed by the supposedly liberal-minded press in many countries, it may come as something of a shock to their readers upon learning that people are risking their lives not to flee Israel but to enter it.  Therefore, an effective end to the program might be an interview similar to one I heard over the radio with an African who had escaped from Egypt into Israel to enjoy the latter’s greater freedoms and opportunities.  His testimony included his relief that he was fortunate enough to slip across the border safely unlike many less fortunate compatriots he knew who were caught by the Egyptian police, beaten, and imprisoned.

VIDEO 2: ISRAELI ACCOMPLISHMENTS

This program would highlight Israel’s living standards, its educational system, economy, technological achievements, environmental projects, and international trade.

VIDEO 3: A HISTORY LESSON

Since a good part of the Arab’s hatred of Israel is based on a vilification of the country’s historical record, it seems to me that any hoped-for improvement in relations must start with a concerted effort to replace their distorted version with an unbiased one.

To be credible to the Arabs (and, for that matter, the rest of the world) an account of the region’s troubled past would have to be as accurate, impartial, unsentimental, balanced, and non-judgmental as humanely possible.  Ideally, the narration and commentary should originate from both Jewish and Muslim sources.  Rather than attempting to prove the Jews “right,” the video would aim to leave the viewer aware that neither side of the Israeli-Arab conflicts was by any means faultless.  Yes, the Jews fired the first shot in the six-day war, but, yes, the Egyptians initiated the first warlike provocations.  Yes, many Arabs were forced to flee their homes, but, yes, Jews were evicted from Muslim centers all over the Mideast.  Yes, the Jewish settlers moved into areas hitherto occupied by Palestinian Arabs, but, politically, it was not under their control either.  Yes, the Jews fared better in their armed conflicts with the Arabs, but that has been the ordained outcome of practically every confrontation between more technically advanced societies and less advanced ones.   

A summation of the conflicts would begin with an admission that atrocities were committed on both sides and an unvarnished recitation of some of them such as the massacre of the Jews in Hebron and the Israeli use of napalm in the Six-Day War.  It would then go on to document the numbers of war dead in terms of the actual numbers and as expressed in terms of the percentage of each population.  Similarly the financial cost of the wars would be tallied both in the aggregate and as prorated for every Palestinian and every Israeli thus bringing home the extent to which the participants’ standard of living had been sacrificed.

Zooming out from the Middle East, the video, as I imagine it, would conclude by noting that the twentieth century had been a troubled one in many parts of the world.  Millions victimized, millions butchered in wars, millions starved, millions made homeless.  Not surprisingly, this grisly record has left several nations traumatized by their past.  Constant religious, ethnic, and/or social disorder keeps their governments unstable, their economies undercapitalized, and their inhabitants poverty stricken.  Other nations have consciously shaken off the past and focused on the future instead.  By and large,  this fundamental decision has enabled them to do a much better job in attracting investment, creating jobs, and improving the lives of their people.  The question the Arab countries must ask themselves, then, is which of these paths to take as they enter the twenty-first century.  Is their first priority the maintenance of past hatreds or the betterment of the lives of their people?  It’s a choice only they can decide. 

It would be Pollyannaish to assume that a single documentary, no matter how well made or how logical, could alter the thinking of the Arab masses, but it would be equally mistaken to assume that every Arab is closed-minded and totally acceptant of what he hears from his leaders.  Change, if it is to come about at all, can only come from within the Arab community and encouragement of dissenters would be a start in the right direction.

 PROPOSAL 3: STEP-BY-STEP DIPLOMACY

I suggest that should Israel undertake a peace offensive along the lines suggested above, it not attempt to concurrently arrive at a comprehensive peace treaty.  To begin with, there is no point in trying to negotiate with leaders who have no room to negotiate on account of the pressure they face from both terrorist organizations and the rabidly-anti-Semitic street.  Thus attempts to arrive at an agreement under the present circumstances would, I believe, do more harm than good by further aggravating existing disagreements and undermining Israel’s good-faith, incremental peace efforts.

If these suggestions appear too radical to be implemented, then they have served their purpose.  I believe some sort of radical shift in policy is in order.