THE LUNTZ RESEARCH COMPANIES

COMMUNICATING WITH AMERICA:
KEY WORDS, THEMES AND LANGUAGE

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

This document does not seek to judge or recommend policy for the Israeli government. This is strictly a study of communication effectiveness.  We have taken the actual words of the leading spokespeople from both sides of the conflict (as spoken on American television) and tested them word-for-word with Americans who live and work in Washington, D.C.  The session participants placed themselves neither in the Israeli or Palestinian camps  the "non-aligned" swing vote of American public opinion toward the Middle East.  What follows is an explanation and analysis of their reaction to current Israeli language and a step-by-step approach for a more effective communication effort.

1)      Above all, draw direct parallels between Israel and America.  From history to culture to values, the closer you define the similarities between Israel and America, the more likely you are to win the support of those who are neutral.  The American-Israeli parallel should be a part of every American interview starting with the response to the very first question.  Conclude with: "And what would America do under similar circumstances?"

2)      The language of Israel is the language of America: "democracy," "freedom," "security," and "peace."  These four words are at the core of the American political, economic social and cultural system.  They should be repeated as often as possible because they will resonate with virtually every American.

3)      Explain why a threat to Israel is a threat to America.  The reason why Americans are paying attention to the Middle East is not because of the rising level of violence or a personal concern for Israelis or Palestinians.  The reason why Americans are paying attention is a fear that somehow the U.S. will get dragged into the conflict and AMERICAN lives will be lost and gas price will be higher.  Therefore, you need to explain why a threat to Israel's security is a threat to America's security and economy.

4)      Promote Anwar Sadat and King Hussein BEFORE you de-legitimize Arafat.   Nobody likes Arafat in America, but Israelis are undermining their own message and strategy every time they state assertively and categorically that Arafat is not legitimate.  You need to SHOW it, not say it.  A better answer is to compare Arafat with Anwar Sadat, an American icon, as well as King Hussein.  "Sadat-King Hussein - people of courage in the Arab world that have stood up to terrorists, told their people to put down their guns, and made peace with Israel." But Yasser Arafat?

5)      Oslo matters a lot.  Oslo was a Treaty, not a technicality, and Americans believe that signing your name to a treaty, accord or agreement denotes a total commitment to whatever is written in the document.  Emphasize Arafat's signature.  Emphasize what he agreed to.  Then demonstrate exactly how he failed and the consequences of that failure.  "The same man who signed the Oslo Accord is the same man who signed the checks that paid the terrorists.  That man is Yasser Arafat.  And when he signed those checks, he signed away his credibility, his integrity, and his honor "

6)      The American people differentiate between Arafat and the Palestinian people.  So should you. There was an immediate and clear distinction between the empathy people felt for the Palestinians and the scorn they directed at Arafat.  If it looks like you are attacking the Palestinian people as well as Arafat, your message will be ignored  or even backfire.  Right now, Americans sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians, and that sympathy will increase if you fail to differentiate.

7)      Never forget 9/11.  It has been forever implanted into the minds and psyches of the American people.  Here's were you make the direct contrast between Israelis and Palestinians.  On that fateful day, Israelis shed tears of pain for the Americans who were killed.  But on that day, the Palestinians danced in the streets in celebration.  Conclude with: "Yes, there is a difference between the two peoples."  One caveat  do not compare the situation in Israel to America on 9/11. Americans see their situation differently, and comparing the two undermines your credibility.

8)      Explain your principles.  Both Arab and Israeli spokespeople go right into an attack against the other, and virtually no one on either side explains the principles behind their actions.  Americans respond much better to facts, actions and results when they know why  not just how.  And use rhetorical questions.  "Can there be true peace without security?"  "Who can Americans really trust as their faithful ally?"

9)      The nation that is perceived as being most for peace will win this debate.  It didn't matter how it was said or who said it.  Every time someone made the plea for peace, the reaction was positive.  If you were to do a media content analysis, you'd find that the Palestinian spokespeople are using the peace word much more than the Israelis  and it is working.  If you want to regain the public relations advantage, peace should be at the core of whatever message you wish to convey.

10)     You can't please everyone.  Some people cannot be moved to support Israel no matter what words, themes or language you use.  Your goal is to inform and empower your supporters and educate the neutrals.  Leave the hostiles alone.

TALKING ABOUT ISRAEL

Nothing will build support for Israel more than linking it to the culture and values of the United States.  Israel represents the only democratic country in a region dominated by extremist nations that are entrenched in non-Western religious doctrine.  Americans are fervent in their desire to protect and foster the democratic principles that define the United States, and are emotionally vested in the sisterhood between Israel and the United States that result from shared values of freedom, equality and security.

The American public appreciates the blunt, plainspoken manner of President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.  The very black-and-white, morally unambiguous language that makes the pointy-headed academics squirm comes across to the average American as refreshingly candid.

However, what works for Americans talking to their countrymen will not work when the spokesperson is Israeli.  Blunt, unequivocal language (particularly when spoken with an Israeli accent) was poorly received because, to the American ear, it sounds too confrontational when spoken by a foreigner  even an ally.  Americans are inherently peace advocates and they want the rest of the world to get along.  This may sound simplistic or idealistic, but it a fact.  The blunt, in-your-face tone of some leading Israelis is simply too provocative.  With that in mind, we recommend the following approach:

1)      "Never again."  September 11, 2001 was the darkest day in modern American history.  So empathize.  Explain what it was like the day in 1973 when Israel had to face enemies of its own on most of its borders.  Then add: As difficult as it may be for us to accept, our future will hold darker days if we do not remain vigilant in the fight against terrorism.  We must not sink back into the illusion of safety.  Don't make a direct comparison to 9/11, but invoke the emotions surrounding that event.

2)      Appeal to America as "the only nation on the globe capable of defending democracy and ridding the world of terrorism."  This is not some abstract, theoretical observation.  The language is very powerful:  "If we do not face the world's dangers head-on  if we do not proactively use American power to promote democratic values and make the world a more just place  the enemies of freedom will prevail.  The best defense against terrorism is a good offense.  The best medicine is preventative medicine.  Israel and America must stand together as one against terrorism of any kind."

3)      "We cannot afford to make up our defense and foreign policy as we go along."  Foreign policy is a serious, life and death business, so say it.  Right now, it appears as though Israeli retribution is random.  Americans need to know that your policy has been studied and analyzed  "Israel, just like America, treats the defense of our nation as a sacred obligation, not as an excuse or arbitrary action."



For a while after September 11th, Americans saw Israel and America as one in the fight against terrorism.  That support has begun to wane for three reasons:
(1)     There is a limit to how much pain, suffering and bloodshed Americans will watch or listen to.  The first, second, even tenth suicide bomber attracted significant attention.  But because there have been so many horrific incidents in recent months, the shock value has lessoned.  Remarkably, lengthy discussions by either side about the horrors do not result in positive audience reactions.  This is clearly a change from previous years.

(2)     The pain, suffering and bloodshed is not exclusively caused by Arabs or Palestinians.  You already know this to be the case but it deserves repeating.   Every time an Israeli tank is seen leveling a Palestinian home, and every time an Israeli soldier is shown firing at youths with stones, your support and credibility drops in the eyes of the non-aligned Americans.  The reason(s) don't matter.  The justification is irrelevant. A picture really is worth more than 10,000 words.  You have to get control of the visual (particularly your military response) if you want to take control of the message.

(3)     The loss of hope and lack of a potential solution.  Said one participant, "Israel and the Palestinians have long been mortal enemies.  The violence in the Middle East has been going on for centuries, and it will never end."  Unless there is at least a glimmer of hope, Americans will increasingly tune out.  That is why every interview should end with the expressed desire for a "permanent lasting peace" and a commitment to work to achieve it





WORDS THAT WORK

        "As the lone superpower, the United States has a unique responsibility.  You are truly democracy's last resource, freedom's final defense against tyranny and aggression.  But you are not the world's policeman, and you cannot right all of the world's wrongs.

"Like America, Israel is a democratic country.  We share the same values, and we cherish peace above all else.  Like America, we were founded on the principles of freedom, democracy and peace.   And as America fights a war on terrorism to forever prevent another September 11th, so too does Israel defend itself against the extreme violence taken by Arafat against innocent Israeli civilians.  Israel does not want violence; it wants peace.  And like America, we will continue to work until that day when peace can be shared by all peoples of the region.  A permanent lasting peace is our ultimate goal.
TALKING ABOUT PEACE

        Peace is the word.

Americans want and need to hear that the terror can be stopped.  They have to believe that at some point, the sides can come together and find common ground.  You may not want to hear this but the side that seems to want peace more will win the support of the non-aligned American public.  This is exactly why the Palestinian spokespeople are repeating the word "peace" again and again.  Unless this explicit desire for peace is conveyed in Israeli communication efforts, Israeli support will continue to erode.

        But it is perfectly acceptable and even desirable to use peace and security in the same sentence.  Americans fundamentally believe that any democracy has a right to defend itself, and they do believe that Israel is exercising that right when it responds to these homicide bombers.  The Arabs are getting away with the homicidal bombings because they "condemn" them and then call for "peace."  Why?  Americans are responding to the intension rather than the action.  Israel must use the same strategy.  Every Israeli message should be about peace and security.
ISRAELI WORDS THAT WORK

Some say violence in the Middle East can never end.  But it can, with courageous leaders  leaders like Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Jordan's King Hussein.  Sadat and King Hussein recognized Israel's right to exist, and in return, we made significant land concessions  and a lasting peace was achieved.

Contrary to what the current Palestinian spokespeople have said, it is absolutely possible to stop terror.  Yasser Arafat says he is for peace, but he can't or won't stop the suicide bombers from killing innocents and has refused Israel's offers of peace  even land for peace.  For peace to occur, this violence must end.

There is a fundamental principle that Israel has learned from America: you cannot have peace without security.  Americans have known pain and suffering only since 9/11.  We have lived this for 54 years.  We have been and will continue to be at the forefront of the war against terrorism and the efforts to secure a fair and lasting peace for everyone.  But peace can only come when Arafat stops the terrorism and says yes to peace.  Until then, Israel will use it's deterrent power to protect our people and maintain our security.
TALKING ABOUT YASSER ARAFAT & THE PALESTINIANS

"I understand and sympathize with the Palestinians, but not with Arafat"

The words and phrases used by Americans to describe Yasser Arafat are universally harsh and hostile.  Even those who sympathize with the Palestinian cause hold Arafat in contempt.  Several called him a "terrorist" and many were critical of him for doing so little for his people.

Yet as much as "non-aligned" Americans dislike and distrust him, they consider him to be a legitimate leader.  The reason is simple.  Americans have a fundamental belief in and a commitment to democracy and the electoral process, and they believe Arafat was fairly elected.  So while they will acknowledge that Arafat is an obstacle to peace, they still expect Israel to recognize and negotiate with him.  In fact, every time an Israeli spokesperson or representative made the statement that Arafat was in some way "irrelevant," the American reaction was immediate and harshly negative.  Said one:  "It is unbridled arrogance to call the elected leader of your sworn enemy irrelevant, and what's happened over the past few weeks has made him even more relevant."
A DEBATE ISRAEL LOST
ISRAELI:        "Frankly, we think Yasser Arafat is irrelevant, and we've said so. He's had eight years to implement his obligations under the Oslo agreement and dismantle these terrorist organizations. He hasn't, and Israelis have died."

ARAB:   "If the Israelis insist on talking about the democratically elected leader of the Palestinian people as irrelevant, that says a lot about their occupation. And that says a lot as to why the Palestinian people are fighting that occupation."
With this in mind, we recommend the following approach:
(1)             Challenge Arafat's policies, methods, and actions, but do not question his authority  at least not initially.  One of the single most positive reactions to any Israeli came when Shimon Peres said that Arafat "is legitimate in the sense that he was elected by the Palestinian people. And we cannot replace the Palestinian people. We cannot elect their leaders or fire them."  Peres then went on to criticize Arafat strenuously, and that criticism was accepted and even endorsed because of this initial statement.

Israel should not make Arafat's irrelevancy or departure a core message.  While it may be Israeli policy (and again, we do not comment on policy) this language erodes the credibility of the spokesman and Israel's credibility.  It also raises suspicion as to whether Israel is pursuing a policy of deterrence or dominance.

        Instead, erode Arafat's credibility by citing specific examples of his intemperance, anti-American behavior and acceptance/endorsement of terrorism.  Quoting him verbatim will be far more effective than a linguistic frontal assault.  In particular, emphasize that it was his signature that authorized the funding of terrorism against the Israeli people.





(2)             Contrast Arafat's aggression and dishonesty with the constructive cooperation of other well-known and respected Arab leaders.  Israel's relationship with Anwar Sadat and King Hussein are shining examples of how Israel and her neighbors "can work towards common goals in a respectful and peaceful manner."  Your various anti-Arafat messages should draw attention to these two specific relationships, reminding the American audience that the U.S. itself held Sadat and Hussein in high esteem as well.  Such positive positioning will reinforce Israel's historic efforts at cooperation with her Arab neighbors as well as drawing a clear contrast between the courage and leadership of these two great leaders and the failed, violent record of Arafat's government.





(3)     Remind listeners that Arafat himself signed the Oslo Accord.  Just as Americans will respect the democratic electoral process even if they dislike the outcome, they have respect for international agreements and expect leaders to uphold them.  To commit in writing to peace and then go out and break it again and again is unacceptable.  "We offered him a state, and what we got was terror.  He could have been known as the father of his country, but instead he will only be known as a terrorist.  His signature meant nothing.  His word means nothing."





Please understand that Americans have never heard or seen a fellow democracy expel one of its citizens or, in this case, someone they believe was duly elected.  Add to that the visual of laying siege to his compound and the attempt to destroy the Palestinian infrastructure and you should begin to understand why an impression of Israeli arrogance and aggression now exists in America.  Humility, not righteous indignation, is the better emotion to express on American television right now.
        Finally, there is a line of communication that will be effective but only if used rhetorically and only at the end of a lengthy discussion of the causes and prevention of terrorism.   Should the United States negotiate with terrorists?  Should the United States negotiate with Osama Bin Laden?  If articulated carefully, this is an effective closer.

WORDS THAT WORK

Under the Oslo agreements, Yasser Arafat was supposed to become the Nelson Mandela of the Palestinians, a man who would set aside violence as a political tool and renounce terrorism.  Unfortunately, his jurisdiction itself has harbored a vast network of international terrorism.

This is a tragedy not just for us Israelis but for the Palestinians as well.  Consider what Yasser Arafat as done not just to the people of Israeli, but to his own people.  An entire generation of young, talented people are told by their leaders to strap bombs to themselves and kill as many Israelis as possible -- that the more people they kill, the more likely they are to go to heaven.

This is not just a terrible crime against Israel.  It's a terrible crime against Palestinians, against all humanity.   Just as we live in peace with our Egyptian and Jordanian neighbors, our future Palestinian partners, I am sure, will not educate their children to do this.  We will have peace, but only once security is achieved.

Remember, we offered Arafat a country.  We offered Arafat virtually every acre of land he asked for.  We agreed to almost every term.  Arafat had the chance to stand for peace and father a Palestinian nation.  Instead, he chose the path of violence.

And for that reason Israel must now seek other avenues to pursue peace.

TALKING ABOUT THE ISRAELI MILITARY ACTION & "OCCUPATION"
"The Palestinians make the point that there's been a 35-year Israeli
military occupation of the Palestinian territories. And they feel frustrated.
They're angry. They don't have F-16s. They don't have Apache helicopters.
They have to do something to try to liberate their land."
              - Wolf Biltzer, CNN


During periods of military action against Palestinians, the central communication principle of Israeli foreign policy must be the fight against terrorism and the preservation of freedom.  As President Bush told a joint-session of Congress nine days after the World Trade Center fell, there is no middle ground.  Just as every American foreign policy issue during the Cold War was examined in the context of the Soviet threat, every Israeli foreign affairs question must now be viewed through the prism of the war on terrorism.

Israel must define its military actions as those of self-defense and deterrence.  These words resound with Americans' fundamental desire to protect a fellow democracy's values and sovereignty, as well as an individual's right to protect themselves from attack.  In light of September 11th, Americans now accept the notion of using an aggressive offense as a deterrence tactic.  So focus on the protecting democracy and explain how your actions in the West Bank and Gaza are done only as a method of deterrence.  Frame every military event in these terms.

Link the military action to Arafat himself and not the Palestinian people.  It will be helpful to address Arafat's refusal to negotiate and his inability to control his own people.  Americans note that "he promises things he can't deliver" - "he will not negotiate" - "he pays lip service to whatever audience is listening at that time."  Americans do understand what Israel is facing, but you still need to use concrete examples to remind the world of his obstinacy y and aggression.

AN ARAB CRITICISM THAT DOES NOT WORK

"President Arafat did not teach anybody to be a suicidal bombing. It is the Israeli occupation who taught people that they have -- that seeking death is far more relevant that hoping for life, a life that they don't see any light at the end of the occupation tunnel."





















WORDS THAT WORKWe have to distinguish between those engaging in terrorism and those engaging in self-defense. Today, the Israeli army is defending the people of Israel from what is unquestionably a war of terrorism against us.  And any democracy attacked by terrorism has a moral right to defend itself, and Israel is exercising that right.  Yasser Arafat has adopted the most extreme means of terror to attain his desired goals.  Under his authority, murderers have been sent to kill our people in restaurants, shopping centers and hotel lobbieseven at religious events.  What option do we have?  What option would the United States choose if they had to live in these conditions?  When a young man walks into a cafe full of teenagers and blows himself up, that's called terrorism. You don't have to be an international lawyer to figure it out.   Nothing, no cause can possibly justify the murder of innocent civilians and particularly the targeting of children. That's what the war on terrorism is about here.
EFFECTIVE SOUND-BITES

        These statements would be particularly effective if spoken by younger Israelis and/or women.  Too many Israeli spokespeople are older men.  Americans react more favorably and are more likely to agree with women and younger people.
--      "Israel is willing to restart peace talks with the Palestinians, but only if the terrorist attacks halt for a few days first.  Is a few days of peace so much to ask?"

--      "To prevail in the war on terror, we must face certain challenges and realities head-on.  We must see the world as it is, while at the same time working to improve relations with our neighbors as they can and one day should be."

--      "It's difficult to sustain any sort of a 'peace process' when one of the parties denies the other's very right to exist."

--      "We are seeking a real and lasing peace.  But peace will be ratified not by signatures on a piece of paper, but by the reality of no more Israeli children being blown up in pizza parlors or outside places of worship."

--      "When Menachim Begin signed the peace treaty with Egypt, it was Arial Sharon who personally evacuated and returned the Sinai.  It was Arial Sharon who addressed the mothers and fathers of Palestinians directly, asking for no more bloodshed.  And it is Arial Sharon that is prepared to make peace if the Palestinian homicide bombers will stop making war.
CONCLUSION: DON'Ts AND Do's

        There are four specific comments by Israeli spokespeople that if repeated, could truly lead to a disintegration of American support.  These are exact quotes, and all have one thing in common: an extreme, overly aggressive attack.  You absolutely can achieve your goals  building support for Israel and isolating Arafat  but not with the language that you are using.  If you would just change a sentence or two, you can also say exactly what you want.  So here's what we recommend.
WRONG:  "We must go on fighting against these terrorists.  But even more, we must target their leaders, the people who purchase the arms, the bullets, the weapons of pain, destruction and death.  We have to stop their leaders, because that is how we stop their army, and in the end, that is how you stop terrorism.  We've tried everything else.  This is the only answer left.  And after having a cease-fire, we shall start immediately talking about peace."

RIGHT:  No mother should live in fear.  No mother should have to worry that when their daughter goes off to the store, she might be killed by a homicide bomber.  No parent should worry that when their children go for a hike, they might be tortured and brutally murdered.  The terrorism must stop.  We have to stop the purchase of guns by terrorists.  We have to stop the purchase of bullets by terrorists.  And we have to hold the terrorist leadership ultimately accountable for the pain and suffering they have caused.  Fighting terrorism isn't easy, and it isn't pretty, but it must be done.  And when it is done, we can again return to our ultimate goal  a true, fair, lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.





WRONG:  "Arafat is the head of a morally bankrupt leadership.  While Israel stands for peace, Arafat proudly stands for war.  Arafat's policies have been of aggression, with the intent of wiping out the people, government, and culture of Israel.  He has deliberately sent suicide bombers to ravage innocent civilians.  His map of the area has no Israel.  He has consistently provoked and perpetuated destruction.  He has intentionally blocked any hopes for peace."

RIGHT:  We have choices in life.  Yasser Arafat had a choice.  He was offered 95 percent of the West Bank, 100 percent of Gaza, and an independent state with Jerusalem as its Capitol. But he still said no.  He chose terror instead.  He could have stood up and said NO to aggression.  He didn't.  He could have directed his operation to root out and stop these bombings.  He didn't.  He could have taught his people that peace is better than war, that living together side by side with Israelis is preferable to a constant state of war.  He didn't.  He could have stood up and said YES to peace, but he didn't.



WRONG:  "The 60 bodies will be buried in the presence of Red Cross.  This should put an end to this Big Lie which has been repeated time and time again about a massacre which didn't happen.  People forget that we lost 23 soldiers in this battle."

RIGHT:  What happened in Jenin is a tragedy for everyone.  Everyone.  It is particularly tragic when Palestinian terrorists choose to hide in homes, schools and places of worship.  They turn innocent civilians into combatants and, too often, casualties.  If Yasser Arafat was truly serious about ending terrorism, there would have been no Jenin.  We will talk, negotiate and work toward peace.  We have offered the Palestinians a state and they have chosen terrorism. What are we to do? We cannot allow those who have killed our people to escape and kill again.  These people must be brought to justice.





WRONG:  "Occupation? We never occupied any Palestinian land. They never had independent, never had any government there. They never got the independence when this area was under a Jordanian occupation for 19 years."

RIGHT:  I have several questions I would ask my Palestinian neighbors.  What have you achieved with your war of terror?  Are you better off today than you were before the campaign?  Is your economy stronger?  Are your schools better?  Are your people safer and more secure?

        If Yasser Arafat had kept his word, if he had followed the Oslo Accord that he himself signed, there would be peace between Israel and the Palestinians and he would have been the father of a nation.  So again I say to him what Israelis have said every day since Oslo, stop the violence.  Honor the agreement that you yourself signed at the White House in front of the American people and the world. Stop the attacks.  Stop the pain.

        And so I have one last question for my Palestinian neighbors.  Where would you like to be, and what would you like to see in your future?  A state of your own?  A government of your own?  A police force of your own?  Stop the attacks, stop the terror and you can have that future.
