Harper’s magazine has published excerpts from the talking points created by Frank Luntz in a report marked “Not for Distribution or Publication,” for pro-Israel activists in the United States that helps illustrate the cynicism and coyness of the American domestic debate over Palestine. Coming in the month of the anniversary of the assassination of Yitzak Rabin by an Israeli (Jewish) radical, the talking points also illustrate how much farther right from the center the Israeli political opinion has drifted, given that Bibi Netanyahu is, once again, the Israeli leader, elected to take a strong position to protect Israeli security interests.
First though, here are the excerpts from the Harper’s list that I found most illuminating:
(Quote)
Never talk about “giving” the Palestinians something. It reminds people that you’re in the stronger position.
Draw direct parallels between Israel and America. Imagine if more than 250 times terrorists had crossed into our land and killed our children while they were riding bikes or eating pizza. What would America do?
Don’t talk about religion. Americans who see the Bible as their sourcebook on foreign affairs are already Israel’s “Amen Choir.” However, some of those who are most likely to believe that Israel is a religious state are the most hostile toward Israel. Even the mention of the word “Jew” is going to elicit a negative reaction.
While Jews make up a bigger percentage of the campus population, the Palestinian students are better informed, more knowledgeable and, most important, better able to communicate their beliefs. Worse yet, the pro-Israeli tone is often loud and emotional, while the Palestinian reaction is calm and rational. If you are faced with an overly aggressive foe, use a rhetorical approach.
“Economic diplomacy” is a more embracing and popular term than “sanctions.” It has appeal across the political spectrum: the tough economic approach appeals to Republicans, and the diplomacy component satisfies Democrats.
Advocate a policy of “prevention.” Stay away from anything “preemption”-oriented. That brings up too many bad associations with recent American foreign policy.
(End Quote)
So, the next time you hear a chorus of pro-Israel voices discuss arguments about U.S. foreign policy, try and keep track of how many times the Luntz guidelines appear in the tactical deployment of rhetoric.
And yes, Hamas has its own talking points – only, they don’t get to hire political consultants in America to distribute them to American-Arabs, given that they are a listed terrorist organization in the U.S. and it would be very illegal for any American to work on such a project.
And, going beyond the cynicism that many people have over the Middle-East arguments, the truth, or its associated facts, are not talking points – they are objectively observable realities which either side can try to spin, but the truth and its associated facts can not be dismissed as irrelevant for merely being convenient to Israeli or Arab commentators. Most academics and journalists would admit to that distinction being the basic groundwork for any credible research and writing on the Middle East.
I hope.
