Israel mounts PR campaign to blame Hamas for Gaza destruction

[uppityperson]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/israel-gaza-hamas

Israel has mounted a public relations campaign to convince international hearts and minds that Hamas is to blame for the death and destruction they are seeing on their television screens.

Stung by the wave of international criticism earlier this year when Israel invaded Gaza to stop militants firing rockets, in an operation dwarfed by its current attack, Israel decided to go on the offensive.

"In the past our prime minister received phone calls from high-ranking officials and politicians. When he said, 'Surely you understand about the rocket fire', they said, 'What are you talking about?'" foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said.

So, while the military marshalled its forces, the foreign ministry honed its message and amassed its staff, ready for Saturday's attack. Israeli diplomats were recalled from holidays and ordered back to work and in the rocket-bombarded southern Israeli town of Sderot, on Gaza's northern perimeter, it opened a multilingual media centre to brief foreign journalists....

PR campaigns do not help. Shaking my head here. It isn't helping.

[aquart]

1. Blame those lily-white innocent lambs? How is that even possible?

All Hamas desires is peace and brotherhood and, oh yes, the land of Israel.

[uppityperson]

2. Personally I'd like accurate news stories, not PR crap.

Both sides have serious problems. But I would like to see real news, not PR/spun bs.

[IndianaGreen]

16. Watch it, your racism is showing!

:puke:

[tekisui]

3. My Question:

After Mumbai's Attacks all the media could ask was "Is this India's 9/11?"

The same goes for the 7/7 attacks in London, and the Madrid train bombings.

But, when more innoncents die in Gaza than in Mumbai, I have yet to hear one person ask: "Is this Gaza's 9/11?"

"Is this Gaza's 9/11?" When the US was hit, when London, Madrid and Mumbai were hit, each of the attackers believed themselves to be acting in retaliation. They saw themselves in the right. How is this different? Because it was an act by a military?

[uppityperson]

5. Perhaps because it is military, rather like military elsewhere in the world.

When will Iraq's "9/11" be, for instance. I think because it is military but I am sure some would say because it has been continuous (A attacks B, B attacks A, A attacks B, etc). I am sure others would say more, but I won't.

One stage in a war does not = a terrorist attack. (cue each side that will accuse the other side of being the terrorists, I see it as an ongoing war and wish like hell it would stop)

[tekisui]

7. Exactly my point.

It perpetuates itself, and all have "God on their side".

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

6. That would be my understanding of it.

[Alamuti Lotus]

4. Well, the PR campaign is also out in force here

And one could say that it is a doing a fantastic job -- check nearly any thread (the attention to enveloping detail is somehow inspiring), and you can find a number of (oft-repeated) justifications and praise for the assault.

[uppityperson]

8. 2 conflicting view in this post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=230299&mesg_id=230299

[Vegasaurus]

14. Praise and justification are not the same

I find that response was justified (although I think this bombing campaign was too severe).

Israel cannot continue to live with rockets and mortars on a daily basis, and Hamas had been warned repeatedly to stop, and even had borders closed.

They refused to stop firing rockets.

I do not (nor have I seen on DU) praise for the military action.

[azul]

9. Spinning violence is still violence, to most people.

But Israel is up for big irony distain here too. Just like military-state propaganda was outlawed in the USA by the warning example of Germany's 1930's regime's useage, Israel has come full circle as the oppressor by appealing to authoritarian/conservative emotions in the media and by censorship.

Good thing that we are so vigilant here in the USA. And we set the fine example for Israel too, does our MSM.

[THUNDER HANDS]

10. well, i disagree about the premise of PR campaigns not helping

I think they help to a great degree. Ultimately, though, the sucess of their PR campaign will hinge on how many casualties there are. If the numbers grow to 400, 500 dead, then it will be very difficult for Israel to sucessfully convince the world that this wasn't overreach.

Hamas is a horrible organization, and yes they're bent on the destruction of Israel, but in my mind, this is like carpet bombing Compton to get rid of the crypts and the bloods.

[uppityperson]

11. How do PR campaigns help? serious question. Not just this, but ever?

I don't see manipulating people being a positive thing in the long run. How do you see PR campaigns helping? Serious question here, and not talking about I/P issues but just in general.

[THUNDER HANDS]

13. PR campaigns

obviously help. The simplest explanation is that if they didn't, there wouldn't be any.

The reason they help is because, in the case of this -- or any incident which could negatively impact the person or entity using the PR -- it quells dissent and negative reaction.

Its not necessarily an instrument for building support, just suppressing opposition.

Israel, in this instance, doesn't need the world to cheer them on, they just need the world to not put forth a concensus to stop them from doing what they believe is their right to self defense.

[uppityperson]

17. PR campaign may help 1 side. I mean it doesn't help the whole situation, help both sides.

A PR campaign may help 1 side, but overall, I don't think they help.

[THUNDER HANDS]

18. well, i don't think that's the point of PR

[uppityperson]

23. What do you think the point of PR is?

I am not snarking, but wanting to know. I think PR is manipulate others into feeling a certain way about something. To spin what is going on to show one (or more) of the parties (sides) in a more positive light.

It seems you are saying that with your post upthread: "The reason they help is because, in the case of this -- or any incident which could negatively impact the person or entity using the PR -- it quells dissent and negative reaction.

Its not necessarily an instrument for building support, just suppressing opposition."

Manipulating opinion seems to be the point, whether building positive feelings or suppressing/quelling negative ones.

Or, do you mean that PR campaigns are not to help both sides, are in agreement with me. You don't think the point of PR is: "A PR campaign may help 1 side, but overall, I don't think they help". YOu are agreeing that the point is not to help overall? (Double negative going on there)

my head is confused.

[THUNDER HANDS]

28. PR, as far as I understand it

it just supposed to help the side that's employing it. Both sides can use PR, but all PR is not created equal.

[uppityperson]

29. Thanks, that is what I had worked my way around to figuring, but then

I was thoroughly confused.

[azul]

12. Exactly, and targeting civilians is outlawed by the UN.

But they've got might on their side, and in the UN?

Most religions agree though, it just ain't right to kill non-combatants for peace's sake.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Any evidence that civilians are being targeted or attacked indiscriminately

Note that both Israeli and Palestinian media have state that the IAF is attacking Hamas facilities.

[THUNDER HANDS]

19. depends on your definition of indiscriminately

targeting a facility in a highly-populated civilian area could be considered indiscriminate, since it's bound to kill civilians. Even the smartest of smart bombs can't avoid that.

the only true way to avoid killing large numbers of civilians would be for Israel to order every woman and child out of Gaza and then go in with ground troops and make mass arrests or have a huge shootout.

...which, granted, isn't the smartest option for Israel, which is why that's likely not going to happen.

[IndianaGreen]

21. If we do it, it is not indiscriminate.

If they do it, it is indiscriminate.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. I concur in part

The issue actually would be the use human shields. The fault would like with the country who put a military target next to the hospital etc.

Given the nature of the air strikes, it quite foreseeable that the IAF could justify every place it hit. With that war crimes are off the table.

There is some evidence that *someone* ordered civilians to clear away from Hamas buildings. Not clear enough when and who. Waiting for that to sort out before I post it here.

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. well, considering Gaza is very small

like, 1/4 the size of Long Island, I'd imagine that there's not a lot of room for Hamas to put it's facilities that aren't near a hospital or a school or something. Plus its dense population makes it doubly likely that civilians would be injured or killed in an ariel raid.

Which, IMO, means that Israel obviously has tough choices when dealing with them. My problem with this is that they did it in the last few days of the Bush administration, who they knew was just going to sit back and take a hands-off approach to peace talks, unlike the Clinton administration, who basically worked until the last moments to try to hammer out a deal.

Israel *could* have waited until Obama and his team took office to let them weigh in on any plans. IMO, that would have been the responsible thing to do. Since Hamas' rocket attacks were more of a nuissance than an actual threat, I don't see any reason they couldn't have done this.

I'm sure Obama doesn't appreciate Israel doing this three weeks before he's sworn in. Or maybe they were just making sure his hands were tied before he took office, limiting his options with how to deal with any peace proposal he may have had.

[uppityperson]

27. I do not know you, but thank you for your posts.

You point out good things, have good ideas. I wonder if this was related to the switching of bush/Obama as far as timing goes, or was coincidental. I could see it both ways, but think the tying hands idea sounds logical. I am sure Obama doesn't appreciate the timing.

Doing it now means they have a month before a USA administration will be dealing with them.

[azul]

20. Let's see, x number of attacks yields y number of civilians killed.

And to continue attacking with the expectation of 0 civilian causalities?

Military planners consider it collateral damage and figure it into scenarios or attack plans. Get the estimates from the planners if you can, and if you please. What are the odds?

What were the estimates for the civilian causalities in Iraq for the US operations? Why didn't we even count causalities, bad PR?

[rundownman]

24. Shouldn't be too hard...... considering

most owners of media outlets are supporters of zionism

[IndianaGreen]

25. On September 1, 1939, Hitler told the Reichstag that Germany was defending herself against...

a Polish attack.

On September 1, 1939, Hitler told the Nazi Reichstag that Poland had tried to invade Germany, and the Wehrmacht was returning fire since 5:45 AM.

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/poland.htm

American author Theodore White was a foreign correspondent in England at the time. In his recollections on the war, he said that the terms Germany had demanded from Poland had seemed very reasonable, and there were hopes that war could be avoided.

The truth, as we all by now, is that the terms that Germany had publicly announced it demanded from Poland were not the actual terms demanded from the Polish government. There was no way that Poland could accede to those demands. We also know that Germany had agreed to divide Poland up with the USSR. Lastly, we know that Hitler's speech to the Reichstag was nothing but bullshit.

Lesson #1: Governments lie all the time.

Lesson #2: The more bad things that governments do, the more they lie about them.

Lesson #3: Lessons 1 & 2 apply to Israel and to the US. There is no such thing as Israeli or American Exceptionalism (another lie!).