The Warped Mirror: 'Hasbara' in the real world

Against the backdrop of the recent escalation of rocket and missile attacks from Hamas-controlled Gaza, the Jerusalem Post reported that the Israeli Foreign Ministry "began preparing the grounds for a large hasbara campaign" designed to explain that Israel had a right to defend itself. Obviously, that is a right that everybody else can take for granted, and thus there is clearly a reason why Israelis and their friends and supporters complain often enough that the government's "hasbara" efforts are woefully inadequate.

What is often overlooked when Israeli "hasbara" is criticized as not effective enough is that, while the Hebrew word literally means "explanation", there are plainly quite a few people who don't want to listen to any explanation of Israeli concerns and viewpoints. For them, "hasbara"is nothing but propaganda. Thus, the ostensibly objective SourceWatch site claims with an unabashed lack of objectivity: "Hasbara refers to the propaganda efforts to sell Israel, justify its actions, and defend it in world opinion. [...] Israel portrays itself as fighting on two fronts: the Palestinians and world opinion. The latter is dealt with hasbara. The premise of hasbara is that Israel's problems are a matter of better propaganda, and not one of an underlying unjust situation."
 
The premise of this definition of "hasbara" is clearly enough that "Israel's problems" are due to "an underlying unjust situation." So when Ashkelon, a city of some 120,000 people, comes under attack by Iranian-made Grad missiles, it's not really those who fire the missiles, but "an underlying unjust situation" that is to be blamed. After all, it is obvious that Hamas is allowing and encouraging the rocket barrage on towns and villages near the Gaza border only to underline how serious they are about their supposed offers of a temporary "hudna"  (a cease-fire) or maybe just a "tahadiyeh" (a lull in the fighting)...

As Richard Cohen noted in a recent Washington Post report from Sderot, many of the activists who are so vociferous in denouncing Israel for inflicting suffering on Gaza "are just plain dizzy from their own moral virtue". Cohen illustrates the dilemmas Israel faces when he calls for some "sort of deal, arrangement, accommodation, understanding", but then acknowledges that any such "deal" with Hamas might well undercut Fatah and Abbas, thus endangering peace talks. He also notes that "Israelis don't trust Hamas, and why should they? It wishes Israel nothing but death."

Many who speak out on behalf of Israel believe that wishing Israel nothing but death is something that still unites much of the Arab world. By contrast, Tony Blair claimed in a speech last fall that the Middle East conflict pitted "Extremists versus the Rest" - and it's no longer difficult to find Arab voices that agree. Consider this recent piece published in the Saudi English-language daily Arab News, which doesn't quite condemn Hamas, but still demands that "Hamas must decide if it is acting as a government for all Palestinians or at least the Gazans, as some of its leaders have claimed, or as a militant group dedicated to fighting Israel. If it is the first choice, then it must show that it is concerned with the fate of its citizens who are enduring a huge humanitarian ordeal. If they choose the latter, then they must part ways with political grandstanding and accept to hand over responsibility for the welfare of Gaza to the PNA."

Or how about this criticism of Hizbullah's destabilizing role in Lebanon from the English edition of Asharq Al-Awsat : "The persistence in justifying the cost of innocent lives as a result of the actions of the 'jihadist' or 'hero' as permissible and inoffensive as long as the ultimate purpose is 'noble, honest and blessed' is no different to the military options put forward by the neoconservatives of the American administration."

And in another article in the same paper, one commentator recently suggested: "Perhaps the time has come for the Arabs, particularly the Palestinians, to take a serious view of Israel's strategic fears. The Israeli question about the nature of the Palestinian state is logical and legitimate. Will this state add to stability or instability in the region? The Gaza example says that this state would not contribute to stability in the region, while the West Bank example suggests that the new state would improve stability in the region."

Add these voices to the one of Abdelwahab el-Affendi, author of “Who needs an Islamic State”, who openly acknowledged: "We [Muslims] sound a lot sillier today when we claim that the Muslims should be a light unto mankind, and show exemplary conduct and moral leadership. Now it would be more realistic to just say we wish that Muslims would stop blowing themselves up and get innocent people killed in the process."
 
There is no doubt that on the Arab "street", hostility towards Israel is still great, but there are also clear signs of a growing disenchantment with Islamist extremism. Increasingly, people in the Arab world seem willing to realize that not everybody who is Israel's enemy should automatically be considered a friend. Tony Blair's view of the Middle East conflict as pitting "Extremists versus the Rest" may still be somewhat optimistic, but the signs that justify hope that we might be getting there should not be ignored by those who want to make a credible case in defense of Israel.