Inside the pro-Israel debate playbook
Talking points distributed at the beginning of the current war shed light on how Israel's advocates were supposed to approach Palestinian suffering.
New York governor Kathy Hochul came under fire after making a bizarre defense of the Israeli war in Gaza on Friday. She had told a pro-Israel conference that “if Canada someday ever attacked Buffalo, I’m sorry, my friends, there would be no Canada the next day.” State legislator Zohran Kwame Mamdani shared Hochul’s speech on social media, calling it genocidal, which prompted the governor to apologize.
Hochul was not the first person to make that analogy. To defend the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, then-senator Joe Biden said the same thing: “If attacks were launched from Canada into the US, everyone here would have said, ‘Attack all the cities of Canada, and we don’t care if all the civilians get killed.’” Sometimes it feels like American politicians are reading from the same short list of talking points when it comes to Israel and Palestine.
And various pro-Israel groups do actually put out lists of coordinated talking points for their followers. The Israel Project famously commissioned Republican pollster Frank Luntz in 2009 to write a “Global Language Dictionary,” a set of guidelines to better sell Israel’s cause. (The dictionary, which was only supposed to be used internally, was later leaked to the press.) Luntz’s instructions include many familiar talking points.
A few days into the present war, a similar guide for defending the Israeli cause was published in the Jewish Link, a community newspaper in the New York area. When I first saw the article, it seemed unremarkable. But several months later, I am struck by how closely the pro-Israel rhetoric has followed guidelines decided on at the beginning of the war.
Nothing in this article suggests a conspiracy. Members of the pro-Israel movement share notes on effective messaging, just like any other political movement. These points were published in a newspaper that anyone can subscribe to. The author is not a government official; he’s a small-town lawyer and a grassroots activist. His article was probably one of many written by likeminded people around that time.
The article does show how the pro-Israel movement knew from the outset that it would have to defend “staggering death tolls and damage among Palestinian noncombatants,” and had ready-made lines for doing so. The solution was to “keep the focus on” October 7, which “fully justifies anything Israel will have to do in the weeks and months ahead,” and avoid talking about “the context of a 75-year struggle.” That has indeed been the basic outline of pro-Israel rhetoric since then.
On the other hand, these guidelines have failed in important ways. The article emphasizes that pro-Israel advocates should never “debate the question of [Palestinian] innocence” and should instead blame Hamas for Palestinian suffering. The Global Language Dictionary had similarly warned of changing trends in American public opinion: “They will accept that some civilian casualties are inevitable, but if your language isn’t correct about how seriously Israel takes this issue, they will refuse to accept your arguments about the vulnerability of Israel’s civilians.”
Israeli spokespeople have been too caught up in the trauma and rage of October 7 to keep up the pretense. Isaac Herzog, the President of Israel himself, said that Palestine “is an entire nation out there that is responsible.” People have begun reading from older, ineffective playbooks. Hochul pulled out the 1980s line about destroying Canada, expecting to be applauded. Even this article couldn’t help but include former Israeli prime minister Golda Meir’s zinger about killing Arab children.
Without any further commentary, here’s the text of the article, which you can also find online:
How to Support Israel in the Workplace
Dror Futter | October 12, 2023
Let’s be blunt. Without minimizing the importance of our funding and the various efforts to get supplies to Israel, sitting in the comfort of our New York area homes, there are practical limits on how much help we can provide Israel. However, by the time this article is published, it is very likely that we will have an important role to play.
Where Are We Now?
The staggering images of the last few days have shaken all but the most rabid Israel haters. Television commentators are visibly shaken as they report events. Unconditional statements of support come from European capitals. Yes, there are the “usual suspects” who support Hamas unconditionally, but while they are noisy, in most (but not all) cases I feel that we would be better served ignoring them rather than giving them all the free publicity they crave by highlighting them. Right now, you do not have to be a lover of Israel to stand with it.
Where Are We Going?
It is very likely that by the time you read this, an Israeli ground invasion will have started. It is impossible to imagine that such an invasion will end without staggering death tolls and damage among Palestinian noncombatants. Sustaining broad support for Israel is going to get much harder.
What Can I Do?
Myself included, many of us avoid discussing current events at work. If there ever was a time to break that generally wise rule, it is now. Unless you made a really poor job choice, your workplace is likely to be full of people who were repulsed by the news out of Israel. These are critical people to “keep on our side” as the invasion takes its toll.
How Do I “Keep Them on Our Side?”
Know Your Workplace—Every office has its own culture and means of internal communication. Give some thought and have a game plan on how to communicate the message. Is management supportive? – ask them to send a firm-wide email of support. They are not – draft a good email and send it to people you think are at least open to hearing our message.
Depoliticize This—The political polarization of the last few years has made many hesitant to discuss anything that remotely can be viewed as political. Hamas has solved this problem. There is not a Republican position on slaughter or a Democratic position on slaughter—just human revulsion. Also, now is not the time to point fingers at this or that political group for getting us here. There will be time for that later.
What Should I Say?
Day 1 was unique. Yes, the number of casualties was unparalleled, but it was the nature of the killing that sets it apart. It was the embodiment of evil. How?
For months, Hamas plotted a large operation almost exclusively focused on civilian targets.
Hamas recruited more than 1,000 terrorists trained to deliver “concierge-level” terror to its victims. Hundreds of executions delivered individually to their victims at very close range.
On CNN, an official from first responder United Hatzalah of Israel described the nature of the injuries to the 1,000-plus they treated on Day 1. Many of the injuries bore all the hallmarks of violence delivered at close range. And when the terrorists looked down the barrel of their guns, in most cases they saw not soldiers, but the aged, toddlers, Holocaust survivors, 20-somethings dancing in nature and so many other innocents. Yet, they still pulled the trigger.
Keep the focus on Day 1. Normally Israel supporters are handicapped by the need to contextualize the actions of Israel within the context of a 75-year struggle. Ironically, Hamas made Hasbara much simpler. Israel is in a fight with the living embodiment of evil. How we got here makes little difference, nothing that came before it can justify Hamas’ actions. Keep in mind, you likely know a lot more about the Middle East than many recipients of your message. Keep it simple, clear and blunt—this is not the time for history lessons.
Hamas has defined the battlefield. Showing the same regard for its own citizens as it does for Israelis, Hamas intentionally has embedded its infrastructure in dense urban settings. It has made its entire population human hostages. Even the most careful army in the world, armed with the most precise weapons, couldn’t deal a decisive blow to Hamas without significant collateral damage. That is a “feature” not a “bug” of the Hamas military strategy.
The overwhelming majority of Israelis will feel no joy at the destruction the army is likely to cause. As Golda Meir famously said: “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”
Show empathy for innocent Palestinian casualties. I do not want to debate the question of innocence; if you want your message to be received positively this is very important.
Forcefully reject ‘circle of violence,’ ‘moral equivalency’ and ‘disproportionality’ arguments. These arguments have traditionally been used to assign Israel partial or total blame for its situation. Again, focus on Day 1—it fully justifies anything Israel will have to do in the weeks and months ahead.
Express gratitude for support and to supporters.
What Should I Avoid?
Don’t debate with idiots and antisemites—If they are defending Hamas, they checked their humanity at the door. You will not convince them.
Pick your spots/don’t play whack-a-mole—You don’t want to become like the parents in the Peanuts cartoons.
Don’t despair—This will be tough. For the people of Israel it will be exponentially tougher. But collectively and with God’s help, we will prevail.
The author then leaves his email address and urges readers to contact him if they “are having trouble crafting your message.”