WE'VE MOVED! IsraPundit has relocated to Click here to go there now.
News and views on Israel, Zionism and the war on terrorism.

April 03, 2003

Unwinnable war of words

Barry Rubin's Jerusalem Post piece gives us nice insights as to why no matter what happens with the IDF or American troops in Iraq there will always be those who have nothing but contempt to spit out
The first week of the Iraq war should give us an unforgettable lesson in how the world works in terms of information battles, elite opinion, and media behavior. The experience should shatter some decades-old assumptions.

Simply put: Things thought to apply only to Israel have now been shown to work almost equally against the United States. Problems attributed to an Israeli hasbara weakness also hold true for the mighty and competent American public relations system. Attitudes attributable to anti-Semitism are paralleled by the effects of anti-Americanism.

In short, Israel's situation is by no means unique. Deeper, systemic, problems about how governments, media, and intellectuals function and how they view the world can work against anyone, or at least anyone who deals with the Middle East.

Here are some key aspects:

* Being a democracy battling a dictatorship earns you little or no special credit, and can be an outright disadvantage. The assumption of the dominant sector in the intellectual class which runs much of academia, the media, and all verbal, opinion-forming sectors of society is that democracies lie about as much as dictatorships, especially if the dictatorship claims "progressive" credentials.

Forcing its own intellectuals and media to voice a single line makes the dictatorship sound popular abroad. Since all Iraqis or Palestinians say the same thing, it must be true. In contrast, a democracy's dissenting voices about its real or imagined shortcomings can be used to undermine its assertions.

To make matters worse, you have the claims of a "people" versus those of a "government." (You can imagine which one the opinion-making class is more likely to believe.)

In addition, since no critical information comes out of a dictatorship, the only way we know it does anything wrong is from its enemies' assertions. All the data, no matter how well-documented, from Israel on Yasser Arafat's backing of terrorism, or from the US on Saddam Hussein's repression and concealment of weapons can be dismissed as partisan.

Then there is the fair-minded "neutrality" of those who shape opinion in the media, academia, and elsewhere. "Patriotism" is identified as a right-wing belief and replaced by its opposite. To doubt, criticize, slander, or at least avoid agreeing with your country's position seems politically courageous and morally noble.
"Why should we assume the US is telling the truth? Let's give equal weight to Saddam Hussein's version."

As a result, if soldiers of a democratic state make a mistake an Israeli or US attack that inadvertently kills civilians they are denounced as something close to war criminals. But if their adversaries torture people to death, employ terrorism or do a dozen other heinous things, the response is, "How do we know it really happened?"
The democratic states must meet a higher standard. Their mistakes matter, and they are held accountable for each and every one.

NOW CONSIDER some parallels: [more]