Talk:Public diplomacy of Israel

Latest original research moved to Talk: page

I've removed the following original research to the Talk: page:

• The Israel Broadcasting Authority, Israel's state broadcasting network. English translations of IBA news programs are sometimes available on Mosaic.

In addition, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs sponsors several front organizations:

• The Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, which claims to be an "independent organization" [1] but was run until mid-2006 by the director of the Ministry's press division (now the Israeli ambassador to France) on a "leave of absence".[2]

• Hasbara Fellowships was "started in 2001 in conjunction with Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs." [3].

In 2002, the Israeli State Comptroller's office issued a report critical of Israel's PR efforts, "A lack of an overall strategic public relations conception and objective" and lack of coordination between the various organizations were mentioned. Funding levels are modest; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spent about US$8.6 million on these efforts in 2002, and the Government Press Office was only budgeted at US$100,000.[4]

John, you may see yourself as a crusading investigative reporter, uncovering a Zionist conspiracy, but that doesn't mean you can completely ignore policy. Which reliable sources have characterized IBA's broadcasts as hasbara, or Mosaic's re-broadcast of them as hasbara? Which reliable sources have tied the MFA's PR efforts to hasbara? Which reliable sources have identified Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre and Hasbara Fellowships as Israeli "front organizations"? Have you decided that you can identify them as such, because an Israeli Ministry employee took a leave of absence to run one of these organizations, and because the other was founded by Aish HaTorah in 2001 in coordination with the MFA? This is a bit much. Your "properly cited" nonsense has got to stop; original research is often cited up the wazoo, but that still doesn't make it anything but original research. I ask in all seriousness; have you read the No Original Research policy? In particular, the part that forbids a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"? How about the part that forbids introducing "an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"? I'm going to assume good faith for now, and just attribute your edits to having missed those parts of the policy, because otherwise, I would have to assume that you are disruptively editing Wikipedia, in contravention of policy, in order to pursue your own agenda. Please, again, read the policies carefully, and desist from this policy violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. This business of having to provide extra citations for anything that isn't pro-Israel is time-consuming. But here we go again.

Here's a collection of stories on BICOM that make it clear how close their ties are to the Israel Foreign Ministry. [5]. These are from the Jewish Chronicle newspaper, although you have to pay to get that access directly. See "His mission - to sell Israel's story to the UK". Shek's job was to start up BICOM; he was on leave from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to do that, and now he's back there, as Israel's ambassador to France.

BICOM seems to be trying to become the UK equivalent of AIPAC. See "So they say they’re in charge", from the Jewish Chronicle. "While a debate goes on in the community’s upper echelons over whether Bicom should remain a mainly-behind-the-scenes player focussing on media or a more upfront pro-Israel lobby similar to the American Aipac, it has become a potential recruitment ground for a new generation of lay leaders, among them Bicom’s chairman, Zabludowicz, and deputy chairman Michael Lewis — one of a number of South Africans now making his mark." They're recruiting big-money donors - Poju Zabludowicz, the current chairman of BICOM, is a billionare. Haaretz says BICOM is doing a better job at PR than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "Banal messages in bad English".

One could argue that BICOM, having been jump-started by the loan of a top leader from the Israel Foreign Ministry, is now running under its own power and on its own money, so it's not a "front organization", just an affiliate. There's no question, though, that it's in the business of promoting Israel and cooperates with the Foreign Ministry in doing this. So a rewrite may be appropriate. Maybe we need an "Affiliated pro-Israel public diplomacy organizations" section.

As for Hasbara Fellowships, they say themselves that they're affiliated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Denying that is just silly.

Incidentally, as of June 2006, Israel is "rebranding". The term "hasbara" is out. "Public diplomacy" is in. "Part of the rebranding, Mr Meir claimed, will be to do away with the familiar – and much-derided – Hebrew term hasbarah, which means “explanation.” The ministry’s information department is to be retitled the “Department of Public Diplomacy.”" [6] So it's probably time to rename this article. --John Nagle 03:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

John, I don't understand what is so difficult about adhering to WP:NOR? Which reliable sources describe these organizations as "front organizations"? Also, please quote the reliable source that states that Hasbara Fellowships is "affiliated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs". Quote them exactly.

The process of editing articles within policy will be much easier for you once you realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that accurately and neutrally summarizes established knowledge, not a crusading magazine that does investigative journalism and exposés. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"When the Israeli Foreign Ministry sought to combat anti-Israel propaganda on college campuses, it called on Aish HaTorah to develop the Hasbara Fellowships. This program flies hundreds of student leaders to Israel for intensive training in pro-Israel activism , while guiding and funding pro-Israel activism on 80 college campuses." "Programs in Israel", from aish.com That seems to settle the matter. --John Nagle 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It does? I don't see how. The Israeli Foreign Ministry asked Aish HaTorah to do something, and Aish HaTorah did it. Aish HaTorah is not a "front organization" for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, it's an Orthodox Jewish outreach organization that runs synagogues and Jewish education programs. I'm astonished that you still find it so difficult to understand the WP:NOR policy; the sources say exactly what they say, no less, and certainly no more. You keep trying to insert "an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." It's actually getting tiresome at this point; just quote the sources, don't draw your own conclusions from them. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on Jay, you know perfectly well that a worldwide Jewish conspiracy runs the world. AISH and the Israeli Foreign Ministry are BOTH part of this conspiracy, so in effect they are synonymous with each other. Elizmr 11:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The worldwide conspiracyt is a stupid suggestion, but AISH is financed by the Israeli government in its Hasbarah efforts, so it is an employee of that government in those efforts, but without identifying itself openly as such. That makes it a front orgqaniation. Where is the disagreement here? 88.155.134.126 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick question. If this: "Hasbara is viewed positively, and is actively encouraged, by almost all Jewish, Zionist, and Israeli organizations and instititutions," is accurate, wouldn't wikipidias policy on conflict of interest mean most of you should consider not editing this article? You could be suspected of not editing for accuracy but in order to, in the words of the article, "promote Israel to the world at large." Shia1 01:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed uncited material "Hasbara is viewed positively, and is actively encouraged, by almost all Zionist and Israeli organizations and instititutions.[citation needed] They believe that hasbara bears similarities to programming on the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and the BBC World Service." That's uncited original research. With weasel words. WP:WEASEL. "Almost all Zionist and Israeli organizations and institutions" is far too broad. That's a broader claim than "hasbara.org", the Israeli Foreign Ministry, or AIPAC makes. --John Nagle 16:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, a funny hasbara article: Hasbara I can get behind. The Israeli Consulate in New York is promoting a bikini spread in Maxim, "Women of the Israeli Defense Forces". Really. The consulate staff discovered that Israel's image was too conservative and "meant little to young American men". --John Nagle 16:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all sorts of other unsourced material, and original research, along with dead links, links to personal websites, and links to non-hasbara websites. There's a whole section regarding the Israeli government that appears to be orginal research; please find sources referring to the material listed there as hasbara, or it will be removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of dead links is against Wikipedia policy. See WP:CITE. Policy is to fix them, not destroy them. "If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced." --John Nagle 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

They weren't used a citations, they were external links. Dead external links should be removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A strange claim. WP:CITE actually says "External links/Further reading sections are not as important, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed." This is part of an ongoing editing pattern. Citations are removed for specious reasons, then later the related material is tagged as "uncited", then removed.[7] Please monitor this user for this pattern of behavior. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Israel Project and Fuel For Truth

I've moved the following two items to Talk: for further discussion:

• The Israel Project, USA
• Fuel For Truth, USA

As far as I can tell, neither source provided says that the organizations in question practise hasbara. In fact, the second source doesn't even use the term hasbara. Can John Nagle quote the sentences he thinks support their inclusion? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For the the Israel Project, the source article, in the Jerusalem Post, says "The government's “growing sophistication” when it comes to hasbara is already paying off, according to Calev Ben-David, the director of the Israel office of The Israel Project, an organization which tries to improve Israel's image by educating the press and public about Israel." That should be clear enough.

For "Fuel for Truth", ejewishphilanthropy.com, in their article "The New Hasbara" [8], identifies Fuel for Truth as engaging in hasabara. That's not a neutral source, but it is pro-Israel. That article quotes heavily from the article cited, but the article cited doesn't actually use the term "hasbara". The "List of Hasbara Organizations" at Volunteers for Israel [9] lists "Fuel for Truth". (They also list CAMERA, Honest Reporting, and the Israel Project.) "Fuel for Truth" people have appeared with Hasbara Fellowships people on talk shows [10], but that's a weak association.

So Israel Project goes back in, and we can argue here about Fuel for Truth. --John Nagle (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Israel Project is talking about the Israeli government's hasbara efforts, not its own. It says the Israeli government engages in it, it doesn't say that it does. So, it will stay out pending some better sourcing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is funny. Jayjg (talk · contribs) is trying to deny that The Israel Project is a hasbara operation. Let's find a few more sources.

• How Israel can Improve Its Hasbara Public Relations, from the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies. "It is my hope that the Israel Foreign Ministry will heed this warning and reassess their policy on hasbara before any more damage is done to the reputation of Israel and the Jewish community in this country." ... "Recent efforts, like that of the Israel Project will fail as will the Israeli Foreign ministry effort." So there's an article about hasbara, complaining that the Israel Foreign Ministry and the Israel Project are doing a bad job of it.
• The Coalition of Hasbara Volunteers lists both the Israel Project and FuelForTruth as action groups under their umbrella.
• Interview with Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, head of the Israel Project, in Hadassah Magazine. "Q Why do people call The Israel Project a revolution in hasbara, pro-Israel information? How does it defer Jewish individuals or organizations from complaining about media bias or error? A. We strengthen Israel’s image and build support for public policies that make Israel safer. To do that, we are educational rather than confrontational, proactive rather than reactive. When a reporter is on a deadline and about to file a major story...we understand he needs to get the facts, sound bites or visuals to do the story right and in time for deadline. We work within that framework, knowing that complaints afterward aren’t going to help very much." So there's the head of the organization agreeing that it's a hasbara operation.

There's more, but that should be enough for now. Denial here is just silly. --John Nagle (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

John, all I ask for is properly cited material from reliable sources - that's not silly. If you would have provided, for example, the Hadassah Magazine citation from the start, this wouldn't have been a problem. I've restored it using the Hadassah Magazine citation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently people like "John" here are using this hebrew word and this article to push some sort of anti-Jewish agenda. Noticed this trackback today: http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/264697/?show_files=#comments Try to keep this site civil and free of your personal bias. Thank you. 67.220.13.184 (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA, Honest Reporting, the ADL, the Internet Haganah, the Israel Project and Fuel for Truth all need to be listed here. In addition, we need a category for Israel front-groups and pro-war propaganda groups. Members of these groups need to recuse themselves from editing wikipedia articles about the wars they support and the people they dehumanize and demonize. NonZionist (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-foreign-ministry-media —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutusbrutusbrutus (talk • contribs) 10:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)