[This sentence avoids debate, turns the attack on Israeli policy towards the Palestinian Authority, and narrows it to focus on Yasser Arafat.]
“If Arafat's Fatah organization stopped its terror attacks on Israel, then perhaps things would be different. [Point one - Arafat's own organization is terrorist.]
“Of course, if Arafat were more trustworthy, things might be better too. [Point two - Arafat is not to be trusted.]
“At the moment he is telling the world he's arresting extremists, but the minute after they are arrested they walk out of prison to attack Israeli civilians with Arafat's blessing [Point three -
Arafat lies to the world. Point four - Arafat supports terrorists].
“The ball is in Arafat's court - he can continue to embrace terror, or he can join Israel back at the negotiating table.” [Point five - Arafat supports terror. Point six - Israel wants peace.]
Genuine Debate
Traditional approaches to Israel advocacy have often assumed that all talk about Israel should consist of short sound bites and point scoring. This approach can backfire when used on people who are analysing arguments and trying to think deeply, and who really just want somebody to present arguments rationally to them.
When To Debate
Genuine debate is appropriate in forums where people are really attempting to think about the Middle East situation constructively, to consider the issues, and to communicate in an attempt to understand things better.
www.wujs.org.il 11
Hasbara Handbook: Promoting Israel on Campus
Genuine debate is fundamentally different to point scoring. In a forum where listeners are mature and interested in the issues, it is appropriate to engage in genuine debate by responding to questions honestly, admitting that things in Israel aren't always perfect, and perhaps even by criticising certain policies as errant. Because the audience or person engaged in dialogue is interested more in content than presentation, in genuine debate it is possible to admit to not knowing answers, being unclear on facts, and so on.
Remember that what seems like a genuine debate might not be. Academic forums can turn quickly into opportunities to condemn, words can be taken out of context, and what might be said to an intelligent audience can always be quoted to a less attentive one later by somebody trying to distort a message.
It is possible to disagree with Israeli policy without undermining positions that are favourable to Israel. Many people who attack Israel do so by attempting to question the legitimacy of her existence. It is possible to disagree with some small aspect of Israeli Government policy without questioning Israel's right to exist, just as it is with Belgian policy, for example. Those who attack Israel's right to exist just because her governments, like all others, have made policy errors, use fundamentally flawed reasoning, and should be opposed using any available technique.
For more on this point see Personal Politics in Israel Advocacy – p. 28
The implications of admitting to Israeli error are not always as great as one might fear. Those who believe that Israel must be perfect in every way, whilst the Palestinians and others can execute awful policies, are applying double standards to Israel. In private conversation and in friendly settings, it is reasonable to admit that Israel has made mistakes that she attempts to learn from, whilst pointing out that other countries do this too.
12 www.wujs.org.il
The Principles of Israel Advocacy
ANTISEMITISM, ANTI-ZIONISM, AND
ISRAEL
For those defending Israel in the Diaspora, a major concern is that legitimate criticism of Israeli policies can either lead to, or be motivated by, Antisemitism. Anti-Jewish sentiment, and particularly action, must be understood, exposed, and vigorously defended against by all Jewish students.