Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lordo]

Lets have a look at 11 and 12.

11) Don’t talk about religion. Americans who see the bible as their sourcebook on foreign affairs are already supporters of Israel. Religious fundamentalists are Israel’s “Amen Choir” and they make up approximately one-fourth of the American public and Israel’s strongest friends in the world. However, some of those who are most likely to believe that Israel is a religious state are most hostile towards Israel (“they’re just as extreme as
those religious Arab countries they criticize”). Unfortunately, virtually any discussion of religion will only reinforce this perception.

Therefore, even the mention of the word “Jew” is many Israel contexts is going to elicit a negative reaction—and the defense of Israel as a “Jewish State” or “Zionist State” will be received quite poorly. This may be hard for the Jewish community to accept but this is how most Americans and Europeans feel.

The exceptions are amongst the Orthodox Jewish and Evangelical Christian communities. The fact is that Evangelical Christians are more supportive of Israel and Israeli policy than almost any other subgroup in America—and sometimes even more supportive than liberal Jews. The primary reason for this is that their religion tells them to do so. You can speak about God to these groups (approximately one fourth of America) but do not
extend your comments about religion beyond that.

12) No matter what you are asked, bridge to a productive pro-Israel message. When asked a direct question, you don’t have to answer it directly. You are in control of what you say and how you say it. Remember, your goal in doing interviews is not only to answer questions—it is to bring persuadable members of the audience to Israel’s side in the conflict. Start by acknowledging their question and agreeing that both sides – Israelis and Palestinians deserve a better future. Remind your audience that Israel wants peace. Then focus on shared values. Once you have done this you will have built enough support for you to say what Israel really wants: for the Palestinians to end the violence and the culture of hate so that fences and checkpoints are no longer needed and both sides can live in peace. And for Iran for Iran-backed terrorists in Gaza to stop shooting rockets into Israel so that both sides can have a better future.

A simple rule of thumb is that once you get to the point of repeating the same message over and over again so many times that you think you might get sick—that is just about the time the public will wake up and say “Hey—this person just might be saying something interesting to me!” But don’t confuse messages with facts. All messages must be factually accurate, but the point is to bridge back to your message—for example, to show that Israel is a democracy that wants peace

[Lordo]

Its time to look at what those God's chosen children are thinking next.

13) Talk about the future, not the past. Spending time giving the public a history lesson on the maps of Israel will put your audience to sleep -- at best. At worst, if you spend your communications capital (time and money) on history lessons of who got what land when and who promised what to whom, it will be viewed by Americans and Europeans as a game of gotcha and not a vision for a better future. Remember—communications is not a test for who can remember the most facts. Listeners want simple messages that will answer their simple, silent question: “What is in it for my country and for me to support Israel?”

14) Hope. The expectations for peace are about as low as they can go. But the side that presents a more hopeful future – and the willingness to work hard to make it happen –
will win hearts and minds going forward. This is the language people want to hear:
“The day will come when Israeli children and Palestinian children will grow up together, play together, and eventually work together side-by-side not just because they have to but because they want to.”

Words That Work

“We must measure each other’s commitment to peace by actions, not words. Let us come together and bring about a new era of openness and tolerance. Let us declare that violence and bloodshed will not prevail. We must provide hope for all the people of the Middle East. We must provide hope for those who have none. It is my hope that we may all live in prosperity and peace—now and forever.”

[repulsewarrior]

...very interesting. I will take the time to study this stuff closely. And it is useful to anyone who is in a dialog where a positive atmosphere may lead to reasoned response.

[Lordo]

...very interesting. I will take the time to study this stuff closely. And it is useful to anyone who is in a dialog where a positive atmosphere may lead to reasoned response.

Of course it is useful, they are describing shit as cream and the way they do it to convince the Americans. This is for the American audience. They see the Americans are thick as shit and easy to manipulate.

Here is another

15) Use rhetorical questions. Avoid head on attacks of your opponents. Use a soft tone. Show regret that the Palestinians have been led so poorly.

Ask:
WORDS THAT WORK
“How can the current Palestinian leadership honestly say it will pursue peace when previous leaders rejected an offer to create a Palestinian state just a few short years ago and now refuse to live up to their responsibilities as outlined in the Road Map?”
“How can you call it a “cycle of violence” when in reality, if Israel stopped fighting terror, the violence would not end? If the Palestinians stopped terror, Israel would have no reason for curfews, fences, checkpoints, and other defensive measures.”
“Is it too much to ask that the Hamas leadership condemn all terrorist activities, including suicide bombers? Is it unreasonable to insist that they stop killing innocent children before Israelis jeopardize their security and make concessions for peace?”

And here is a simpler batch of questions to keep in mind:

-- “How do I make peace with a government who wants me dead?”
-- “How do I make peace with a population who is taught these words – taught to hate Jews, not just Israelis – from the moment they are born?”
-- “Why is the world so silent about the written, vocal, stated aims of Hamas?”

16) Go where the people are. According to Nielsen ratings, on average, Americans now watch 4.3 hours of television a day. Youth groups, Hillel, AIPAC, and others can be terrific leadership training grounds. They are very important for educating some Jews about Israel. Peer to peer communications can also make a highly positive difference from campus to the Capitol. But, don’t waste time and money fooling yourself that newspaper ads and campus lectures alone will bring large numbers of new supporters to Israel. Research repeatedly shows that the people who come to these events have largely made up their minds, pro and con, so they are about leadership development, not mass communications.

As these results from The Israel Project’s polling clearly show, the media is the top source of information on the Middle East for the vast majority of Americans. Television, followed by newspapers and radio dominate the other sources that many believe are critical. One lecture simply can’t compete with 4.3 hours of television per day. Pro-Israel leaders need to make sure that solid and “TV-worthy” stories are pitched and delivered to the media on a regular basis. If you want to persuade, you need to go where the people are—and that is on television and in other media. Don’t hesitate to reach out to your local reporters and media outlets to speak with them about Israel

[Lordo]

Here is another bit.

17) K.I.S.S. and tell and tell again and again. A key rule of successful communications is “Keep It Simple, Stupid”. Successful communications is not about being able to recite every fact from the long history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is about pointing out a few core principles of shared values—such as democracy and freedom—and repeating them over and over again.
Have I written often enough yet that you need to start with empathy for both sides, remind your audience that Israel wants peace and then repeat the messages of democracy, freedom, and peace over and over again? For those not already pro-Israel, but who belong to the category of persuadables, we need to repeat the message, on average, ten times to be effective. Go back to the message triangle and practice bridging to your message on Israel.

18) Avoid “analysis paralysis” and be pro-active. This is the tendency to blame everything and anything bad that happens to Israel’s cause on the media… and then to do nothing else. It is a terrible disease that can cripple pro-Israel organizations with a thousand
meetings and no results. Instead, Focus on the Persuadables. Of course, as pro-Israel leaders and activists you must spend considerable time and energy in what we in politics call “the care and feeding of the base.” But, you must recognize that there are three kinds of people in how they view Israel—those who are with us and will always be with us, those who are against us and who will always be against us, and those who are “persuadable.”
Your communications efforts should always focus on transporting the “persuadables” from a less favorable position on Israel to a more favorable position on Israel.

[Lordo]

19) It’s not just what you’re against – it’s what you’re FOR that matters. The public demands progress. It doesn’t have to move at light speed. One day doesn’t always have to be better than the next. But the public turns off immediately whenever they perceive that one side has dug its heels in and refuses to remain committed to the overall mission of making progress towards peace. There are no excuses – no matter what is happening in the Middle East, you have to advocate how you remain committed to peace. If you’re only ever against things – even if they are things like suicide attacks, rocket firings, or
inequality of rights – then you’ll never have the public for you. Similarly, avoid putting things in terms of “not.” Tell the people what you are for. Use positive, active terms. Don’t say your goal is not to do this or to avoid that.

20) Start your message, press release, sound bite, or debate segment with your best, positive message. Credibility is so difficult to achieve but so easy to lose in debates about these issues. This is especially true in the first words you say or write. People make snap decisions about whether they find you to be credible, authentic, empathetic, or sincere. Time after time in group after group, we see good words go without impact because a speaker puts his foot in his mouth at the outset, rather than his best face
forward.
Start with positive themes like peace, mutual respect, empathy for the plight of Palestinians and their children, and the like.

21) Concede a point. Look for opportunities in every TV debate or interview to concede a point to the interviewer or debate partner. It doesn’t have to be a major point. The point isn’t to undermine some essential plank of Israel’s foreign policy platform. But the simple words “you make a good point” do wonders among an audience.

[Lordo]

22) Never, never, NEVER speak in declarative statements. Never. Americans and Europeans think in shades of gray – especially when it comes to conflict in the Middle East. They believe both sides are to blame, both sides are responsible for making sacrifices for peace, and both sides do have a positive story to tell. So every time you say “every,” totally,” “always,” “never,” or the like, the reaction is immediate and negative. Soften the tone just a little bit and you’ll keep them tuned in.

WORDS THAT DO NOT WORK
Two statements from Israeli spokespeople that turned listeners off:
1. “I can promise you that if there will be no agreement in 2008, it would not be the fault of the Israeli government.”
2. “Those who think that the conflict is driven by an Israeli desire to hold onto territories are totally wrong.”

23) Acknowledge the complexities of the situation and attempt to simplify and clarify. The public believes that the issues that cause conflict between Israelis and Palestinians are complex and date back hundreds or thousands of years. They agree that there are many different sticking points that need to be negotiated.
Yet while the problems are complex, they want the solutions to be simple: Peace. Mutual respect. Two nations living side by side. Children growing up without fear for their safety. These are all simple concepts that Americans want all sides to agree on as central goals.

WORDS THAT WORK
The situation in the Middle East may be complicated, but all parties should adopt a simple approach: peace first, political boundaries second.

24) Don’t try to stack your credibility up against the media’s. Yes, the press almost never gets the story completely right – and they often get it mostly wrong. And yes, many in the media have an agenda against Israel. However, many more do not. Also, Americans have no love lost for their own media’s lack of bias. Nevertheless, Americans trust the media to report the situation in the Middle East more accurately than either Israel or the Palestinian government. Do not attempt to impeach the credibility of a media report head on. You’ll just end up undermining you own. Here’s an example of what not to do:

WORDS THAT DO NOT WORK
With all due respect, check your data. And, you know, don’t write a story that doesn’t hold water.
– Actual answer by an Israeli politician on live television

[Lordo]

25) Also, don’t try to stack your credibility up against the global community’s. Yes, much of the world and many influential members of the United Nations are hostile to Israel’s existence. But the public doesn’t want to hear Israeli politicians complain about this fact. The Israel-against-the-world, woe-are-we approach comes across as divisive. While you should be making the case for why a stable Israel is good for the world, messages like this just isolate you more:

WORDS THAT DO NOT WORK
If we were to listen to all of what the world says, I’m not sure that we would be a sovereign state or where we are today. 26) Mutuality is a key concept. We close with one more plea to humanize, empathize, and stress the equal needs for a better life for two equal peoples. The world sees Israel and the Palestinians on completely different plains – and this is why they allow/ignore Palestinian crimes against Israel. It’s David vs. Goliath – only this time the Palestinians are seen as David. Using the “mutual” context puts both parties on the same level – and that is important in communicating the Israeli position. Here are the phrases to use:
-- “Mutual respect” is even better than “tolerance.”
-- “Living together, side by side, in peace”
-- “Israelis and Palestinians both have a RIGHT to…” The more you stress that both sides have equal rights, the better.
-- “Cooperation, Collaboration, and Compromise.” All three words work to describe the relationship that Europe and America want Israelis and Palestinians to have. We recommend you use all three because the sound repetition drives the point home with three times
the effectiveness.

Bottom line:
What will happen if we fail to get the world to care about the fact that Israeli
parents in southern Israel need to literally dodge rockets when they drive their children to
kindergarten in the morning?
What will happen if the world allows Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, to get nuclear weapons?
What will Israel do if bad press causes American citizens to ask our government to turn its back on Israel?
Why do I care so much about the success of your communications efforts?
I care because I never want our children to live through what my family and yours lived through in the Holocaust. People in Israel depend on us. Together, we can use strategic communications to make Israel and all Jews safer and more secure.

[Lordo]

Now Chapter 2

CHAPTER 2: A GLOSSARY OF WORDS THAT WORK
"What the world cannot remember the Israelis cannot forget."

For the first time in our communication effort, we have provided an A-Z glossary of
specific words, phrases, and concepts that should form the core of any pro-Israeli communication
effort.

• “Accountability.” It is surprising that the value Americans want most in their own government has not been used by Israeli spokespeople to describe what’s needed in the current dialogue. Stop using “confidence-building measures” and start using “accountability” to describe what’s needed most within the Palestinian government(s).

• “Building”: Never talk about “giving” the Palestinians something. It sounds too paternalistic. Instead, talk about “building” because it suggests a step-by-step, layer-by-layer improvement in conditions. Giving reminds people that you’re in the stronger position and that creates more sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians.

• Children: As often as possible, make the stakes of achieving peace about providing a future for both Palestinian and Israeli children in which they can live, learn, and grow up without the constant fear of attack.

• “Come to Jerusalem to work for peace”: The visual symbolism isn’t lost on American ears. It’s an active challenge to turn words into deeds.

• “Cooperation, collaboration, and compromise”: This is how Americans believe the conflict must be solved. When you give a little, you get a lot.

• “Deliberately firing rockets into civilian communities”: Combine terrorist motive with civilian visuals and you have the perfect illustration of what Israel faced in Gaza and Lebanon. Especially with regard to rocket attacks but useful for any kind of terrorist attack, deliberate is the right word to use to call out the intent behind the attacks. This is far more powerful than describing the attacks as “random.”

• “Economic Diplomacy”: This is a much more embracing and popular term than the current lexicon of “sanctions.” It has appeal across the political spectrum: the tough economic approach appeals to Republicans, and the diplomacy component satisfies Democrats.

• “Economic Prosperity”: Whenever Israel talks about the “economic prosperity” of the Palestinians, it puts Israel in the most positive light possible. After all, who can disagree?

• Examples of Peace Efforts: Constantly cite Israel’s past efforts and sacrifices for peace with moderate Arab leaders also willing to work for peace. But don’t dwell on the past. Simply present these past examples as the best reasons why Israel remains committed to making peace in the future.

• “Equal rights”: Emphasize that Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis enjoy equal rights and equal protections under the law in Israel. But don’t stop there: “The tragedy is that Palestinians have far less rights under their government than Israeli Arabs have under ours.”

• Human to Human: Appealing directly to the Palestinian people on behalf of the Israeli people takes the issue out of the political realm and humanizes it. “We know that the average Palestinian and the average Israeli want to come together and make peace. They want to live in peace. Israeli leaders have come together with Arab leaders to make peace in the past. But how do you make peace with Hamas and Hezbollah?”

• Humanize Rockets: Paint a vivid picture of what life is like in Israeli communities that are vulnerable to attack. Yes, cite the number of rocket attacks that have occurred. But immediately follow that up with what it is like to make the nightly trek to the bomb shelter.

• “If… If… If…Then.”: Put the burden on Hamas to make the first move for peace by using If’s (and don’t forget to finish with a hard then to show Israel is a willing peace partner). “If Hamas reforms… If Hamas recognize our right to exist… If Hamas renounces terrorism… If Hamas supports international peace agreements… then we are willing to make peace today.”

• “Living together, side by side. This is the best way to describe the ultimate vision of a
two-state solution without using the phrase. • “Militant Islam”: This is the best term to describe the terrorist movement. Avoid Bush-era sounding terms like “Islamo-fascism.”

• “Mutual respect”: You want to put the conflict in perspective. “The best way, the only way, to achieve lasting peace is to achieve mutual respect.” This relieves the pressure on Israel and places it squarely on Hamas and Hezbollah. In fact, the fastest way to demonstrate an open-minded approach and differentiate Israel’s aims from Hamas and, frankly, Fatah, is to talk about your respect for the Palestinian people. “We do not have the right to tell the Palestinians whom to elect to represent them. We hope they will choose leaders that will listen and truly care about them. We respect their right to live in peace and prosperity. All we ask is for them to respect the same for us.”

• “Nobody has to leave their homes”: This is the most winning phrase in the lexicon of settlements. Use the principle of mutuality to explain that just as Arab Israelis are not expected to move out of their homes in Israel, Jews in a new Palestinian state should be allowed to stay in their homes, too.

• “One step at a time, one day at a time”: It is essential to lower expectations and reduce the pressure on Israel to rush into an agreement that is either not in its interests or jeopardizes its security. The “one step at a time” language will be accepted as a common sense approach to the land-for-peace equation. Property of The Israel Project.

• “Peace before political boundaries”: This is the best phrase for talking about why a two-state solution isn’t realistic right now. First the rockets and the war need to stop. Then both peoples can talk about political boundaries.

• “Persistence” and “perseverance” : It is not just the effort that matters. It’s the intensity of that effort. The fact that against great odds and obvious provocations Israel still seeks peace will be appreciated by all audiences.

• “Prevention”: With respect to Iran, this is your best word for the overall approach to their quest for nuclear weapons. Not “preemption.”

• “The RIGHT to”: This is a stronger phrase than “deserves.” Use the phrase frequently, including: the rights that both Israelis and Arabs enjoy in Israel, the right to peace that Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to, and Israel’s right to defend its civilians against rocket attacks.

• “Societal Progress”: This is a dangerous term unless used to address the aspirations of the Palestinian people. First talk about how “the Palestinians have the right to the same societal progress that is happening in Europe and Asia.” Then address the freedoms they lack – and the freedoms they deserve. Americans and Europeans see “societal progress” as a moral imperative and a fundamental necessity for eliminating the root causes of terrorism.

• “Specific Plan of Action”: Even if the plan will take time, Americans want to know that there is a specific plan of action to which both sides can and will be held accountable. Whether you’re talking about the peace process with the Palestinians or the process of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, use this phrase to describe your approach.

• “We have all made mistakes.” People do not expect Israel to be 100 percent successful in all their efforts to stop terrorism. Admitting that Israel has and continues to make mistakes does not undermine the overall justice of Israel’s goals: peace and security and a better quality of life for everyone. It does gain you much needed credibility.

• “We’re all in this together.” One of the most powerful phrases of 2009 in America can easily be adapted to the situation in the Middle East. Acknowledging a common condition not only communicates a realistic approach from the Israeli perspective but also builds a sense of empathy.

• “Working toward a solution”: Americans don’t expect the dispute between Israel and the Arabs to end overnight, but they absolutely need to know that “Israel is working to find a solution that is acceptable to everyone involved.” This suggests positive intent. This suggests progress. This suggests hope. And all three are important components of a successful communication effort.

[repulsewarrior]

‘The other’ and me
cyprus22688.html?hilit=MEP%20Niyazi%20Kizilyurek#p418289
Postby halil » Sun Mar 08, 2009 6:30 pm

The other’ and me


06.03.2009

Niyazi Kizilyurek

Hate towards strangers related to self-hatred

“One day after the war, Sekula, a Montenegrin and a Yugoslavian meets a Muslim Turk. Both were on the way to Mojkovoc from Akova. They did not know each other before. The intercity roads were stretching through woodlands where travellers were often ambushed. The Muslim man was happy to have a Montenegrin by his side. Sekula was also happy to travel with a Turk since he knew there were Turkish partisans in the area. Both were having a friendly conversation, offering each other cigarettes. It was very obvious that the Muslim was a humble family man. The journey through the woodlands bought the two strangers closer.” However Sekula began to feel uneasy about this closeness. Not harbouring any hostile feelings against a Turkish Muslims, not hating him, accepting him like anybody else makes him feel guilty inside. The rest of the story goes like this:

Desire to kill

“It is a hot summer’s day. Because the road was running by a stream in the woodlands, both travellers feel nice and cool. When they sit down somewhere to rest and eat Sekula takes off his gun. It is a beautiful gun and his intention is to pride himself a little bit. The Muslim man glares at the gun with appreciation and asks whether it is loaded. As Sekula says it is loaded, he notices that he can kill the Turk with a little movement of his finger. (He still has not made a decision yet). He points the gun at the Muslim and aims between his eyes saying ‘Yes it is loaded. And I can kill you if I want to.’ The Muslim man laughs and says the devil loads it and asks Sekula to put it down. All of a sudden Sekula notices his desire to kill his fellow traveller. If he lets this Turk live he would never cope with the shame and guilt. He acts as if it is an accident he shoots between the laughing eyes of the man.”

Kills because he can’t hate

The story above is taken from a book, ‘Land Without Justice’ by Milovan Djilas, who once was Tito’s supporter but turned against him later on his life. Famous social psychologist Arno Gruen among other things, examines the sources of violence and hate of the humans in his book ‘The Stranger Within Us’ and quotes this story from Djilas.
Examining the story Arno Gruen writes ‘The most striking thing about this story is that Sekula does not kill the Muslim stranger because he hates him, but because he cannot hate him.’ And he continues ‘Not being able to hate the Muslim created shame and guilt in him and as he kills him he kills the humanity within himself.’

The enemy within

Arno Gruen draws a conclusion from this story ‘Hate towards strangers is always related to self-hatred. If we want to understand why people make others suffer and to humiliate them we have to deal with what we discuss within ourselves. Because we need to seek the enemy we think we see in other people in ourselves first. We want to silence this part within us by destroying the stranger that reminds it to us. We can only keep our estranged part away from us in this way. In this way we can keep our stance.’ Yes, hating some can be thought to us but turning this piece of information into a fatal action becomes possible only if it is added to by the parts we hate in ourselves. Therefore what we hate in others is not detached from our self-hatred we do not want to face.

...you might like reading this Lordo.