Whenever an image crisis involving Israel erupts, like after the film NAZA won a major prize at the Venice Film Festival, there are often cries of “Where is the hasbara?” It is as if hasbara were a miracle cure: take two pills in the morning, and everything will be fine.
It doesn’t work that way, and let me start with the word itself.
I have not found another country that uses a term exactly equivalent to the Israeli concept of hasbara, which literally means “explanation.” Rather, formulations such as “public diplomacy” and “strategic communications” are used to describe efforts that are aimed not only at governments but also at foreign publics.
The word hasbara suggests that if only we explain things properly, the problems will disappear. But persuasion requires something more: a policy that can be explained and defended.
Consider a few questions, in both domestic and foreign affairs, that even the most talented spokesperson would find difficult to answer.
Interlocutors might ask: If the government opposes violence by Israelis in the West Bank, violence that even US Ambassador Mike Huckabee, a strong supporter of Israel, has described as involving “Israeli terrorists,” why does it continue?
Or: If Israel continues its de facto annexation of the West Bank, how does it envisage the future of the millions of Palestinians living under its control? Does it intend to grant them equal rights, thereby changing the country’s Jewish character? If not, what will their status be?
While “but they…” may sometimes be true, it does not answer the questions.
A donor who contributes to Israeli social causes may ask about the future of the economy, given the growth of the ultra-Orthodox sector and the benefits it receives, despite its limited participation in the workforce. Saying: “That’s democracy” may be legally correct, but it is unlikely to persuade that donor to continue investing.
In addition to explicable policies, there must be those who do the explaining. After years in which the Foreign Ministry has suffered budget cuts, Israel’s diplomatic network shrank, and the ministry and plum positions abroad are treated as a political prize, who is supposed to do the explaining?
Imagine a different response
There is another question: What, and whom, should Israel respond to, and how?
Anyone who has represented Israel abroad knows that it is simply impossible to respond to everything. Every reaction has to be weighed against its potential benefit and damage. Responding can keep an issue on the agenda; ignoring it can suggest unwillingness to confront criticism. How does one decide? Carefully.
Like the many senior Israeli officials who rushed to respond to NAZA, I have not seen the film. But I understand that it raises serious allegations, while also being subject to professional criticism.
So, imagine that, instead of the prime minister and many others responding as they did – from designating the filmmakers “traitors” to demanding that their citizenship be revoked – only one or two official bodies, perhaps the IDF Spokesman’s Unit and/or the Foreign Ministry, had responded, with everyone else referring questions to them.
Imagine also that the designated responders had said that conclusions cannot be drawn from anonymous testimony, but that Israel would, of course, thoroughly investigate any information concerning potentially unlawful conduct, and hold those responsible accountable.
And then imagine that Israel had actually conducted such a thorough investigation and taken action against anyone found to have committed wrongdoing.
In such a scenario, two groups would have been deprived of headlines: the politicians who rushed to speak out, and the filmmakers, who received publicity they could only have dreamed of. Israel, meanwhile, would have gained.
But that requires management and coordination, which are sadly lacking, and, above all, politicians who look beyond their political base and instead consider the public interest.
There is no question that Israel faces ongoing challenges that have nothing to do with its own policies or conduct, including the actions of antisemites and others who seek to undermine it. But that does not erase the problems created by Israel’s own actions.
At the start of a new year, one can hope that Israel’s leaders will put the country’s interests first, and that they will act wisely and effectively to pursue consistent, coherent, and defensible policies.
Otherwise, hasbara is little more than propaganda: a futile attempt to fill a vacuum created by the absence of policies that can be convincingly explained and defended.
The writer was Israel’s first ambassador to the Baltic states after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, ambassador to South Africa, and the congressional liaison officer at the Israeli embassy in Washington. She is a graduate of Israel’s National Defense College.