|
|
June 13, 2003
Leave Abraham out of your talk
Advocacy is not about content but about winning, says Olesker.
PAT JOHNSON SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH BULLETIN
There is an old New Yorker magazine cartoon in which a professor
at a lectern admits "I know so much, I don't know where to
begin." The adage was evidenced Sunday night in a vibrant meeting
at which a small group of Vancouver's most active advocates for
Israel listened to – and debated with – one of the world's
top Israel advocacy communicators.
David Olesker, a Jerusalem-based communications expert who acknowledges
that his particular job description is hard to define, provides
training and factual ammunition to groups like the Canada-Israel
Committee and the Israel Defence Forces, as well as the America-Israel
Public Affairs Committee, the powerhouse organization that provides
much of the defence of Israel on Washington's Capitol Hill.
One of Olesker's most important words of advice to advocates of
Israel is to "ration information." The British-born hasbara
(public relations) maven, whose official title is director of the
Jewish Centre for Communications and Advocacy Training, has what
he calls the Uzbekistan Rule. He mimics the imaginary ramblings
of an Uzbeki advocate who informs his audience that, to understand
the Uzbeki present, one must first understand the Uzbeki past, going
back thousands of years and appreciating the nuance of language
and historical experience in order to achieve an appreciation of
current events.
"People don't want to make that kind of investment to understand,"
he said. "Too much is often worse than too little."
Olesker used the Uzbekistan Rule to gently criticize advocates of
Israel who begin an argument with "To understand events today,
we must begin with Abraham."
Jews have a built-in handicap in applying the Uzbekistan Rule, Olesker
added.
"Jews tend to be very content oriented," he said. "The
'bad guys' tend to be very outcome oriented."
Jews, according to Olesker, tend to see it as more important to
inform than to convince, where critics of Israel will employ whatever
methods necessary – "And sometimes it's just a lie,"
he said – to gain a convert.
As an example, Olesker noted it is not always important to answer
the question at hand. A while back, Olesker was in South Africa
and a caller on a phone-in radio program compared Israel's treatment
of Palestinians to the apartheid government's treatment of blacks.
Rather than apply intellectual methods to debunking the accusation,
Olesker chose instead to attack the caller, accusing him of degrading
the experience of millions of black South Africans who had suffered
under the racist regime.
Confronted by an audience member, who was dissatisfied that the
accusation of Israeli apartheid remained unchallenged, Olesker said
that was a typical Jewish response.
"Jews find this fundamentally very unsatisfying," he said.
The Jewish tradition is one of intellectual ferment, in which logic
and debate are used to convince, and rhetorical tricks are deemed
unworthy. Advocates for Israel, he said, devote too much attention
to winning an argument for the right reasons than winning it at
all cost.
"Don't ever confuse your needs with the audience's need,"
he said, emphasizing that winning an argument does not mean teaching
someone about Jewish history.
"Never confuse a dialogue situation with an advocacy situation,"
he said. "Advocacy is about winning."
Other practical points Olesker offered were methods for swamping
talk radio programs and methods for turning statistical facts into
personalized stories.
"People relate to people," he said. "Tell stories
about people.... Stories work. Statistics don't."
As an example, Olesker offered the statistic that, since the latest
intifada began, there have been an average of 17 attempted fatal
attacks against Jews every day in Israel. That statistic does not
have the same impact, he argued, as telling an audience that when
he wakes up every morning, he wonders about the 17 Palestinians
who are also waking up, preparing to die or be killed in martyrdom
that day.
Likewise, Olesker said that he always tells North Americans how
the manager of his local supermarket was murdered on his way to
work one morning by a terrorist. Not every North American can wrap
their minds around what it is like to live in a war zone, but everyone
is at least vaguely familiar with a supermarket manager, he said.
Israel's advocates also allow critics to set the "conceptual
frame," Olesker complained, with questions akin to "Is
your brother out of prison yet, yes or no?"
"They attack Israel and we respond," he said. Olesker's
solution is what, in politics, tends to be called "going negative."
Instead of allowing the advocates of the Arab world to set the agenda
by attacking Israel, Olesker said Israel's advocates must obtain
and maintain the conceptual frame.
"The major problem facing the world from the Middle East today
isn't Israel," he said, adding that people should be pointing
their fingers at Islamism – the extremist, political aspect
of Islam. Instead of just reacting to criticism that paints Israel
as the most evil force in the region, Olesker recommends asking
questions about why the world is not outraged that the Muslims of
northern Sudan enslave the Christian and animist Sudanese of the
south, or why Arab elementary school curricula encourage toddlers
to grow into suicide bombers or why Arab students don't know any
peace songs.
About 50 people attended the event in the Schara Tzedeck Synagogue
auditorium and the audience was remarkably engaged, aiming comments
and questions at Olesker almost from the moment he began speaking.
Like the New Yorker professor, it was obvious Olesker could
have gone on all night training Vancouver's advocates for Israel
– the audience was highly receptive, swarming Olesker with
an enthusiasm almost matched by the swarming of the refreshment
table, after a meeting that had already lasted nearly three hours.
The event was sponsored by National Conference of Synagogue Youth.
Pat Johnson is a native Vancouverite, a journalist and
commentator.
^TOP
|
|
