small talk 2.0

Arab revolutions and its impact on Israel

2012-01-27T14:27:00.001+02:00

In January 2012 Tunisia and Egypt marked thefirst year since the beginning of the civil uprising. Libya is stilllonging for return to the normal life after civil war. Syrian regime is wagingwar against its own people, and the outcome is still unclear. Despite the factthat all these developments are still underway, one thing is obvious: MiddleEast is becoming a different place from what it was. And what is even moreimportant: it becomes different place from how we used to think about it.

In Israel we were and still are quiteconcerned with these developments. After all, it's our neighborhood. So, wheredo we stand today regarding the impact of the Arab spring on us in Israel?

I remember that in the first months after theevents in Tahrir square, some experts were talking about the silence of Israeliofficials in the face of the democratic revolutions taking place throughout theMiddle East. Some of them even accused Israelof being insensitive to the democratic aspirations of the Arab people and of preferringthe pseudo-stability of autocratic regimes. Many diplomats, especially inEurope, were saying to us that Israel better adapt to the new reality, solvequickly the conflict with the Palestinians and embrace the democraticaspirations of its neighbors.

Well, actually we did it. President Peres, PM Netanyahuand other officials welcomed the spirit of openness and democracy thatcharacterized the first months of these movements. However, our declarationswere not heard, and instead the media highlighted the fears of the Israelis andpresented Israel as lagging behind the developments.

And where do we stand now? After the impressivevictories of the Islamic parties in Tunisia,then in Egypt,many people started to raise their concerns. It's not that the Arab countriescannot become democracies. Today it’s obvious that this process could take muchmore time, may be decades, and that the elections are only the beginning of theprocess, not the final stage.

After the violent takeover of the Israeliembassy in Cairo and the calls "Death to the Jews!" greeting thearrival of Hamas leader to Tunisia, we definitely are reminded that in the new MiddleEast the old hatred of Israel and the Jews did not disappear. Old habits arethe most difficult to get rid of. Arabs were educated and brainwashed for 60years that there is only one source for all their problems: it's Israel. Thesame regimes that were ready to have "cold peace" with Israel,allowed internally the anti-Semitic propaganda against Israel in order torelease the social and economic pressure.

And at this point we can realize the majorbreakthrough in this vicious circle of the Middle-eastern politics: Arabrevolutions symbolize the first departure from the totalitarian logic of thescapegoat. It's this realization of the Arab people that the source of their plightis not external, but internal. It's the autocratic regimes, their corruptionand complete lack of sound social and economic policy that are to be blamed,and not a small country of 7 million people that struggles for its survival.

The second positive change was that the forcesthat try to utilize the Israel-Palestinian conflict for their domination todayare coerced to deal with the real problems of the Middle East. Hezbollah has retreated into the shelters; Syrian regime isstruggling with unprecedented protest from within and isolation in the Arableague from outside. And Iran is afraid to loose its last Arab ally. Hamas whowas smart to dissociate itself from Assad's regime, is looking for new sponsors,between Egypt and Qatar, and in a meantime, prefers to keep quite.

Of course, the situation is far from ideal. Theinstability in Egypt and Libya has created zones that are not fullycontrolled by the authorities, which led to the smuggling of weapons and theterrorist acts from Sinai Peninsula. Thecollapse of Syrian regime could result in transfer of unconventional weaponsand missiles to Hezbollah. And Iran,despite the sanctions and the threat to loose an ally, is coming closer to thenuclear ability. All these considerations lead us to the same conclusion wemade a year ago: we need patience and prudence. To make dramatic steps duringthe regional turmoil, before we could see the light in the end of tunnel, isirresponsible.

The chances to make miscalculation during thisperiod are higher. Wrong decisions based on bad estimation could lead to anothercrisis in this vulnerable situation. An example for this kind of miscalculationis the decision of the PA to not negotiate with Israel, in the hope that in thefuture they can get better bargaining position. Why? Arab countries are goingto deal with their social and economic condition and political stabilizationwhich they consider their first priority.

However, the unilateral strategy of PA isseduced its leaders to make multilateral diplomacy instead of bringing theindependence to their people. Well, maybe they feel they can allow this littleprivilege, since the socio-economic conditions of Palestinians are much better thanthat of their brothers in the neighboring countries. After all, the only placewhere people did not have any incentive to go to streets and protest is theWest Bank.

Remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the U.N. General Assembly

2011-09-23T23:30:00.000+03:00

Location: United Nations Headquarters, New York City, New York Time: 1:29 p.m. EDT Date: Friday, September 23, 2011

MR. : The assembly will now hear a statement by His Excellency Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of the state of Israel. (Cheers, applause.) I have great pleasure in welcoming His Excellency Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of the state of Israel.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Thank you. Thank you.

MR. : I invite him to address the General Assembly.

PRIME MIN. NETANYAHU: Thank you, Mr. President.

Ladies and gentlemen, Israel has extended its hand in peace from the moment it was established 63 years ago. On behalf of Israel and the Jewish people, I extend that hand again today. I extend it to the people of Egypt and Jordan, with renewed friendship for neighbors with whom we have made peace. I extend it to the people of Turkey, with respect and good will. I extend it to the people of Libya and Tunisia, with admiration for those trying to build a democratic future. I extend it to the other peoples of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, with whom we want to forge a new beginning. I extend it to the people of Syria, Lebanon and Iran, with awe at the courage of those fighting brutal repression.

But most especially, I extend my hand to the Palestinian people, with whom we seek a just and lasting peace. (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, in Israel our hope for peace never wanes. Our scientists, doctors, innovators, apply their genius to improve the world of tomorrow. Our artists, our writers, enrich the heritage of humanity. Now, I know that this is not exactly the image of Israel that is often portrayed in this hall. After all, it was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people to restore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland -- it was then that this was braided -- branded, rather -- shamefully, as racism. And it was here in 1980, right here, that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt wasn't praised; it was denounced! And it's here year after year that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It's singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel -- the one true democracy in the Middle East.

Well, this is an unfortunate part of the U.N. institution. It's the -- the theater of the absurd. It doesn't only cast Israel as the villain; it often casts real villains in leading roles: Gadhafi's Libya chaired the U.N. Commission on Human Rights; Saddam's Iraq headed the U.N. Committee on Disarmament.

You might say: That's the past. Well, here's what's happening now -- right now, today. Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the U.N. Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing the world's security.

You couldn't make this thing up.

So here in the U.N., automatic majorities can decide anything. They can decide that the sun sets in the west or rises in the west. I think the first has already been pre-ordained. But they can also decide -- they have decided that the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism's holiest place, is occupied Palestinian territory.

And yet even here in the General Assembly, the truth can sometimes break through. In 1984 when I was appointed Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, I visited the great rabbi of Lubavich. He said to me -- and ladies and gentlemen, I don't want any of you to be offended because from personal experience of serving here, I know there are many honorable men and women, many capable and decent people serving their nations here. But here's what the rebbe said to me. He said to me, you'll be serving in a house of many lies. And then he said, remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide.

Today I hope that the light of truth will shine, if only for a few minutes, in a hall that for too long has been a place of darkness for my country. So as Israel's prime minister, I didn't come here to win applause. I came here to speak the truth. (Cheers, applause.) The truth is -- the truth is that Israel wants peace. The truth is that I want peace. The truth is that in the Middle East at all times, but especially during these turbulent days, peace must be anchored in security. The truth is that we cannot achieve peace through U.N. resolutions, but only through direct negotiations between the parties. The truth is that so far the Palestinians have refused to negotiate. The truth is that Israel wants peace with a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want a state without peace. And the truth is you shouldn't let that happen.

Ladies and gentlemen, when I first came here 27 years ago, the world was divided between East and West. Since then the Cold War ended, great civilizations have risen from centuries of slumber, hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty, countless more are poised to follow, and the remarkable thing is that so far this monumental historic shift has largely occurred peacefully. Yet a malignancy is now growing between East and West that threatens the peace of all. It seeks not to liberate, but to enslave, not to build, but to destroy.

That malignancy is militant Islam. It cloaks itself in the mantle of a great faith, yet it murders Jews, Christians and Muslims alike with unforgiving impartiality. On September 11th it killed thousands of Americans, and it left the twin towers in smoldering ruins. Last night I laid a wreath on the 9/11 memorial. It was deeply moving. But as I was going there, one thing echoed in my mind: the outrageous words of the president of Iran on this podium yesterday. He implied that 9/11 was an American conspiracy. Some of you left this hall. All of you should have. (Applause.)

Since 9/11, militant Islamists slaughtered countless other innocents -- in London and Madrid, in Baghdad and Mumbai, in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, in every part of Israel. I believe that the greatest danger facing our world is that this fanaticism will arm itself with nuclear weapons. And this is precisely what Iran is trying to do.

Can you imagine that man who ranted here yesterday -- can you imagine him armed with nuclear weapons? The international community must stop Iran before it's too late. If Iran is not stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism, and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter. That would be a tragedy. Millions of Arabs have taken to the streets to replace tyranny with liberty, and no one would benefit more than Israel if those committed to freedom and peace would prevail.

This is my fervent hope. But as the prime minister of Israel, I cannot risk the future of the Jewish state on wishful thinking. Leaders must see reality as it is, not as it ought to be. We must do our best to shape the future, but we cannot wish away the dangers of the present.

And the world around Israel is definitely becoming more dangerous. Militant Islam has already taken over Lebanon and Gaza. It's determined to tear apart the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan. It's poisoned many Arab minds against Jews and Israel, against America and the West. It opposes not the policies of Israel but the existence of Israel.

Now, some argue that the spread of militant Islam, especially in these turbulent times -- if you want to slow it down, they argue, Israel must hurry to make concessions, to make territorial compromises. And this theory sounds simple. Basically it goes like this: Leave the territory, and peace will be advanced. The moderates will be strengthened, the radicals will be kept at bay. And don't worry about the pesky details of how Israel will actually defend itself; international troops will do the job.

These people say to me constantly: Just make a sweeping offer, and everything will work out. You know, there's only one problem with that theory. We've tried it and it hasn't worked. In 2000 Israel made a sweeping peace offer that met virtually all of the Palestinian demands. Arafat rejected it. The Palestinians then launched a terror attack that claimed a thousand Israeli lives.

Prime Minister Olmert afterwards made an even more sweeping offer, in 2008. President Abbas didn't even respond to it.

But Israel did more than just make sweeping offers. We actually left territory. We withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and from every square inch of Gaza in 2005. That didn't calm the Islamic storm, the militant Islamic storm that threatens us. It only brought the storm closer and make it stronger.

Hezbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets against our cities from the very territories we vacated. See, when Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, the moderates didn't defeat the radicals, the moderates were devoured by the radicals. And I regret to say that international troops like UNIFIL in Lebanon and UBAM (ph) in Gaza didn't stop the radicals from attacking Israel.

We left Gaza hoping for peace.

We didn't freeze the settlements in Gaza, we uprooted them. We did exactly what the theory says: Get out, go back to the 1967 borders, dismantle the settlements.

And I don't think people remember how far we went to achieve this. We uprooted thousands of people from their homes. We pulled children out of -- out of their schools and their kindergartens. We bulldozed synagogues. We even -- we even moved loved ones from their graves. And then, having done all that, we gave the keys of Gaza to President Abbas.

Now the theory says it should all work out, and President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority now could build a peaceful state in Gaza. You can remember that the entire world applauded. They applauded our withdrawal as an act of great statesmanship. It was a bold act of peace.

But ladies and gentlemen, we didn't get peace. We got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority collapsed in a day -- in one day.

President Abbas just said on this podium that the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yeah, hopes, dreams and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya, and from elsewhere.

Thousands of missiles have already rained down on our cities. So you might understand that, given all this, Israelis rightly ask: What's to prevent this from happening again in the West Bank? See, most of our major cities in the south of the country are within a few dozen kilometers from Gaza. But in the center of the country, opposite the West Bank, our cities are a few hundred meters or at most a few kilometers away from the edge of the West Bank.

So I want to ask you. Would any of you -- would any of you bring danger so close to your cities, to your families? Would you act so recklessly with the lives of your citizens? Israel is prepared to have a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but we're not prepared to have another Gaza there. And that's why we need to have real security arrangements, which the Palestinians simply refuse to negotiate with us.

Israelis remember the bitter lessons of Gaza. Many of Israel's critics ignore them. They irresponsibly advise Israel to go down this same perilous path again. Your read what these people say and it's as if nothing happened -- just repeating the same advice, the same formulas as though none of this happened.

And these critics continue to press Israel to make far-reaching concessions without first assuring Israel's security. They praise those who unwittingly feed the insatiable crocodile of militant Islam as bold statesmen. They cast as enemies of peace those of us who insist that we must first erect a sturdy barrier to keep the crocodile out, or at the very least jam an iron bar between its gaping jaws.

So in the face of the labels and the libels, Israel must heed better advice. Better a bad press than a good eulogy, and better still would be a fair press whose sense of history extends beyond breakfast, and which recognizes Israel's legitimate security concerns.

I believe that in serious peace negotiations, these needs and concerns can be properly addressed, but they will not be addressed without negotiations. And the needs are many, because Israel is such a tiny country. Without Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, Israel is all of 9 miles wide.

I want to put it for you in perspective, because you're all in the city. That's about two-thirds the length of Manhattan. It's the distance between Battery Park and Columbia University. And don't forget that the people who live in Brooklyn and New Jersey are considerably nicer than some of Israel's neighbors.

So how do you -- how do you protect such a tiny country, surrounded by people sworn to its destruction and armed to the teeth by Iran? Obviously you can't defend it from within that narrow space alone. Israel needs greater strategic depth, and that's exactly why Security Council Resolution 242 didn't require Israel to leave all the territories it captured in the Six-Day War. It talked about withdrawal from territories, to secure and defensible boundaries. And to defend itself, Israel must therefore maintain a long-term Israeli military presence in critical strategic areas in the West Bank.

I explained this to President Abbas. He answered that if a Palestinian state was to be a sovereign country, it could never accept such arrangements. Why not? America has had troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea for more than a half a century. Britain has had an airspace in Cyprus or rather an air base in Cyprus. France has forces in three independent African nations. None of these states claim that they're not sovereign countries.

And there are many other vital security issues that also must be addressed. Take the issue of airspace. Again, Israel's small dimensions create huge security problems. America can be crossed by jet airplane in six hours. To fly across Israel, it takes three minutes. So is Israel's tiny airspace to be chopped in half and given to a Palestinian state not at peace with Israel?

Our major international airport is a few kilometers away from the West Bank. Without peace, will our planes become targets for antiaircraft missiles placed in the adjacent Palestinian state? And how will we stop the smuggling into the West Bank? It's not merely the West Bank, it's the West Bank mountains. It just dominates the coastal plain where most of Israel's population sits below. How could we prevent the smuggling into these mountains of those missiles that could be fired on our cities?

I bring up these problems because they're not theoretical problems. They're very real. And for Israelis, they're life-and- death matters. All these potential cracks in Israel's security have to be sealed in a peace agreement before a Palestinian state is declared, not afterwards, because if you leave it afterwards, they won't be sealed. And these problems will explode in our face and explode the peace.

The Palestinians should first make peace with Israel and then get their state. But I also want to tell you this. After such a peace agreement is signed, Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. We will be the first. (Applause.)

And there's one more thing. Hamas has been violating international law by holding our soldier Gilad Shalit captive for five years.

They haven't given even one Red Cross visit. He's held in a dungeon, in darkness, against all international norms. Gilad Shalit is the son of Aviva and Noam Shalit. He is the grandson of Zvi Shalit, who escaped the Holocaust by coming to the -- in the 1930s as a boy to the land of Israel. Gilad Shalit is the son of every Israeli family. Every nation represented here should demand his immediate release. (Applause.) If you want to -- if you want to pass a resolution about the Middle East today, that's the resolution you should pass. (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, last year in Israel in Bar-Ilan University, this year in the Knesset and in the U.S. Congress, I laid out my vision for peace in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state. Yes, the Jewish state. After all, this is the body that recognized the Jewish state 64 years ago. Now, don't you think it's about time that Palestinians did the same?

The Jewish state of Israel will always protect the rights of all its minorities, including the more than 1 million Arab citizens of Israel. I wish I could say the same thing about a future Palestinian state, for as Palestinian officials made clear the other day -- in fact, I think they made it right here in New York -- they said the Palestinian state won't allow any Jews in it. They'll be Jew-free -- Judenrein. That's ethnic cleansing. There are laws today in Ramallah that make the selling of land to Jews punishable by death. That's racism. And you know which laws this evokes.

Israel has no intention whatsoever to change the democratic character of our state. We just don't want the Palestinians to try to change the Jewish character of our state. (Applause.) We want to give up -- we want them to give up the fantasy of flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians.

President Abbas just stood here, and he said that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. Well, that's odd. Our conflict has been raging for -- was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas is saying was true, then the -- I guess that the settlements he's talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Be'er Sheva. Maybe that's what he meant the other day when he said that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 63 years. He didn't say from 1967; he said from 1948. I hope somebody will bother to ask him this question because it illustrates a simple truth: The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict. (Applause.)

The settlements have to be -- it's an issue that has to be addressed and resolved in the course of negotiations. But the core of the conflict has always been and unfortunately remains the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state in any border.

I think it's time that the Palestinian leadership recognizes what every serious international leader has recognized, from Lord Balfour and Lloyd George in 1917, to President Truman in 1948, to President Obama just two days ago right here: Israel is the Jewish state. (Applause.)

President Abbas, stop walking around this issue. Recognize the Jewish state, and make peace with us. In such a genuine peace, Israel is prepared to make painful compromises. We believe that the Palestinians should be neither the citizens of Israel nor its subjects. They should live in a free state of their own. But they should be ready, like us, for compromise. And we will know that they're ready for compromise and for peace when they start taking Israel's security requirements seriously and when they stop denying our historical connection to our ancient homeland.

I often hear them accuse Israel of Judaizing Jerusalem. That's like accusing America of Americanizing Washington, or the British of Anglicizing London. You know why we're called "Jews"? Because we come from Judea.

In my office in Jerusalem, there's a -- there's an ancient seal. It's a signet ring of a Jewish official from the time of the Bible. The seal was found right next to the Western Wall, and it dates back 2,700 years, to the time of King Hezekiah. Now, there's a name of the Jewish official inscribed on the ring in Hebrew. His name was Netanyahu. That's my last name. My first name, Benjamin, dates back a thousand years earlier to Benjamin -- Binyamin -- the son of Jacob, who was also known as Israel. Jacob and his 12 sons roamed these same hills of Judea and Sumeria 4,000 years ago, and there's been a continuous Jewish presence in the land ever since.

And for those Jews who were exiled from our land, they never stopped dreaming of coming back: Jews in Spain, on the eve of their expulsion; Jews in the Ukraine, fleeing the pogroms; Jews fighting the Warsaw Ghetto, as the Nazis were circling around it. They never stopped praying, they never stopped yearning. They whispered: Next year in Jerusalem. Next year in the promised land. (Applause.)

As the prime minister of Israel, I speak for a hundred generations of Jews who were dispersed throughout the lands, who suffered every evil under the Sun, but who never gave up hope of restoring their national life in the one and only Jewish state.

Ladies and gentlemen, I continue to hope that President Abbas will be my partner in peace. I've worked hard to advance that peace. The day I came into office, I called for direct negotiations without preconditions. President Abbas didn't respond. I outlined a vision of peace of two states for two peoples. He still didn't respond. I removed hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints, to ease freedom of movement in the Palestinian areas; this facilitated a fantastic growth in the Palestinian economy. But again -- no response. I took the unprecedented step of freezing new buildings in the settlements for 10 months. No prime minister did that before, ever. (Scattered applause.) Once again -- you applaud, but there was no response. No response.

In the last few weeks, American officials have put forward ideas to restart peace talks. There were things in those ideas about borders that I didn't like. There were things there about the Jewish state that I'm sure the Palestinians didn't like.

But with all my reservations, I was willing to move forward on these American ideas.

President Abbas, why don't you join me? We have to stop negotiating about the negotiations. Let's just get on with it. Let's negotiate peace. (Applause.)

I spent years defending Israel on the battlefield. I spent decades defending Israel in the court of public opinion. President Abbas, you've dedicated your life to advancing the Palestinian cause. Must this conflict continue for generations, or will we enable our children and our grandchildren to speak in years ahead of how we found a way to end it? That's what we should aim for, and that's what I believe we can achieve.

In two and a half years, we met in Jerusalem only once, even though my door has always been open to you. If you wish, I'll come to Ramallah. Actually, I have a better suggestion. We've both just flown thousands of miles to New York. Now we're in the same city. We're in the same building. So let's meet here today in the United Nations. (Applause.) Who's there to stop us? What is there to stop us? If we genuinely want peace, what is there to stop us from meeting today and beginning peace negotiations?

And I suggest we talk openly and honestly. Let's listen to one another. Let's do as we say in the Middle East: Let's talk "doogli" (ph). That means straightforward. I'll tell you my needs and concerns. You'll tell me yours. And with God's help, we'll find the common ground of peace. (Applause.)

There's an old Arab saying that you cannot applaud with one hand. Well, the same is true of peace. I cannot make peace alone. I cannot make peace without you. President Abbas, I extend my hand -- the hand of Israel -- in peace. I hope that you will grasp that hand. We are both the sons of Abraham. My people call him Avraham. Your people call him Ibrahim. We share the same patriarch. We dwell in the same land. Our destinies are intertwined. Let us realize the vision of Isaiah :

העם ההולכים בחושך ראו אור גדול"" -- "The people who walk in darkness will see a great light."

Let that light be the light of peace.

(Applause.)

END.

Full Video: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly (39 minutes):

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301726-4

No conditions, no taboos - Let's just sit down and talk

2011-09-20T19:21:00.000+03:00

Yigal Palmor, spokesperson of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, uses Youtube to explain why Palestinian unilateral bid for statehood is wrong and leas nowhere.

Israel as a scapegoat of the Arab World: Nothing new under the sun

2011-09-13T18:40:00.001+03:00

Editorial Board Opinion of Washington Post. There is no better way to explain the September initiative of the Palestinian Authority.

Once again, Israel is scapegoated

ISRAELIS WORRY that the Arab Spring is turning from a popular movement against dictatorship into another assault on the Jewish state, and their worry is not unfounded. Last week in Cairo a mob attacked the Israeli Embassy, forcing the evacuation of the ambassador and most of his staff; the previous week the Israeli ambassador to Turkey was expelled. Later this month Palestinians are expected to introduce aresolution on statehood at the United Nations, and Israel could be further isolated if, as expected, a large majority of the General Assembly votes in favor of it.

There’s little doubt that plenty of Arabs and Turks are angry at Israel. But it’s worth noting that, as often is the case in the Middle East, those passions are being steered by governments.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who aspires to regional leadership, has directed a campaign against the government of Benjamin Netanyahu and stoked it with incendiary statements. Mr. Erdogan is furious that a U.N. investigation concluded that Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip, and thus its intervention to stop a Turkish-led flotilla last year, was legal. He also finds it convenient to lambaste Israel rather than talk about neighboring Syria, where daily massacres are being carried out by a regime Mr. Erdogan cultivated.
The assault on the embassy in Cairo has been condemned by the leaders of Egypt’s popular revolution and by some leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Both they and Western diplomats blame the ruling military for failing to secure the embassy, and they suspect the omission may have been part of an effort to divert rising public unrest toward a familiar target.
In the West Bank, polls have shown that President Mahmoud Abbas’s U.N. statehood initiative is regarded as a low priority by the majority of Palestinians, 60 percent of whom said the better option was resuming direct negotiations with Israel. But Mr. Abbas fears he may be the next target of popular uprising; the U.N. gambit appears aimed in part at preempting that.
This is not to say the trend is benign. Israel is looking more isolated than at any time in decades. It is more than a hapless bystander: Mr. Netanyahu’s government could have avoided a crisis with Turkey had it been willing to apologize for the deaths of nine Turks during the interception of the flotilla, which the U.N. panel rightly judged to be an excessive use of force. An incident in which five Egyptian guards were killed when Israeli forces pursued terrorists crossing the border helped to trigger the upsurge in tensions with Cairo. And Mr. Netanyahu’s slowness to embrace reasonable parameters for Palestinian statehood provided Mr. Abbas with a pretext for his U.N. initiative.
It nevertheless is in the interest of Western governments, as well as of Israel, to resist the counterproductive and irresponsible initiatives of Mr. Abbas and Mr. Erdogan. In Egypt, the military has cited the attack on the Israeli Embassy as a pretext to apply emergency laws and censor the media; those, too, are steps in the wrong direction. The core demands of the Arab Spring have nothing to do with Israel: They are about ending authoritarian rule and modernizing stagnating societies. Scapegoating Israel will not satisfy the imperative for change.

Waka Waka in Zion: "This time for Israel!!"

2011-08-30T18:16:00.000+03:00

"Get Well Soon!" from Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem

2011-08-01T12:18:00.002+03:00

Doctors can also play, sing and dance at the Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem. Very nice use of Youtube, how you'd call it, Health 2.0?

Web 2.0 is a "fait accompli" in France. But what about the French version of Gov 2.0?

2011-07-22T14:23:00.003+03:00

"France succumbed to Twitter" - this is today's headline in one of the most popular French newspaper "Le Parisien". Two million French are using Twitter as of today. This number is nothing compared to the true success of Facebook on the French soil. Half (!) of the population in France are using the biggest social network in the world.

The success of social media in France is undoubted. In addition to the global networks, like Twitter and Facebook, there are other networks that have rather French or European flavor and are also quite popular, to mention Daily Motion (a version of Youtube) for exchanging videos, or Viadeo (a version of LinkedIn) that is used for professional purposes.

The boom of the social media is being felt especially strong in the last few month, due to an extraordinary event that happened in Mai: the arrest of the president of IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The French media was reporting about this event in an obsessive way, only reflecting the shock that struck the public and the political class in France. But what was of particular importance in the aspect of social media is that the first to report about the event was a french student who tweeted the information on his personal account.

The sudden explosion of interest for Twitter was unprecedented. All major newspapers provided Twitter's user guide, as if inviting their readers to follow the reports about the DSK affair on Twitter. Needless to say, most of the French journalists covering this affair in New York were tweeting about it on their personal accounts! This trend, however, was not met with much enthusiasm on the part of the traditional media. Some of them, like TV channel Canal+ asked their correspondents to stop tweeting.

The Web 2.0 revolution is in full swing in France. But what about Gov 2.0 of the French Government? It's true that many politicians opened Facebook and Twitter accounts. The President of the Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy, has the bigger number of fans on his Facebook page than any other European leader. And even Martin Aubry from the Socialist Party, his probable rival in the next elections, who was quoted saying: "Facebook et Twitter, j'ai horreur de ca" (Facebook and Twitter, I'am horrified by it), recently opened her Twitter account.

However all these examples don't change the reality. One of the French experts of social media whom I met recently, put it this way: "There is no Gov 2.0 in France. It's still Gov 1.0". Unfortunately, the french ministries (with some rare exceptions), state and public employees, representatives of local government still haven't discovered Gov 2.0 - the idea that the modern government could - and even should - use the social media to improve its services and to have direct dialogue with citizens. The idea that social media could be incorporated into the functioning of the government is far from being explored and conceptualized. One of the rare examples is the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs that opened an official Twitter account. However, I've never seen french diplomats tweeting for professional purposes.

What is the reason for this reticent attitude of the government towards social media? From the meetings with my colleagues, diplomats from other European countries, I learned that this attitude exists in other countries as well. At the bottom line, there is a fear of loosing control over official information when state and public employees will enter the social media. These concerns are common for all state bureaucracies, however it doesn't prevent many countries to allow and even encourage Gov 2.0, like in USA, Canada, UK and Australia, Japan and Israel. It looks like in most of the Europe there exist cultural barrier which is very difficult to overcome.

This difference in a mindset was felt during the last G-8 summit in May, that was hold in France, the current president of the Club. The French presidency invited to the forum the most important players of social media, among them Marc Zuckerberg and Eric Schmidt. While the French President highlighted in his speech the need of more control of the governments over the Internet, his invitees tended to stress the dangers of the excessive regulation, and repeated their conviction that Internet can be regulated by itself.

I think that the states can have some limited role in regulation of the Internet or social media. However, what is more important is that Governments will play its role not as a regulator, but as an active participant in the social media. Governments should be present there and conduct direct dialogue with their citizens. The time of one-way communication is over: the governments must join Web 2.0. This idea is called Gov 2.0. If it doesn't sound well in French, we can think about better translation.

Look how Israel Deputy Foreign Minister uses Youtube to explain some basic facts about the conflict

2011-07-19T16:28:00.000+03:00

Why Palestinian unilateral bid for UN recognition is way to nowhere

2011-07-05T19:26:00.002+03:00

“It’s hard to understand, but Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is heading full force into his own collapse, and that of his Authority, in September”, wrote an Israeli commentator Guy Bechor a few days ago.

It’s one thing to make declarations; it’s another thing to bring to their implementation. It’s one thing to use strong expressions like “Israel will face diplomatic tsunami in September”. However in reality, the vote in the UN, if it will happen (with strong emphasis on “if”), could hardly be described even as an “aftershock”. Rather it will prove to be void of any significance, like most of the communication spins promoted by Palestinian Authority and their supporters in the media.

We don’t have to be prophets in order to understand why this outcome of the UN bid is almost inevitable. We just have to be good listeners.

Let’s first listen to somebody who probably has better understanding than the average person, why the unilateral declaration in the UN is useless and counterproductive. Person whom the President of the Palestinian Authority Abbas wants to keep as his Prime Minister -the acting Prime Minister Salam Fayad. In an interview to the AP on June 28, asked what would change on the ground after the UN recognition, he said: “Nothing, unless Israel is part of that consensus”. Fayad also warned against raising false expectations among the Palestinians.

He is, of course, right. Once the Palestinians will see their expectations unanswered, the situation can get out of control. Israel, no doubt, will be the target of this frustration – but also the Palestinian authority. Because PA and its leaders will be blamed for this failure, and Hamas will have another chance to strengthen its influence in the West Bank. This scenario would be hardly welcomed by the population of the West Bank, after 3 years of economic growth and improved conditions of life. They don’t want to see the green flags of Hamas waving over Ramallah and Bethlehem.

In the Israeli-Palestinian equation there are of course much more players. Let’s listen to our neighbor from East. Here is what said senior Jordanian official to the UAE-based Al-Bayan newspaper: "Jordan’s top national interests will be in danger if the Palestinian Authority declares statehood unilaterally – especially in everything related to the issue of refugees, water, Jerusalem, and the borders".

And of course it’s not only Jordan who is very skeptical about the new Palestinian initiative. We also hear voices from the Persian Golf, like the one of Abdallah al-Hadlaq in the Koweiti newspaper Al Watan: “All those who hope for real peace in the region must reject these reckless unilateral Palestinian moves that block the negotiation process. The Palestinians must be made to understand that the only way to a permanent peace

treaty will be through direct talks”.

Palestinian strategy of unilateral recognition won’t work. United States, Germany, Italy, Holland and other European countries already stated that they will not support it. We are sure that France and Great Britain will follow the same path. The position of Russia and China are still not clear, despite the spin the Palestinians are trying to make.

All these strong expressions like “diplomatic tsunami” or diplomatic isolation of Israel are no more than spin whose goal is to pressure Israel. A political tsunami did happened in the Middle East – it started last December in Tunisia, made its way to Egypt, and nowadays takes place in Syria. However, the UN vote on Palestinian State in September won’t even make an “aftershock”. It would be just another vote in UN that will change nothing. Mahmoud Abbas went to the other part of the world to get recognition for his state. He forgot that the distance from Ramallah to Jerusalem is less than 20 kilometers, and that the two-state solution is a way to solve our conflict, not to perpetuate it.

Israel Wants Peace, Do You?

2011-05-16T16:59:00.000+03:00

Palestinian reconciliation as the first result of Arab revolutions

2011-05-14T11:27:00.002+03:00

When 3 weeks ago, on April 22, I wrote about unpredictable things that can happen before September 2011 and change the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I never thought that the change can come that fast. But on April 27 Hamas and Fatah already declared about their reconciliation deal.

Fatah and Hamas symbols

Let’s analyze how this event became possible, once again without slogans or emotions, and try to see what could be the consequences of such a move.

First of all, why Abu Mazen should have accepted the deal? As some reporters and commentators said this “reconciliation” with the organization that is regarded as terrorist by the

and the EU could, in fact, have negative effect for his own image and threaten his “UN recognition” project. Here are the explanations:

a. Abu Mazen didn’t really have a choice – he gave his consent to this agreement already a year ago, when the Egyptians tried to bring the two Palestinian factions to table of negotiations.

b. He didn’t have choice because the new Egypt's transition government was pushing for the reconciliation. He could not say "no" to his most important Arab ally.

c. Abu Mazen also estimated that given his perfect image of the peacemaker among the European countries, he can use his reputation to silence the concerns about Hamas. His gamble was correct. Just look at the declarations of France and the Great Britain (to mention the main players) that expressed their satisfaction with Palestinian reconciliation. This fashion of legitimizing Hamas will of course play against Abu Mazen in the near future; I’ll elaborate on this later.

More intriguing question is why, out of the blue, Hamas, decided to “reconcile”? Experts provided us with different estimations, so let’s summarize it briefly.

a. In the wake of the revolution in Syria and some anti-Iranian slogans among the protesters, Hamas realized that his presence in Damascus is not safe anymore. The reports about transfer of its headquarters to Qatar and even Egypt came 3 days before the news about reconciliation. A mere coincidence? You bet. Hamas was pressed and had to respond quickly to a sudden change of the new balance of powers in the Middle East.

b. A few days after the reconciliation Egypt declared about opening the Rafah crossing that will put an end to an Egyptian-Israeli blockade of Gaza. This would be an achievement for Hamas which they can present to the population of Gaza, that started to express its dissatisfaction both with the blockade and the the Palestinian division.

c. The new Egypt, without Mubarak and with the growing influence of the Moslem brothers, the ideological alma mater of the Hamas, is much more comfortable for Hamas.

d. The new Israeli anti-missile Iron Dome system serves as a new deterrence for Hamas which they still have to overcome.

So, Hamas’ position has been weakened, especially because of the new geopolitical equation. Situation in

Syria

weakens not only Hamas, but also Hezbollah. According to reports from there, in the middle of April Hassan Nasrallah secretly visited Damascus to discuss the situation in

Syria

. Some other reports mention the transfer of Hizballah’s weapons from Syrian bases to Hezbollah's own bases in

Lebanon

. When we add to this possible transfer of Hamas headquarters from Damascus to other countries, we understand that the situation is really bad for Assad’s regime.

So far, about the reasons why Hamas and Fatah decided to sign the agreement. Now let's turn to the question what could be the consequences of a Hamas-Fatah deal.

First of all, it should be clear that Hamas didn’t change its nature and goals. It’s only about tactics, and this is definitely is not forbidden, from their point of view, by any religious or political authority. They can speak about 1967 borders, but at the same time to increase the smuggling of weapons through Sinai, as was reported last week.

Second, they are going to enjoy greater legitimacy at least from some parts of the international community. They will probably even stop – temporarily - firing missiles at Israel, and will send “moderate” messages about 1967 borders and the “national responsibility”, so some countries will see them as legitimate partners, not to mention the European media.

Third, Abu Mazen will continue with his UN recognition project, especially as he can say that he represents both West Bank and The Gaza strip. He will try to keep his own reputation of peacemaker and the reputation of his new government in order to gain support from the West and increase international pressure on

Israel

. He already makes all the efforts to keep Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in the government, since Fayyad is highly respected in the West.

Is there any chance for Hamas to reform itself, as some experts assert? Can Hamas go through the same transformation as Fatah 25 years ago? Hard to believe. It’s true, Hamas is experiencing similar loss of ally in Syria, as in the 80’s the Yasser Arafat saw the weakening of Soviet Union, and had to choose another path. However,

Iran

, the "bigger" brother of Hamas, is still there. Moreover, unlike Fatah, Hamas is a religious fundamentalist movement. They are religious fanatics. It would be foolish on the part of

Israel

to build on option that they will change themselves.

And once again, we should remember many things will happen before September. May be even next week, when American president will deliver his vision on the Middle East. And Israeli Prime Minister will do the same a few days later.

September 2011: Recognition of the Palestinian state. What happens next?

2011-04-22T14:37:00.003+03:00

The campaign of the Palestinian Authority to gain international recognition of the state of Palestine is supposed to reach its apogee in September 2011. During the General Assembly of the UN in September the leaders of the Palestinian authority want to get a UN resolution about the establishment of their state. Many countries already declared their support of this initiative. Yesterday the French ambassador to the UN even said that France and the European countries are considering recognition of the state of Palestine.

Some experts say that Israel is expecting her own "black September". Even some of the Israeli politicians call it a "new political tzunami". But let us analyze the situation without slogans or dramatic headlines. What will happen in September, after the adoption of this resolution?

It won't be the first time the UN adopts resolution about the Palestinian state. In November 1947 the UN did not adopt the resolution only about Israel - the resolution dealt with establishing two nation states: one Jewish and one Arab. The UN already gave its green light to the establishment of the Arab state in Palestine in1947. It was the decision of the Arab leadership in Palestine, with the support of the Arab states, to reject this resolution.

It's also worth to remind that in 1988 when Yasser Arafat decided to conduct peace talks with Israel, he asked for the recognition of the state of Palestine, which was declared by a number of states.

In fact the Palestinians are asking for one new recognition of their state, which will be probably given to them once again. But what will change as the result of this new recognition? Is September 2011 will be another repetition of November 1947?

At first sight it looks different. Today Palestinian Authority demands recognition of its state in the 1967 borders - borders that existed before the 6-day war. In demanding this, the PA wants to create a new legal reality: not just formal recognition of their state but also recognition of its borders.

However, when Abu Mazen demands 1967 borders he is ignoring the existing reality. Today, the Palestinian territories in 1967 borders are not fully controlled by the Palestinian Authority. One third of the Palestinian population living in Gaza is not under control of the PA. It's even worse than that: Abu Mazen cannot even enter Gaza Strip because Hamas who controls Gaza cannot assure his safety there. The resolution in September won't change this reality of de-facto separation between Gaza and the West Bank: Hamas doesn't care about the peace talks, or the 1967 borders, and wants all of Palestine back to Arabs. And Jews? Jews should better go back to Europe, or to hell.

But it's not only the PA who misleads the world. It's the world who wants to believe that the Palestinians are ready for statehood! The IMF declared that the Palestinians built all the necessary economic and political institutions to declare a viable state. The European countries are also eager to recognize the state of Palestine.

With this in mind, can anyone in Europe - Great Britain, France, Germany, to name the most active players - explain why they ignore Hamas? Why do they ignore the fact that 1967 borders are already divided between two Palestinian factions - Hamas and Fatah of Abu Maxen? That Palestinians are split - ideologically and politically? Do they understand that recognition of the state of Palestine will mean something completely different?

So what will it mean? And what will happen in September 2011? The resolution on the state of Palestine will mean that the UN will recognize the state of the West Bank, not of Palestine. Because de-facto Gaza will not be part of this new state. Israel will once again stand against the Goliath of the international community hoping to explain that one cannot resolve the conflict while ignoring the reality on the ground.

Abu Mazen already said that he is against violence, but he is afraid of it. Unfortunately his politics of ignoring the problem of Hamas in hope that it will be settled after the official recognition of the state of Palestine, could bring him exactly to the same result he is so afraid of - lost of control and new weave of terror against Israel. And September 2011 could be another repetition of November 1947. Why? Because, as in 1947 the Palestinians are divided, and are not looking for compromise with Israel. They are looking for complete destruction of Israel, in the case of Hamas, or for imposing on Israel another UN resolution, in the case of PA.

Palestinians like to compare their cause to the Israel's. However, the Israelis in 1947 knew to overcome the differences between rival factions, and when necessary to deal with the extremists among them, in order to achieve independent state...Abu Mazen prefers to ignore his extremists, and the Europeans encourage him to do so. A sure recipe for failure.

Is there room for hope? Of course. Because many things could happen before September 2011.

When “Better later than never “ doesn’t work

2011-04-06T16:28:00.001+03:00

Two years after the publication of the Goldstone Report that accused Israel in committing war crimes, the Judge Richard Goldstone who wrote the report regrets its conclusion. In his letter in Washington Post he confesses his own naivety in expecting Hamas, the terrorist organizations, to investigate itself. He also describes his expectations from the UN Human Rights Council to condemn intentional attacks of Hamas against Israel. This expectation is also very naive.

The Goldstone Committee was created by an organization where the major actors are Libya, Syria, Iran and other human-rights loving countries. Iran murdered its citizens in 2009; Syria follows the Iranian big brother these very days. Libya’s Kaddafi regime is bombarded by NATO. So, Judge Goldstone, my question is this: How a person of your stance and experience could have received a mandate from such an organization for conducting investigation? You were completely blind, butI believe, at least that was not intentional.

Some people say you've made a courageous step. I don't think so. The damage that your report inflicted on Israel is irreversible. You should be ashamed of the baseless accusations against Israeli army. What Israeli army is doing against Hamas is no different from what US army is doing against Al-Qaida in Iraq, or NATO forces in Afghanistan. We all fight Islamic terrorism.

Here in France the damage done by your report to Israel's image is also irreversible. Just look at the book of Stephane Hessel who establishes his defamatory discourse against Israel on your "findings". Mr. Hessel uses your accusations in order to go even further. He claims that the use of violence by Hamas against Israel could be "understood". Understood? Did you mean, Mr. Hessel, justified? Your description of Hamas as “beach-loving people” would make laugh even the Hamas terrorists themselves. They never had such a propagandistic success, as with you.

Any person of conscience would apologize for these baseless accusations. However, I am not naive. No, Mr. Hessel, you are not going against the wind. Your scandalous book is too popular and too cheap. Being popular doesn't mean being right. As Gandhi said: « An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.”

Viadeo in France

2011-04-06T15:03:00.000+03:00

Before moving to France in the August 2010, I was already connected already to about 10 social networks, among them LinkedIn. I discovered LinkedIn when working in Los Angeles 5 years ago, and since then enjoyed many useful contacts found through this network.

However, in France LinkedIn is less popular than Viadeo - 5-language social network for professionals. I joined it a month ago and since then was contacted by many experts and even received proposition for joint seminar. Viadeo's structure is similar to that of LinkedIn, even though some features I found less successful. Yet, the most important advantage of Viadeo is that you can find there useful contacts in France.

So, if you are looking for professional networking in France - go to Viadeo.

Good night, and good luck

2011-03-25T14:30:00.002+02:00

Now it's official: Palestinians don't want peace negotiations. Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian negotiator announced that the PA does not believe in the direct talks with Israel, and is looking for international recognition of the state of Palestine in the 1967 borders.

Mr. Erekat refers to the Security Council resolution 242, adopted in November 1967. This resolution calls for the Israeli withdrawal from territories and for establishing the secure and recognized boundaries. By the way, there is no mentioning of the Palestinian state in this document. But this is not the point I would like to make.The point I would like to make goes to the heart of the 242 resolution: withdrawal from territories and the idea of secure borders.

Let's say, Israel will withdraw its army to the 1967 borders and evacuate all the Israelis from the West Bank. Do you really think Israel will have secure borders? Do you think Hamas will not take over power in the West Bank, like he did in Gaza in 2007, just two years after the complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip? Israeli withdrawals without a real willingness of our Arab neighbors to end the conflict never resulted in secure borders. Egypt and Jordan, who wanted to end the conflict with Israel, signed the agreement and fully implemented it. Hezbollah and Hamas never wanted an agreement with Israel.

Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon in 2000 only to receive another war in 2006 in the North of the country. Israel left Gaza in 2005 only to get 12.000 rockets and mortars in the South of the country. If we withdraw from the West Bank, we will get another war in the heart of the country and its capital, Jerusalem. If we withdraw today, Hamas will inevitably take over the West bank. And it's not what we think - it's what the Palestinians think. As Mr. Erekat, as well as Mr. Abu Mazen, know very well, the Palestinians in the West Bank are afraid of Hamas takeover. That's why the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem prefer to stay under the Israeli jurisdiction even after the establishment of the state of Palestine.

Formal borders will not resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians all the time that Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others are asking to annihilate Israel. And all the time that Iran is supporting terrorism against Israel. And all the time that Palestinians teach their children to hate Jews.

So Mr. Erekat, if you look for another unsuccessful adventure, as the famous movie says: "Good night, and good luck". We will be waiting for you at the negotiation table in Jerusalem, or Ramallah. This is for you to decide.

My memories from the Chernobyl disaster

2011-03-22T13:16:00.005+02:00

Reports about the nuclear disaster in Japan bring back my memories from what I experienced 25 years ago.

25 years ago I lived in the city of Zhitomir, a city of 250.000 inhabitants, which lies west of the capital of Ukraine, Kiev. One more detail on the geographical location of Zhitomir: it is located about 90 km south of Chernobyl, a town of the famous nuclear station. This geographical fact became extremely important in April 1986.

The reactor exploded during the night between 26 and 27 April. However, we learned the details of what exactly happened only one week later. I remind you that the year was 1986: those are the first months of Mikhail Gorbachev in power. There are still no reforms in the Soviet Union, no openness, no "glasnost" and "perestroika".The Soviet Union at its best. With this in mind, it was quite obvious that the media reported nothing. Business as usual.
It was our neighbor , the wife of an officer, who told my mom that at night all the military officers stationed in the city were urgently called and sent to Chernobyl because "something has exploded." And at the school the next day - I was then 13 years old - children of the officers who were sent to Chernobyl, were proudly telling that their fathers went to "a secret mission."

Two days after, the rumors spread widely, and fear flooded all the cities in the region. New and frightening details were told by those officers who started to return from Chernobyl for short vacations, and talked about the "cloud", the radiation, the death. But the Soviet government and its media kept silence. Newspapers continued to report on successes of the socialist economy and about the preparations for the celebrations of May 1.

Celebrations of May 1 were supposed to take place as planned, even in the city of Pripyat', the closest to the Chernobyl station. But then suddenly the truth was revealed. In Pripyat' there were hundreds of people who suffered from radiation. Neighboring countries, Finland and Sweden, asked for explanations from the Soviet Union about the radioactive cloud coming from there. And radio stations "Voice of America" and "Voice of freedom" informed their listeners in the Soviet Union that terrible disaster happened at Chernobyl and that the Communist regime tries to hide the truth.

Suddenly the reality became unbearable. The terrible panic spread in Kiev and nearby cities. What to do with the kids? What to do with schools? And the most important question: in what direction the wind will blow?

The rest is well known. The wind was blowing to the north and hit hard in many areas of Belarus and Russia. To the relief of those who lived south of Chernobyl, like us, these clouds passed over us.  The population of Pripyat' was completely evacuated and the 30-km zone around the station was established. The "liquidators" - a nickname given to people who worked on sealing the reactor, have become heroes, many of them post-mortem. The "sarkofague", a strange and unheard-of word, entered the lexicon on the regular basis, and we all wanted the liquidators to complete its construction.

To this day Ukraine is dealing with this disaster. And for hundreds of years, the area around Chernobyl will remain closed. This disaster also had many implications in the shorter term. The  policy of openness of Gorbachev was declared a few months after the disaster, and in fact was the direct result of the intolerable situation created during the disaster when the government hid the truth from citizens and left them to deal with uncontrollable rumors and fears. There are also those who claim that the fall of the Soviet Union began with Chernobyl disaster which showed to the world, but especially to the citizens of the Soviet Union, that their government can not rule the country and is in fact afraid of its own citizens.

The Fukushima disaster is of historic scale, and its impact on Japan and the world will be profound and far-reaching. I hope that the Japanese people would cope better with this disaster.  The way the Japanese people and their government are dealing with it gives us real hope for that.

Regard sur l'Apartheid israelien

2011-03-07T22:27:00.000+02:00

www.europe-israel.org

Diplomatic blog in Paris - 7 months after the launch

2011-03-01T16:42:00.001+02:00

In August 2010 I moved to Paris for my new diplomatic job as the spokesperson of the Embassy of Israel. One of the first things on my agenda was to open "blog of the Spokesperson". Why? I had three reasons in mind. First, the level of social media penetration In France was rising, including the use of the social networks like Facebook and Daily Motion. Secondly, many French journalists and politicians were using Twitter and personal blogs for their professional objectives. Some of them I started to follow before landing in Paris. And third, the French media in general, with some exceptions, is generally hostile to Israeli positions on the Middle East peace process and sees the conflict between us and the Palestinians as the major topic about Israel, while ignoring other stories about Israel. So, we started to develop a communication strategy with a significant role of social media, my personal blog being part of it.

All of the reasons proved to be correct. So, when I opened a blog my target audience was the journalists and people dealing with the media coverage of the Middle East. The blog helped me to be "introduced" to many of them even before our real meeting took place - they visited my blog. Today, in every meeting I have with journalists, I talk about my blog and ask them about their social media presence, which many of them have.

However, my audience became much broader than I could imagine.Here are some numbers after 7-months blogging.

I opened my blog "Ma Parole!" in August 2010. Since then there were registered 23.000 views, meaning about 3.000 each month. At the first 2 months there was a peak of views - more than 4.500 per months, and since then the numbers are around 1.700 views. You can see here the statistics:

What I find especially interesting was the geography of the visitors in my blog. As expected, the most of the visitors to be from France - about 16.000 people. However, people in the French-speaking countries, like Belgium and Canada, are also among the visitors.The visitors also came from the countries where French was traditionally one of the popular languages, like Morocco and Tunisia. These countries don't have diplomatic relations with us, and in fact the contacts on the level of people-to-people are very sporadic after these countries severed their relations with Israel. This opportunity to interact with people in these countries was of special importance for me.

In this graph on the right side you can the top 10 visitors' countries.

Even though it was a personal blog, I defined it as "the blog of the Spokesperson of the Embassy of Israel in Paris". With this I wanted to stress that the positions I was going to take reflect the official positions of the embassy and of the State. However, this ambiguity of personal blog expressing official position led some people to ask me this question again and again: Does this blog represent the official position?

In fact, the positions I expressed in the blog always reflected the broad consensus in the Israeli society and in the Israeli government. In order to have more "freedom of expression" I decided to open a special place where people could put question about official positions of the government, while in other posts I could express myself in a less official way. So I created in the blog a special box called "Questions to the Spokesperson". In the first two weeks after opening the box, I have received many questions. With the time, it cooled down. However, I have no doubt that once there will be some major event related to Israel (which always comes, you know...) - the visitors will come back with all their questions.

One last thing I realized in these 7 months: blogging means self-discipline, persistence and serious intellectual investment and creativity. Diplomatic blogging means greater freedom in expressing the views and expanding the limits of "what you can say" for diplomats. However, it also means that you have to take some risks because reflecting the official position is different from actually representing it word by word. But as the Russian proverb says: "If you don't take risks, you will not drink champagne." In today's world diplomats must have greater risks if they want diplomacy to be relevant and effective.

If you want to visit the blog just click here

The former refusnik Yuli Edelstein comes to Paris this week

2011-02-28T17:10:00.000+02:00

At the end of this week the embassy will welcome the visit of Yuli Edelstein, Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora affairs, in Paris. During his visit Edelstein will meet with the Minister of Justice Michel Mercier, with the heads of the Jewish community of France and with the French media.

What is particularly interesting about Yuli Edelstein is his personal story. Yuli Edelstein was not born in Israel, he immigrated to Israel in 1987, after spending 3 years in Soviet Gulag. Why? Because he was a Zionist - a person who believes in the right of the Jewish people to live in their state in the Land of Israel.

In 1978, as a fourth year student of foreign languages in Moscow, he applied for an exit visa. His request was denied. Mr. Edelstein joined the Refuseniks’ movement and became involved in Zionist activities - teaching Hebrew. He was arrested by the KGB on trumped up charges of illegal possession of drugs. After spending three years in the notorious Soviet Gulag, Yuli Edelstein was finally freed and, together with his family, immigrated to Israel.

In 1995 together with Nathan Sharansky, Yuli Edelstein was one of the founders and leaders of Yisrael ba-Aliya, a new political party representing the new immigrants, mainly form Soviet Union and Ethiopia. In the 1996 elections and won an unprecedented success, becoming part of the government coalition. Between 1996 and 1999 Mr. Edelstein served as Minister of Immigrant Absorption, and from 1999 to 2001 MK Yuli Edelstein served as Deputy Speaker of the Knesset. After the elections of 2008 Edelstein was appointed to his present position - Minister of Public Diplomacy.

Edelstein will also brief the diplomats on the current issues of the Public Diplomacy for Israel. Welcome to Paris!

Be patient with democracy: Memories from Soviet Union and reflections on the revolutions in Arab world

2011-02-27T00:17:00.001+02:00

In 1988 I was 15 year-old student in high-school in the small city of Zhitomir, Western Ukraine. It was time when the citizens of the Soviet Union started to wake up from the complete passivity imposed on them by 70 year rule of the Communist Party. I will never forget these days, because there was something new in the air, something new and unfamiliar for all of us. It was not the feeling of freedom, no - it was the feeling of the promise of freedom. I remember how I walked to spontaneous meetings and gatherings, hold at the parks, in squares, on the streets, where people were listening to some courageous journalists and intellectuals who were talking about democracy. I remember the first semi-democratic elections for the Soviet parliament in 1988, when suddenly people get mobilized for the "anti-nomenclature" - non-communist - candidates. I remember how my mom, always afraid of KGB, went to spread the flyers for the only democratic candidate running in our city. I will never forget this.

I have no doubt that people in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Iran fell now the same way - the promise of freedom. Of course, Soviet Union is not Egypt or Iran, and Soviet block is not the Arab world. However, there is no doubt, in both cases we have popular revolution against regime that became dis-functional and repressive. Yes, it's about revolution. Is it a democratic revolution? nobody knows. We, or in effect, future generation/s will be able to judge. In fact, the precedents of popular democratic revolutions in the previous century show mixed evidence, with strong possibility of serious regression and anti-democratic counter-revolution. Want examples?

In the last two months we could hear many experts and opinion-makers who compare the events in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the democratization process in the Central Europe. I think it's a wrong comparison. All of the new democracies in Central Europe were in the orbit of influence of the Soviet Union who suppressed with brutal force all the democratic movements - in Chechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and others. Once the Soviet government showed "weakness" and its unwillingness to intervene militarily, these countries were set free.

I think about more reasonable comparison, if any such comparison could be done, and this is the democratic process in the Soviet Union itself. In August 1991 the group of the communist leaders who opposed the democratic reforms of Gorbachev, organised a military putsch. After three days of the mass demonstrations in Moscow and the refusal of the army to suppress them, the communist regime was defeated. For 8 years Russia was struggling her way towards democracy, but this movement was seriously set back in the last 10 years. When Mikhail Gorbachov calls the political regime in Russia "imitation of democracy", one can understand that the democratic project in Russia was not a success story. And when you look at the other former republics of Soviet Union, with the exception of Baltic states, you can see that their journey to democracy is far from being accomplished.

So, what happened? Lack of democratic tradition, economic problems and unsolved ethnic tensions created reactionary movement. The democratic system lost its value and was perceived as impotent to deal with social and economic disorder. In these conditions, the best organized group will always have advantage of coming to power and restoring the rule of strong leader that will dismiss most of the democratic achievements.

By the way, the 1917 revolution in Russia developed in a similar way. In February 1917 the popular movement brought down the monarchy in Russia. However, this movement didn't have strong democratic leadership, and in the socio-economic chaos that followed the revolution it was the tiny Bolshevik party who seized the power. Despite its small size, Bolsheviks were able to mobilize resources, to gain support from within and from outside, and in 9 months organized perfect coup d'etat in Saint-Petersburg. It took them 4 bloody years of war to gradually take over all of the Russian Empire.

And by the way, why limit this comparison to Russian history? Did French revolution of 1789 culminated in the complete victory of democracy? If I am not mistaken, there were months of revolutionary terror, and European campaigns of Emperor Napoleon I, and restoration... And the popular revolts of 1848, and the bloody suppression of 1871 rebellion in Paris... Couple of days ago I heard French historian who said that it took 100 years after the French revolution in 1789 to establish a true democracy in France.

Which brings us back to the revolution in the Arab world. Please, don't have any illusions: it will take years to build democracy in the Middle East. Like in the Soviet Union, these countries lack democratic tradition, have deep economic problems and ethnic or tribal tensions. There are also anti-democratic forces, like Muslen Brotherhood, that happened to be organized better that the popular movements who created and fulfilled these revolutions.

Of course, the risks are high and the future of the revolutions is not clear. However, we should not forget that people in the Arab world woke up , for the first time and against all odds. This movement is irreversible. It will take time, and probably generations, but the expansion of freedom is inevitable.

Probably, the only thing that could help shorten the transition period is the information revolution and social media. And about the role of Facebook in these revolutions you already know...

“Strike 2.0” in Israel Foreign Service: another opportunity to upgrade Open Government?

2011-02-17T16:32:00.001+02:00

One month ago we have experienced in Israel something very unusual – the strike of the Israel Diplomatic service. Diplomats rarely go to strike, as diplomacy is considered an important element of the national security. But this time diplomats protested against the deterioration of their working conditions in the last 15 years, and there was a high level of mobilization among them. The diplomats felt that while praising their difficult work, the government did nothing to provide them with fair salaries. As much as unusual diplomats’ strike could be, after all it was a working dispute in the public sector, which happens often in Israel.

Facebook page of the diplomats' strike' called "Save the Diplomatic Service"

However, what was really unusual, and in my eyes even amazing - both as a participant in this strike and the firm believer in Gov 2.0 - was the use of social media by diplomats in order to mobilize public support for our struggle. The public and media support were essential for the success of this struggle, because diplomats didn’t have meaningful leverage on the government or the public: they can’t stop the functioning of the economy, or impact the everyday life of the ordinary citizens. The impact of diplomats’ strike is very limited and could happen only in the long term. That’s why the public support for their demand was so critical.

But why should the public support the diplomats? After all, diplomatic service is considered as a prestigious and exclusive club and has always had an image mixing mystery, luxury and dolce vita. Israelis of course, are no exception and have the same image of diplomacy and diplomats. So why should the public support this struggle? From the very first days of the strike this question was asked by many people in the Facebook, which is very the most popular social network in Israel, more than Twitter or LinkedIn)

It’s so popular, that more than 50% of the Foreign Ministry employees have their personal accounts in Facebook. That’s why when people started to ask questions about our strike, we started to answer them in Facebook. And then, somebody wrote in the discussion I took part: Why diplomats won’t open their support page on Facebook? I immediately sent this proposition to the strikers’ committee, and on the very next day the new page was already there.

This page allowed us to have direct access to all the news related to the strike. It allowed us to explain why we think our struggle was just and why it’s not us, but the Ministry of Finance and the Prime Minister who were responsible for this situation. Diplomats showed in Internet their salary checks, explained conditions of their life abroad, and also diffused through Youtube videos that explained this point. The Facebook page also allowed citizens to come to our page and ask us questions and express their opinion on the strike.

Diplomats also used the traditional media and many of us sent articles to the central newspapers where we explained why we have no other choice but to strike. We diffuse these articles in Facebook. We also participated in the two biggest internet forums in Israel: Y-net and Haaretz and made sure that our messages werepresent there as well.

Our media action was only part of the effort. Many official visits to Israel or by Israeli ministers abroad were cancelled because of the strike. We of course diffused reports on these events with the help of social media.

As a result of this outreach, the citizens started to express their understanding of our demand. The traditional media expressed its support as well. The Prime Minister’s office and the Ministry of Finance were hold responsible for this situation - and after 35 days of strike the government accepted most of our demands.

What are my conclusions from this amazing social media encounter between the public and the public sector?

First, many public servants are already using Facebook for their personal purposes. They get familiar with its logic and functions.

Second, public sector employees can ask for public support when in need. And if the demands are seen as reasonable, the public support can become crucial.

Third, in order to be convinced, citizens should get more understanding about the public sector. The public sector should be demystified, should become more open and transparent.

Fourth, if this is not Gov 2.0, I don’t know what is. There was a real exchange of opinions, views, ideas and information in all the social media venues. Not a semi-automatic diffusion of messages one-way to the public, but an EXCHANGE. Diplomats, as well as other public employees ,should multiply these encounters and learn to be more open, more responsive, and, yes, more responsible. I think this kind of encounter is the real way to build an Open Governmentl. And not the “revelations” of Wikileaks, with all due respect …

And finally, for us, diplomats, it was a closed encounter of the third kind with our own public… Because, usually, diplomats work vis-à-vis foreign audiences when they have to explain Israel’s policies. This time we had to explain things to our own public. And in fact, it was not that bad…

Egypt is an Opportunity

2011-02-15T16:15:00.000+02:00

An interesting analysis by Herbert Meyer on the democratic movement in the Arab world, comparison to the collapse of the Soviet Block, and recommendations for US Administration of how to act in this situation.

February 14, 2011

Egypt is an Opportunity

By Herbert E. Meyer

The lid has finally blown off the pressure cooker in Cairo. And as the Director of National Intelligence is apparently just now starting to notice, there are a few more pressure cookers on the stove that are beginning to make odd noises.

Alas, in the real world there is no rewind button.

So while it's tempting to dwell on how ineptly the President and his team have coped with the unfolding revolution in Egypt -- and God knows it's fun, given the breathtaking combination of arrogance and stupidity this administration has displayed -- our nation's security requires that we focus on the future.

More precisely:

Where are we now, in Egypt and more broadly in the Mideast?

What is likely to happen next, and then down the road, in this volatile and vital region?

What do we want to happen?

How can we tip the odds in our favor?

Where We Are Now

Managing a revolution is like leaping across a chasm; it's best to reach the other side in one hop. When the old regime falls and is immediately replaced by a popular new regime -- which is what happened in countries including Poland and Czechoslovakia at the end of the Cold War -- that country's future usually is stable.

But when the old regime falls and isn't immediately replaced by a new regime capable of quickly forging a new political structure, that country's future is up for grabs. This is what happened in Russia in 1917, when in February the Czar was overthrown and replaced by Kerensky and his (fairly decent) Social Democrats, who then fumbled in the Duma and lost control in October to Lenin and his (murderous) Bolsheviks.

In Egypt the House of Mubarak has collapsed, and the country's army is dutifully holding things together until a new political structure can be erected. So while the jubilation in Cairo's Tahrir Square is understandable, Egypt hasn't had a revolution. It's had half a revolution, which means the country's future is in play.

What Lies Ahead in the Mideast

In today's world of mass communication and social networking, the uprising in Egypt is likely to spread throughout the region.

Indeed, the uprising in Egypt itself was triggered, at least in part, by the recent popular uprising in Tunisia. And now there may well be popular uprisings in Jordan, Yemen, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and perhaps Iran. There could be popular uprisings in Lebanon, Syria, and even in Gaza and the West Bank.

And since information moves around the globe literally at the speed of light, it wouldn't be surprising to wake up one morning, turn on the television, and see scenes of mass unrest in Havana. (And if we do see a popular uprising in Cuba, wouldn't it be nice if the CIA got its act together -- fast -- and tossed a few banana peels under the Castro brothers' feet....)

In short, we have suddenly entered one of those rare moments in history when the world is about to be remade.

What We Want to Happen

When you study history, it's the story of competing operating systems.

Our operating system is Western civilization:

We put the individual at the center of life, while separating church and state.
We believe in property rights and the rule of law.
Western civilization unleashes the entrepreneurial talents of its people, and it encourages intellectual curiosity.
It's an endless struggle for equality among the races and the sexes.

Is Western civilization perfect? Of course not; it's designed and operated by human beings, and we make horrific mistakes from time to time. But when all is said and done, Western civilization is history's most extraordinary accomplishment; it's the modern world.

In just the last century, there were two efforts by other operating systems to knock us off. The first of these was fascism, which led to World War II. The second was communism, which led to the Cold War.

Stand back from history, and there's another operating system that's been with us for a long time: Islam. In this operating system,

church and state are often combined, and
the individual is subservient to this church-state combination -- without the option to opt out.
Islam doesn't unleash the entrepreneurial talents of its people, and it discourages intellectual curiosity -- which is why there hasn't been a major scientific breakthrough from the Islamic world in a thousand years.
There's one other striking feature of this operating system: it treats women as though they were property rather than people.
Simply put, this operating system is incompatible with the modern world -- and that's the glitch.

Why is this a problem?

Because the most radical and determined leaders of Islam, like their fascist and communist predecessors, wish to impose their operating system on the entire world -- including us.

All we Americans have ever wanted is to be left alone. We have no wish to impose our operating system on anyone else, and we won't allow anyone else to impose their operating system on us.

This means that to avoid war, the world's various operating systems need not be the same as ours -- but they must be compatible with our operating system so we can live together peacefully.

What President George W. Bush called the War on Terrorism, and what President Obama calls overseas contingency operations, isn't really an effort to impose our operating system on Islam.

It's an effort to push Islam down the road toward the modern world so that we can live together peacefully. In effect, it's an effort to help Islam develop Version 2.0.

Honorable people can disagree over whether we've gone about this in the best possible way. What's indisputable is that since 9-11 Islam's operating system has been pushed harder than it's ever been pushed before.

In a sense, Version 1.0 is falling apart and the code for Version 2.0 is being written before our eyes -- in Iraq, for example, and now in Egypt and soon throughout the Mideast.

Since this is their operating system, not ours, it isn't our business to impose our values on each line of code the Moslem world's new leaders may write.

But it is our business -- indeed, our survival depends on it -- to assure that whatever new version of Islam emerges is compatible with Western civilizationand willing to live with us in peace.

This is really what "the war" is all about.

Tipping the Odds in Our Favor

It's true that history never repeats itself. But human nature doesn't change, so historical patterns repeat themselves all the time.

For instance, in western Europe during the 1920s and 1930s the communists worked underground to take power in Italy, Germany, France and elsewhere. When World War II erupted, the Soviet Union itself and also these underground communists formed an uneasy alliance with the Allies to defeat our common enemy, the Fascists.

When the war ended, both the Soviet Union and its communist supporters in western Europe turned back to the business of revolution through covert operations and, more importantly, through overt political activity.

And western Europe was up for grabs.

All we wanted was for western Europe to get back on its feet.

President Truman and his great Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, understood that for these countries to find their way forward the communists had to be stopped at all costs. What we said to the western Europeans was, in effect, you're on your own and best of luck -- but for our own security we're not letting the commies play in your sandbox. If you don't like our meddling in your politics, too bad. Work with us, and the sooner we stop the communists the sooner we'll get out of your sandbox.

While most people today think of the Cold War as a nuclear struggle between the Free World and the Soviet Union -- and indeed it was -- the Cold War was also a 45-year ideological struggle for the hearts and minds of western Europe's citizens.

From the Truman administration through the Reagan administration, we fought this ideological battle at the political level and the diplomatic level. We fought it at the intellectual level, for example at conferences, in leading publications read by European opinion makers, at swishy embassy dinner parties and over endless cups of espresso with university students in cheap cafes across the continent.

At the CIA we fought it out with the bad guys at 3am in the back alleys of cities like Rome, Paris and Berlin. It was hard going all the way, with more blunders and setbacks than any of us who were involved care to remember. But in the end, western Europeans themselves rejected communism, the Soviet Union collapsed -- and we'd won.

Just as we kept the communists from hijacking western Europe, we now must keep the radical Islamists from hijacking the Mideast.

To be precise, we've got to stop the Muslim Brotherhood from getting power, in Egypt or in any other country that will come into play. This is the great battle that lies before us, and we've got to fight it out in every way -- militarily, diplomatically, intellectually, and covertly.

Among other things, we're going to need a first-class intelligence service. And while launching covert actions will be part of its job, its most crucial (and most under-rated) responsibility will be to provide our nation's leaders with an accurate picture of what's going on right now in the Mideast and what's likely to happen next.

Who are the key players, and what are their strengths and weaknesses?
In each country, whose side will the generals be on when unrest threatens the incumbent regime?
More importantly -- much more importantly -- whose side will the 22-year-old lieutenants be on when the demonstrators start marching. (It's the lieutenants, not the generals, who determine the outcome of a revolution because they are the guys with the guns. If the lieutenants won't shoot, because they side with the demonstrators or, simply, because their brothers and sisters are in the surging crowd, it's over no matter what orders they get from the generals.)

A Word or Two of Advice

On the off-chance that my successors at the CIA are reading this essay, please allow me to offer two pieces of advice:

First, I see that you've just established a 35-person task force to project likely developments in the Mideast. Better late than never. But if I were you, I'dreach out -- fast -- to really smart people with proven track records of accurately projecting that region's future.

Walid Phares comes to mind, and if you haven't already read his brilliant essays at American Thinker or watched the interviews he's given on EWTN -- yes, EWTN -- then do it.
Read the remarkably insightful essays that Fouad Ajami has published in The Wall Street Journal, then call this distinguished scholar and invite him in for lunch.
Get in touch with Michael Ledeen over at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; he knows more about what's going on in Iran than all the rest of us combined, and he has a habit of being proved right.
And when you meet with these gentlemen, ask them who else to talk with and to read.
(And don't look confused if one of them says, "Spengler". That's actually David P. Goldman, and his "Spengler" essays on Iran's catastrophic demographics, and on why rising wheat prices are triggering unrest on the Arab street, are just extraordinary.)

Remember, as intelligence analysts your job isn't to know everything; your job is to identify the people who know what the President and his team need to know, and then to pull it all together into a form that policy makers can absorb and turn into action.

If they can see the future coming at us, soon enough and clearly enough, they can change the future before it happens. That's why projecting the future is the overriding purpose of an intelligence service.

Second, as you focus on the Muslim Brotherhood don't let yourselves get caught in one of those idiotic "hawks versus doves" arguments.

You're all too young to remember this, but during the Cold War the CIA's analysts twisted themselves into pretzels arguing about the "split" between the Kremlin's so-called moderates and hard-liners. When something happened in the world -- anything, come to think of it -- my in-box would overflow with papers arguing whether it meant that the Politburo's hawks had gained power over the doves, or whether the Politburo's doves were now ascendant over its hawks. It was total nonsense.

Any time you put three people in a room there's going to be a disagreement about something. Of course there were disagreements inside the Politburo -- and politics in the Soviet Union being a winner-take-all game, sometimes a member of the Politburo suddenly turned up as ambassador to Paraguay, or dead in an implausible auto crash. But these arguments were over strategy and tactics, not over the ultimate objective, which of course was the imposition of a Pax Sovietica on the world.

Just like the communists before them, the Muslim Brotherhood's leaders may disagree about how to move forward. But there's no disagreement among them on where they want to go; namely, to impose an Islamic caliphate on the world.
Finally -- if you'll indulge me for one more paragraph -- a word of advice to all of you who have kindly taken the time to read this far:

It's easy to be a pessimist, and to focus on the mistakes we've made and the setbacks that inevitably lie ahead. (It's amazing how Fox News keeps finding talking heads I've never heard of before, who spin out one apocalyptic Mideast scenario after another. It's also getting boring.)

Back in the Cold War years a lot of our deep thinkers were convinced we'd lose. And we nearly did.

But then, suddenly, three unlikely leaders stepped onto the world stage: a Polish pope, a woman prime minister, and an ex-actor from California.

Together they threw the switch from playing defense to playing offense, and within a decade we'd won the Cold War.

So don't let the pessimists get you down. And if you just can't bring yourself to believe we can defeat the Islamists and win this global struggle, stop by my office and I'll let you touch my piece of the Berlin Wall.

Herbert E. Meyer served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council. He is the author of two new eBooks, How to Analyze Information and The Cure for Poverty.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/egypt_is_an_opportunity.html

Egypt Uprising: Egyptian TV Host Amr Adib Mocks Iranian Leader Khamenei for Interfering in Egypt's Internal Affairs

2011-02-11T13:47:00.001+02:00

MEMRI: Egypt Uprising: Egyptian TV Host Amr Adib Mocks Iranian Leader Khamenei for Interfering in Egypt's Internal Affairs

Dennis Prager explains basic things about Arab-Israeli conflict

2011-01-14T12:41:00.000+02:00

Melanie Phillips on Israeli TV

2011-01-12T12:35:00.000+02:00

Ghajar as the mirror of the Middle Eastern reality

2010-11-26T15:33:00.003+02:00

Did you hear this name - Ghajar? Small village on the Israeli-Lebanese border, that made big headlines last week after the Government of Israel decided to withdraw from the northern part of the village. Know why?

The residents of the village, who belong to the alaouite branch of Islam protested against this decision and even organized demonstration demanding to stay under the control of Israel. I will repeat, so you didn't miss the point: the 2200 residents of the Muslim village of Ghajar demanded to stay under the Israeli control.

A short historic introduction: after the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon in 2000, the United Nations identified and approved “the blue line" - the border between Israel and Lebanon. According to this line, the village was divided into two parts: northern part that was in Lebanon, and the southern part in Israel. After the war with Hezbollah in 2006, Israel withdrew from all of the Lebanese territory, accept for the northern part of Ghajar in order to prevent Hezbollah from easy access to the border. Last Wednesday, on November 17, the Israeli government decided to comply with the resolution of the UN SC 1701 and instructed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to complete the details of the arrangement in coordination with UNIFIL.

The international community seems to be happy about this decision, judging by the official statements. The residents of Ghajar are not in this mood. "Our life is going to become a hell. We have nothing to do with Lebanon", said Najib Khatib, spokesperson for the residents.

It looks like we have another proof that the reality on the ground is different from that created by the UN designers in NY.

A little bit embarrassing, isn’t it?

(translated from original post in french in "Ma Parole!" )

Christians in the Middle East : Where the numbers are growing?

2010-11-22T17:26:00.004+02:00

Since the deadly terrorist attacks against churches in Baghdad, there are a lot of discussions and reports about the plight of the Christian population in the Middle East. While this is definitely the case for almost all of the countries in the Middle East, there is one country where the number of Christians kept growing for the last 62 years. Your guess is correct - this is Israel.

The Christian population In Israel after the establishment of our state was 34.000 people. At the time, most of the Christian population in Israel was concentrated in Jerusalem, Haifa and in the area of Galilee. Among the Christians, the major ethnic group was Arabs, with small Armenian minority in the Old City of Jerusalem, and other small ethnic groups.

In 2010, the Christian population of Israel is 5 times bigger than it was in the 1948 - and reached almost 200.000 people. Arab Christians are still the biggest ethnic group in the Christian population, but since the beginning of the 90s, the Russian-speaking Christian population was also growing significantly. The explanation for this is the wave of the immigration from the former Soviet Union, among which there was a high number of mixed marriages. As the result, many more worshipers are coming to the prayer services and churches reopening their doors.

If there is a place for Christians in the Middle East where they can live like everybody else, enjoy the true freedom of religion and worship in the churches without being threatened, this is Israel. Israel is the true model of coexistence of people coming from different cultures, faiths and religions. By the way, it's not only Christians who enjoy the religious freedom. Different religious groups who are persecuted in other countries of the Middle East, like followers of Baha’i religion in Iran, found a safe refuge in Israel, where they can pray their God and live without threat to their religion and way of life.

Unfortunately, out of fear, or confusion, or I don’t know what, some people are looking at the wrong direction in their search for responsible for the plight of Christians in the Middle East. It’s time to say clear and loud what is the source of this problem and find a solution, before it will become too late.

(translated from original post in french in "Ma Parole!" )

Googletranslating - a new tendancy in blogging?

2010-11-15T23:40:00.003+02:00

Two days ago I found something quite revealing: the blog I am doing in French was fully translated into English! Nobody contacted me about this, I found it by chance on the twitter account of the site called JEWPI - Jewish Press International. The blog has the same appearance as the original blog, you can see by yourself:

Original blog (in French):

http://www.yarongamburg.blogspot.com/

The translated version (in English):

http://translate.google.com/translate?ie=UTF-

8&u=http://www.desinfos.com/spip.php%3Fpage%3Darticle%26id_article%3D21621&sl=fr&tl=en

When I looked closely at theat blog,I saw that in fact this was not a human-made translation, it was Google Translate. However, the conclusion I made out of it is that the blogs by diplomats are something that people are looking for, and they don't care even if it's not high-quality translation.

Food for thought.

Diplomatic blogging in Paris - first steps in PD 2.0 journey

2010-11-06T22:36:00.011+02:00

It's been a long time since I wrote post on this blog. 3 months ago I moved to Paris after being appointed as media advisor to the Israeli embassy in France. So, in addition to all the necessary arrangements you have to do when moving to a new country, I also opened a new blog, this time in French, which became part of my new job. All beginnings are difficult, so I had to take a break from my 2 other blogs, this one and the one in Hebrew. After all, writing for 3 different blogs, in 3 different languages (of which none is your native language...) is not an easy task...

Now I hope to be back on track on all the blogs, and I would like to tell you something about our social media efforts in the embassy, where we put into practice some ideas that were discussed in this blog: http://diplomatstalk.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-work-with-traditional-media.html

I must tell, the first results of my diplomatic blogging were quite up to my expectations. After 3 month of my digital activity in Paris, the link to my blog, called "Ma Parole!", is published on 2 french blogs dealing with Israel and is well-known among the Israel supporters in France. The major target audience of the blog is journalists and the people dealing with news on the Middle East. Therefore, in my meetings with journalists I tell them about my blog and Twitter, and today there are between 10 to 20 journalists and bloggers who follow me on twitter and read my posts. One of the journalists posted his reaction to one of the posts.

One of the most important things I had to think before opening the blog was what does it mean for a diplomat, who is supposed to represent official position, to have a personal blog? If you publish on it only official documents, it would be just like an official website. If you talk there about your personal views, you are not exactly spokesperson of the embassy...

What I realised after 3 months of trial and error, is that as a diplomat you can say a lot more on blog than you could imagine. Using your blog and other social media tools, you could relate to the issues published in the local media that are not of interest to your headquarters, but are important if you want to engage with the local audience. You could tell to the local public about things happening in your country that were not published in the local media. You can help energize your supporters on internet who will help you spread the word about your country.

We have made some other changes in the embassy's public diplomacy 2.0 efforts:

1. We've opened a new website of the Embassy, based on the Wordpress platform, that allows us interactivity with our audience: http://ambisrael.wordpress.com/. After 2 months we've reached 25.000 visits.

2. In addition to my personal twitter, we have opened an official Twitter of the Press Service of the Embassy: http://twitter.com/#!/IsraelPresse

3. Today we have two fan pages on Facebook: one for the Information Service http://www.facebook.com/pages/Paris/Ambassade-dIsrael-en-France/135706818152?ref=ts, and one for the cultural Activities of the Embassy http://www.facebook.com/pages/Paris-France/Departement-culturel-de-lambassade-dIsrael-en-France/359528440501

This separation proves to be very effective. We are planning opening another page for the consular services.

4. Our economic mission is in the process of building a blog that will focus on the economic cooperation between Israel and France.

5. We started to use Youtube in order to present our position: http://ambisrael.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/video-sammy-ravel-le-boycott-illegalimmoralcontreproductif/

We also invited a famous journalist to make an interview with the ambasssador: http://ambisrael.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/video-yves-derai-sentretient-avec-daniel-shek-avant-son-depart-1ere-partie/

Those are first steps. The results are so far encouraging, but we are still in the beginning of the road. Hope to be in the middle of the road in 2-3 months.

Digital Diplomacy - an article in NYT. Have to read it!

2010-07-18T09:55:00.001+03:00

No comments! Just enjoy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/magazine/18web2-0-t.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

How to work with the traditional media using the tools of social media?

2010-06-28T15:13:00.027+03:00

Next month I will start my new diplomatic appointment - media advisor and spokesperson of the Israeli embassy to France.

It's the second time I will work as a spokesperson for the embassy. 10 years ago I did the same job in Moscow. Looks like the same job? Of course, Moscow is not Paris, Russia is not France, however the journalists are journalists everywhere, and the TV, newspapers and radio have much in common. But there is a big, huge, enormous BUT, that changed the world in the last 10 years. It's called social media.

10 years ago there was no Facebook. No Twitter. No Youtube. Even no DailyMotion or Odnoklassniki.ru. And, of course, no other social networks. Blogs were something marginal, and no part of the mass media, anyway.

Today it's all history. Small correction: a history in making, since what we do today with the social media and how social media interacts with the traditional media are things that we learn by the method of error and trial. It's still new for most of us, and it's all about permanent on-the-job training. I've started to reflect on the implications of this change for press-officers in the dimplomatic missions (spokespeople, porte-paroles) - for us, diplomats in the embassies, who do the everyday interaction with the media.

Here are my thoughts on how to work with the traditional media using the tools of new, social, media.
Important note: all these reflections are based on the assumption that you have your communication strategy goals already set.

1. Open Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and Youtube (and yes, purchase video camera if you still don't have one) accounts. Twitter is your channel to talk to everybody, LinkedIn - a channel to talk to the professionals, and Facebook - to talk to your friends. You can and should differentiate your messages on these - or other - networks according to your communication strategy.

For example: on LinkedIn, speak about your embassy economic activities, on Facebook - about your cultural activities, on both - about your country's foreign aid. On Twitter you can talk about everything, and the same goes for Youtube.

2. Social media is not a substitute for personal contact. Keep meeting with journalists, going to eat and drink together, calling them to ask what's new, or to update on things you want them to know. BUT: don't forget to ask them if they tweet or have blog, or Facebook or LinkedIn accounts, and tell them about yours. Get them used to your social media presence, follow them, and make them follow you.

3. When you want to communicate to media your embassy's activities, please don't limit yourself to the old-fashioned practice of sending press-release and asking (or, worse, waiting!) them to publish it. Instead of words, use images. Make video-clip, or attach pictures, or both, that will show what your embassy did or is going to do. Send it to TV, newspapers and radio, but also put it in your social media places.

4. Did you heard the cliche that in the age of social media everybody is a journalist and a movie producer? Well, it's true, and it means also that ... you can do it as well! On the practical level: start presenting your country, your government or embassy in your blog, your Facebook page and so on, in a way you want it to be perceived and known. Of course, you cannot lie or say things that don't exist, but you definitely can and should show the things that are not presented in the media. Remember, that information you give is perceived as less objective since it's official - but for the same reason it's a trusted source of inforation, because governments are perceived to be more accountable than regular users.

5. Engage with the traditional media through social media: Respond to the artcile they write (or broadcast) about your country. If they published something bad and unfair about your country, you don't have to beg them to publish a correction (anyway, you know, they will do it too late, and in the most invisible pat of the newspaper). You just have to put a responce on your social media places and distribute it widely. From here you can understand the importance of expanding your audience.

6. In the age of social media, we can become a news agency. Sometimes the problems with the image of your country begin not at the level of opinion making, but at the very beginning of the news producing process: facts reporting. With the help of the social media you can be the first to report about the event, without distortive and prejudice attitudes of the traditional media. What you need to do is to monitor events in our country and update on them public and media in your mission's hosting country. You have all the chances to report before the news from newsagencies will reach the hosting country. However, to compete with the newsagency you will have to spend more resourses and time, and this brings us back to the issue of communcation strategy goals.

I invite you to tell me what you think about this. Thank you.

US Tweetplomacy

2010-06-28T15:09:00.003+03:00

American diplomacy and the State Department could serve as a good
example of using social media in their work. American embassies were
among the first to open Twitter accounts and use it for professional
goals. The most well-known example of using Twitter by US embassy
happened 4 years ago in Madagaskar during the coup d'etat attempt
against the president of this country. The US embassy sent tweets in
order to refute the rumors that the president of Madagaskar is hiding
at the embassy...

So if you consider opening the twitter account for your embassy, it is
worth checking what the americans are doing. They are definitely
leaders in this area, and they do it almost in every country. Their
twitter accounts could help you understand how to do yours. I am not
saying do exactly what they do. All I want to say is this: learn from
them and do better! Here are some examples from US embassies in
Europe.

US Embassy in Vienna:
http://twitter.com/usmission

US Embassy in Geneva:
http://twitter.com/usmissiongeneva

US Embassy in Warsaw:
http://twitter.com/USEmbassyWarsaw

US Embassy in Sweden:
http://twitter.com/usembassysweden

US Embassy in Prague:
http://twitter.com/USEmbassyPrague

US Embassy in Oslo:
http://twitter.com/usembassyoslo

US Embassy in Italy:
http://twitter.com/AmbasciataUSA

There are many more, just look for them. American diplomats are
already on Twitter.

Twitplomacy - Diplomacy 2.0 on Twitter : We need our Hashtag(s)!

2010-06-08T22:25:00.005+03:00

Diplomats discover Twitter.

This is a fact. And I am not talking about the Ministers or Secretaries of State, like Clinton or Miliband. Because at the end of the day they are politicains, not diplomats.

No, I am talking about the career diplomats, who started their diplomatic work as attaches and second secretaries, for whom diplomacy is not just ground breaking speeches, cocktail parties and all other nice things associated with this profession.

These ordinary diplomats discover Twitter, and this is a worldwide movement. I know this for sure, after being introduced to the new social network of Diplomats: Diplodocus.
I was excited to see there diplomats who mentioned on their personal profiles their Twitter accounts. I immediately put them all on a new list on my Twitter account. I called it Twitplomacy. You are welcome to follow the tweeting diplomats and diplomatic missions with this list, I promise to update it. by the way I also crated a list for my colleagues in the Ministry: Israel Tweetplomacy

Now, I start to think about another way we, the diplomats, can find each other on twitter and discuss common issues. Why not to have hashtag (#) for diplomatic twittering?
Let's start with #twitplomacy. What do you think?

The central message of Season 8 of "24": There is no peace without justice

2010-06-07T12:00:00.010+03:00

Usually I don't watch series. In fact, "24" is the only series I follow from the first season. And not just follow, but became kind of fan. I was trying to find an explanation for this. Yes, I love action, I like movies dealing with politics, diplomacy, international relations. However, all these things you can find in other series or movies. What is particularly good about the "24", and what attracts me the most, is that it always reflects real-life crisis situations and dilemmas. Sometimes, the international background of "24" is not just a reflection, but projection of the real-life tendencies. Of course, like in any movie, many details are exaggerated, stretched and unrealistic. However, this parallel reality of the movie resembles, at times too closely, the reality we live.

Look for the 8th season of "24". The general background (for those who didn't see it) is set during the final phase of peace negotiations between the US President Ms. Allison Taylor and the President Omar Hassan of the fictional Islamic Republic of Kamistan, a moslem country with nuclear ambitions and program. Sounds familiar to you?

The two sides are close to reach the peace agreement that will put an end to the hostilities and wars. However, the situation gets out of control when islamic terrorist from Kamistan kidnap their own President who is perceived by them as a traitor and finally execute by them. Jack Bauer discovers that it was the Russian Government who stood behind this plot in order to thwart the peace process. President Taylor who is also aware of the Russian conspiracy, decides to proceed with the peace conference, joined by the Russians who are also happen to be the co-sponsors of the peace agreement, and have no choice to join it since the Omar Hassan's wife decides to step in and carry the legacy of her husband. However, Jack Bauer, true to his principles and values, continues to uncover the Russian conspiracy, against the decision of the US president who is willing to save the peace agreement.

In one of the most dramatic scenes President Taylor almost shouts to Jack: "But I want peace!", while his responds to it with the equally strong: "And I want justice".

So, what is the message of "24" and Jack Bauer? There is no peace without justice. Peace is important but not at all price. Peace has a value, but it's also a political interest. To achieve peace you have to make compromises, but do you have to betray your principles in order to achieve it? You can reach peace agreement based on lies and cover-ups, but it won't be a just peace. Justice is a value that transcends the interests, and there are no compromises there. You cannot compromise all your principles for peace. Sometimes you have to stand up to your principles. That what Jack Bauer did. That's where president Taylor failed.

She failed because she wanted peace at all price. In this blind pursuit for the peace agreement she betreayed her principles. She wanted engagement but ended up in sheer appeasement and cover-up. She showed weakness and she paid for it.

Is there any message for the present, real, US Administration? In the last two month the word "weakness" associated with the foreigh policies of President Obama were used too often. The most striking example for this tendency you can see in this opinion piece in Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003885.html?sub=AR

To sum up, engagement and peace are important things, both as values and national interests. However, they cannot be reached at all price - because there is a price to this.

Social media for diplomats - practical guide 2.0

2010-06-06T18:25:00.011+03:00

About a year ago I wrote a post explaining basic guidelines on using social media by diplomats (here: http://diplomatstalk.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-diplomats-should-use-social-media.html).
One year later, I would like to update some things and add others. After all, there is nothing like experience…
I will comment about three major tools: Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin.

So why Facebook?

1. More than 400 million users
2. The most significant users traffic, after Google
3. More than 60 languages
4. Popular in non-English speaking countries
5. Enormous potential for Public Diplomacy (at least today, because who knows what we’ll have in the future!)

Basic steps for working with Facebook

There are three Facebook page types for organizations: Fan page, Group or Cause. The fan page is most commonly used for organizations. It’s recommended to set up a personal page prior to opening the mission’s official fan page. Make yourself familiar with how Facebook works.
Choose a person who is effective communicator or writer. If s/he needs a training ask your HQ to provide it!
Define your risk plan: how you respond to negative comments and determine what is acceptable and what is not
Your page should be branded as official site, in order to differentiate between you and others appearing on your behalf.
Engage at appropriate times and respond quickly. Provide your updates on regular basis and often. Monitoring should be done on the daily basis. Any inappropriate postings should be removed immediately.
It’s recommended to include in the Info section the following statement: “This page is operated by the embassy of Israel in … Hate materials, obscenities, inappropriate photos will not be tolerated and person/s who published such materials will be blocked from this page”.
Security: discuss with the security officer different aspects of physical security and information security.

How to promote your Facebook page

Manage the page in the language of your country – there could be exceptions, but this is the general rule. Update the page at least 4-5 times a week. 3. Updates should be about the activity of your mission and related to your country of destination. It must be important to your local audience. You could update on general matters as well, but keep in mind the first part of this recommendation!
In all your documents include the FB address: official letters, email signatures of all the employees, visit cards. Promote your FB page through the bilateral Chambers of Commerce, Friendship Associations, and your expats communities organizations – they also use social media!
Create bloggers coalitions – they will spread the word better than anybody else. And you will need them for other things too! Check the most popular portals, blogs, or FB pages in your country of destination, learn about what they write and publish your comments with links to your FB page and/or website.
Last, but not least: MAKE YOUR FACEBOOK LINK VISIBLE ON YOUR MISSION”S WEBSITE!

Twitter gets Twinfluence

In the last 12 months Twitter become very popular in the diplomatic community throughout the world. Many ministries of foreign affairs have their pages, many diplomatic missions did the same. However many diplomats that I know are still hesitant about opening it and using it. So first of all: Personal account is better than mission’s account. You should both, but remember that as a person you can reach much more followers and engage with them better in comparison to official profile of your mission.
Update daily, at least 3 times a day. In emergency/crisis situation update once every hour, and more…
Retweet posts, mention other twitterers and respond to messages. In emergency/crisis situation use Hashtags: #
Create lists in order to monitor information and use Tweetdeck to monitor what’s happening. During the Haiti humanitarian operation we used Twitter to get information about the open airports for rescue team landing.
And of course, publish links to video, photos or posts. Don’t forget to check your Twitter effectiveness with Twinfluence.

A few words about LinkedIn for diplomats

Open your personal account and describe your professional profile. Look at the groups that are of professional interest to you. Connect your Twitter account to LinkedIn.
As a year ago, my conclusion about LinkedIn is the same: diplomats should use it for personal and professional networking. I don’t think mission’s profile or ministry’s profile must appear on LinkedIn, at least not yet. I believe that economic and humanitarian cooperation could be done through LinkedIn groups, and diplomats can contribute to it a lot.

Flotilla Choir presents: We Con the World

2010-06-04T12:02:00.002+03:00

This is the way the new public diplomacy works: citizens engage in public diplomacy. It's to early to know how successful they are, but clearly they are doing better than the diplomats!

Flotilla Choir presents: "We Con The World"

OECD abd Mashav hold join workshop on Development Communication

2010-06-02T00:16:00.005+03:00

Today I had an opportunity to talk to a group of Development Communication specialists from countries-members in OECD. We were talking about potential of social media in promoting the cause of Development goals and international aid awareness (read more about the agenda here:http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/16/45155914.pdf) , something that is defined by some experts as Web2forDev (http://www.web2fordev.net/)

No doubt Development 2.0 is gaining the moment. Participants from all the countries shared their experience with social media. It's true that the UK's representative, Julia Chandler from DFID, impressed al of us with the systematic and advanced approach towards integrating social media tools in the Development communication. However, the most important lesson for me was that all the participants speak the same "digital" language. May be because the average age in the group was closer to 30 than 50....

Here is my PP presentation at the seminar:
http://www.linkedin.com/osview/canvas?_ch_page_id=1&_ch_panel_id=1&_ch_app_id=15960540&_applicationId=1200&_ownerId=23930994&osUrlHash=o5En&appParams=%7B%22from%22%3A%22home_view%22%2C%22view%22%3A%22canvas%22%2C%22page%22%3A%22owner_slideshows%22%7D

You can see also this interviews with Seminar's participant:

This is how we cause diplomats to go digital...

2010-05-21T16:20:00.001+03:00

During the Digital Diplomacy training program we asked particpants to think how they can explain the idea of Digital Diplomacy to others. Look at one of the most successful videos from Youtube workshop. starring: Shmuel Ben-Shmuel, head of Interfaith Dialogue Department, and Jeremy Issasckarov, former Deputy Ambassador to Washington.

What is Gov 2.0? (A webcast presented by Tim O'Reilly)

2010-05-21T14:09:00.000+03:00

Media sociaux - sauveur de la démocratie moderne?

2010-05-10T10:35:00.002+03:00

A priori, cette expression peut apparaitre trop exagérée et pompeuse.

Est’ ce que c’est possible que la technologie devienne si importante pour le système politique et la société moderne en général ? Pour comprendre la connexion entre les media sociaux et le système démocratique regardons les caractéristiques principales des media sociaux. Tous les outils des media sociaux sont interactifs, ouverts et transparents pour tous. Tous les participants des media sociaux sont égaux et il n’y a pas de hiérarchie. Chaque internaute peut ajouter le contenu et réagir au contenu des autres participants.

D’un autre cote, les media sociaux deviennent les outils pour les gouvernements : les services publics peuvent être donnés sur internet. C’est la raison pour laquelle les gouvernements des pays démocratiques vont utiliser les media sociaux pour améliorer la participation civile dans les affaires publiques. Les pays qui ont peur de la participation civile, limitent l’accès a Internet et espèrent que ca les sauvera. Qui peut savoir ?

Indian diplomats can't work with social media

2010-05-09T17:26:00.003+03:00

I must tell you, I was really upset when I read the following article in "Hindustan Times"! Diplomats and diplomacy should use the new way of communication. Necessary security measures must be taken, of course, but closing this channel comletely - it's too much!

"Indian diplomats now cannot open a Facebook account, use external e-mail services, or write blogs, thanks to new rules and much stricter firewalls aimed at preventing cyber attacks and leakage of classified information.

Over the past eight months, the Ministry of External Affairs has been overhauling its computer network security, putting up layers of barriers against intrusions into the network, officials associated with cyber security said."

Full article here:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/No-blogging-social-networking-for-Indian-diplomats/Article1-376183.aspx

Presentation on Diplomacy 2.0 at the Tel Aviv University

2010-04-15T17:33:00.006+03:00

On April 13, Ilan Sztulman, deputy director of Public Diplomacy department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and myself gave a presentation and answered questions from the audience at the Tel Aviv University, at the event organized by Internet Research center of Netvision 013.
Thank you to Eli Hacohen who organized the event and to the participants for their interest and questions.

The People and Computers on-line newspaper published an article about the event (hebrew). Read here:
http://www.thepeople.co.il/_DailyMaily/ItemClean.asp?ArticleID=31700&Vol=1141&SearchParam=&CategoryID=72

My presentation at Gov 2.0 O'Reilly on-line conference

2010-03-31T10:50:00.003+03:00

On March 11, I took part in on-line conference organized by O'Reilly company. The goal of the conference was to feature Gov 2.0 projects and experiences in 4 countries: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and Israel, and also the social media work of US Peace Institute. I presented the Israel experience.

This kind of information exchange is important not onlu because we learn from each other, but also because we meet people around the globe who deal with the issues of Gov 2.0. So, contect is the king, but connection rules, as my good friend Alon Gilad likes to say.

The recording of the event is now available. To play it back, simply click on the link below.https://oreilly.connectsolutions.com/p81093334/ Please note that clicking on this link will launch the AdobeConnect Pro viewer. It may take a few moments to load. Once play back begins, you can navigate through the various presentations and search the chat room. The links in thepresentation are live.

You can also download all of our speakers' presentation slides at:
http://en.oreilly.com/gov2-international/public/schedule/proceedings

And the full chat transcript here: http://gov20conference.pbworks.com/

Happy Passover to everybody!

Meeting with high school students

2010-03-22T13:50:00.004+02:00

Last week I gave presentation about digital diplomacy to the group of high-school students, about 35 individuals.

And I must tell you this: high-school students are the best audience for this topic. Not diplomats, not branding specialist, not Web 2.0 evangelists. High-school students - because they don't have to believe in social media, they don't have to become social media professionals. They just live in social media.

Unlike other groups I meet with, I didn't asked them how many have Facebook page, because all of them have. I asked them what other networks they use and whether they use blogs. More than half of them use Myspace and Twitter, and others participate in diverse networks. It was interesting to see that only two of them write blogs.

Unlike other groups, including the diplomats from my ministry, the high-school students understand exactly the potential of digital diplomacy.

They are already in fact digital citizens. It's not a big deal for them to become digital diplomats.

Israeli diplomats go to "Better Place"

2010-03-19T18:08:00.013+02:00

Last week I participated in the economic diplomacy training program organized for Israeli diplomats who go to their diplomatic postings this summer.

It's already become a cliche that economic diplomacy, like public diplomacy or country branding, has become one of the pillars of modern diplomacy. So the diplomats visit companies, meet with businessmen, hear lectures from heads of economic organizations, like Israel Bank, Export Institute and others.

However, when you come to an enterprise that is not just another company, but the one that dares to change the whole fabrics of modern society - you are not just learning something new. You get inspired.

This way we felt at the Demonstration Center of "Better Place", the company of the Israeli entrepreneur Shai Agassi, who developed the idea of 100% electric car. A car that will dramatically reduce oil-dependence, end air pollution, and will make the world quieter and ... a better place!

Here are some pictures from our visit there and what is especially important, the link to the company. Israel can become the first country in the world that will create national infrastructure for electric vehicles. We, as diplomats, understand well the importance of world where oil dependence is reduced...

Receiving driving permissions at the reception desk of Better Place

Instructor at Better Place explains about the electric vehicle, while loading it with energy

Better Place: http://www.betterplace.com/

Government 2.0 must be fun

2010-03-12T12:03:00.005+02:00

In the last days there was an interesting and really fascinationg discussion about the exact definition of Government 2.0, that took place on Govloop, social netwotk of american government (http://www.govloop.com/group/government20club)

I feel that with all our effort to rationalize the contribution of Gov 2.0 to citizens and to government itself, we might forget one important, and in my eyes central element of Web 2.0 - that it's fun! I think that all things based on Web 2.0, including Gov 2.0, are fun. After all, This is social media - and people come to Web 2.0 to communicate because it's fun. They also come to Web 2.0 for advice, information, service and so on - but they are attracted into it because it looks attractive, light and funny. The Gov 2.0, therefore, must include this element. It will attract more people to dialogue and interaction. Governments are perceived as very "serious" and "heavy", so the element of fun must be there as well.

May be the word "fun" looks too amateur and simplistic, but as a practitioner of Gov 2.0 in the last two years I believe it's one of the key elements for Gov 2.0 success.
After all, the work we make will be more interesting and productive - if it's fun.

The twitter of British Foreign Ministry dedicated for british citizens abroad could serve as a good example of what I say: http://twitter.com/britishabroad

Yaron

New Diplomatic Cadet program - new Facebook page

2010-02-28T15:57:00.003+02:00

Last week the Training Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs opened a new Cadet training program.

On the second day of the program the cadets opened a fan page on Facebook - another evidence that this generation of diplomats are digital natives.

In 7 days, they already have more than 300 fans, and say they are going to tell us about what they study, and also answer questions of those who are interested in a diplomatic career. They also promise to answer questions in English, French and Russian.

Visit here:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Jerusalem-Israel/Israeli-Diplomatic-Cadet-Course-2010-qwrs-wrym-mzwr-k/10150096924860381?ref=nf

Gov 2.0 International: Global Innovation Meeting Local Challenges

2010-02-19T18:05:00.002+02:00

At this Gov 2.0 Online Conference, you'll hear about open government efforts in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Israel. The speakers will share stories and lessons learned, and answer your questions.

I was invited by the organizers to present the Israeli experience in Gov 2.o.

I invite everybody to join the conference - register now:

http://en.oreilly.com/gov2-international

Government social networks - comparative analysis

2010-02-15T12:10:00.024+02:00

In the last two years we've seen an uprecedented growth of Gov2.0. One of the most vivid expressions of the collaboration and sharing by governments through the tools of Web 2.0 were social networks of government employees and communities. I am talking about special type of government network that are open for all Internet-users, and in principle, anyone who is interested in Government 2.0 can join these networks.

Today there are 3 networks of the national governments:
American government community Govloop,

Australian public servants and community OZloop,

and Israel public sector social network Ovdeimedina.

Probably, there are more such networks, and if you happen to know them, let me know. But in this post I will relate only to the above-mentioned networks.

Govloop

It was the first soical network of any national government. It was created in 2008, and since then succeded to become a real phenomenon of Gov2.0 in the US and abroad. It created a lot of excitement in the web 2.0 community, and served as an inspiration for other such networks.

Today there are more than 24.000 members in Govloop and 670 different groups. The groups represented on this network are agency or interest-based. The biggest and the most active group is "Government 2.0 Club", with more than 1300 members. Among other active groups with membership of 400 members and more are: Communication Best Practices, Acquisition 2.0, Twitterati, Knowledge Management in Government and many others. Agency-based groups are in general less active, and among the leading groups are State Department, Homeland Security and Department of Defense.

Another interesting thing about Govloop, is that it encouraged government employees from other countries to open national groups on the network. That's why we have there Government 2.0 Australian, Govloop Canada, Brazilian Government 2.0, Government of Israel 2.0 groups.

Govloop is based on Ning platform like other two networks I discuss.

OZloop

Australian public servants social network was created on August 2009. It has 140 members and 17 groups. The most active group is Australian Public Service with 20 members. The territory based groups are still to be expanded.

OvdeiMedina

Israel Public Sector social network, was created also in August 201o. It has very decent membership numbers - 127 people, and 12 groups. The most active groups are agency based: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Israel Police. Another active group is dealing with Public Diplomacy.

Network creators - great minds think alike...

Govloop was created by Steve Ressler who worked for the US Department of Homeland Security. OZloop was created by Steve Davies from the Australian Taxation Office. I created Israeli network with my good friend Alex Gafni from Israel Police.

When I discovered the Australian network, I was surprised to see that it was created at the same time as Israel's... So may be not all of us are great minds, but Gov2.0 is definitely in the air!

Training Departments as pioneers of Gov2.0

2010-02-12T15:26:00.010+02:00

From my experience in the Training department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the last two years, I learned that Training Departments could become agents of change regarding Gov2.0 revolution. They can literally push the organizations towards the adoption of the Web 2.0 tools, even without the high-level desicion on such policies. This adoption will have its limits. However, the input of the Training Departments can comletely change the dynamic of the pace of Gov 2.0 within the Government.

So, why the Training Department can bring about this change? First, the role of training in modern organizations, government or private sector, is widely acknowledged. In today's world of beta state, of on-going transformation and renewal, training also became beta-state. The technologies change, so does the working environment, and if we want to be up to all these challenges - we should train, all the time.

Our first step was to open a new course "Digital Diplomacy in the age of Social Media". The course was open to all the employees of the Ministry, kind of enriching training program. Because social networks and blogs are very popular toplics these days, the registration for the course was much over the expectations. We've opened the course with more than 30 people - twice the number we planned originally.

It was important to make the course as interesting and impressive as possible (you can see the program of the course here: http://digitaldiplomacy.blogspot.com/2009/11/digital-diplomacy-program-of-course.html). Another goal of the program was to highlight the potential of Web 2.0 for diplomatic work. And last, not least, we wanted to encourage discussion among the participants about the best ways for adoption the web 2.0 in the ministry.

Did it work? The course ended on January 26. On February 1 we already started another program - for the Media Department of the Ministry. On February 25 we'll organize the social media workshop for the Center of International Cooperation of the Ministry. We are scheduling the same program for the European Department. And many other employees asked to put their names on the waiting list for the next program.

In addition to the training programs, we also suggested our involvement in different recruitment projects. For example, we helped the Legal Department of the Ministry to recruit candidates through the social networks. Our purpose was to show how web 2.0 can be a useful tool in different areas of Ministry's work. You can read about this experience in a previous post.
We also proposed our program as a model for Training Departments in other ministries.

However, this dynamic has its limits. Our training program focuses on two topics: why Gov2.0 is so important and how we can use tools of social media. With all due respect to "How", it's also important to teach and train about the "what". Defining the "whats" of any organization belongs to the hegh-level management. Therefore, in order to successfully and fully adopt Gov 2.0 in any organization, there must be an executive decision. But this decision is more plausible after some of the high-ranking officials participated in the training programs...

MASHAV 2.0 - Israel Center for International Cooperation goes digital

2010-01-27T14:45:00.006+02:00

Israel Center for International Cooperation (MASHAV, acronym in Hebrew) is a division in Israel's Foreign Ministry, and functions as a national Foreign Aid Agency. Since its creation in 1958, MASHAV has trained about 250,000 people from 140 countries, in Israel and in developing countries, providing training in a variety of areas, including agriculture, public health and medical programs, community development, integrated rural regional development and other areas.

Therefore, it was only natural for international agency like MASHAV to open up for social media. A year ago MASHAV created a fan page on Facebook - and it was the first fan page by the Israel's Foreign Ministry. Today MASHAV has more than 700 fans on facebook, but the number is less important than the profile of the fans. Many of them are people all around the world who participated in the Training Programs of MASHAV, and now they can keep in touch and be updated about the new programs, or raise ideas for new cooperation projects.

Another important achievement of this fan page was that it allowed for people who never visited Israel to learn about its experience in various areas of development. Among the fans of MASHAV we even have people from Moslem countries that don't have dplomatic ties with Israel. For the nation of Israel, who strives for recognition and good relationship with the Moslem world, this is in itself a significamt step.

You can visit Facebook page of MASHAV: http://www.facebook.com/#/pages/Jerusalem-Israel/MASHAV-Israel-Center-for-International-Cooperation/51129389672?v=wall&ref=ts

Encouraged by the success of their Facebook page, Mashav expanded its interaction thfough the social media and opened Twitter account:
http://twitter.com/MASHAVisrael

The account was opened four months ago. Indeed, MASHAV has only 40 people following it, but... once again, the number is not everything. Look who are among MASHAV's twitter followers: UN, UNDP, OECD, FAO, USAID, ClintonNews, to name a few. With followers like these you can feel connected to the world...

Today Mashav has also its official blog: http://mashavdevelopmentnews.blogspot.com/,
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/43563922@N03/, and they feel its only a beginning of the digital journey...

How Governments should recruit new employees?

2010-01-21T23:30:00.007+02:00

The answer is simple - through the Social Web.

Look what happened two weeks ago:

Our Ministry's Legal department published on the official website of the Ministry and on the site of Civil Service Commision an announcement about open tender for recrtuiting lawyers.

They had only 2 weeks deadline, and no option for newspaper ad. I suggested to publish the tender through social media, and they Oked. They had no choice...

Then it was just a matter of two hours effort. With the help of two of my colleagues who are, like me, fans of Web 2.0, we put the announcement on the forums and groups run by lawyers for lawyers - on Cafe the Marker, Nana 10, Tapuz, groups on facebook and LinkedIn. What took more time, were some groups that required approval for joining. But after the approval that took 3-4 days, the information was placed there as well.

In 10 days since we started this "web 2.0 recruitment campaign", we had hundreds of applicants, and were over-flooded with the phone calls and faxes.

Some Insights:

1. In order to make it fast, organizations must have a presence in the social media. The more networks you have - the better. It doesn't mean that an organization should open their pages/profiles on all networks, but it should encourage its employees to do that.

2. The power of the social networks is not just in the big numbers - but also in small groups. Because we were able to focus our outreach, we targeted specific group, and received only applications that were relevant.

3. The whole operation cost was zero.

4. The response of the applicants was immediate.

5. We posted the announcement on the social network pages of groups or organizations, for example Israel Bar Association on Linked-In. Organizations that don't have social media presence are loosing potential clients that need quick answers in no time. For the same reasons organizations that require approval before allowing to post on their pages, must approve quickly, otherwise they also become irrelevant.

Yaron

Social Media training program - January Update

2010-01-13T15:26:00.003+02:00

The training program "Diplomacy in the age of Social Media", organized by the Training Department of the Israel MFA, started on November 2009, and we have only 2 meetings ahead of us. It's clear already now: the program was a real success. And we could measure it not only by the participants improved skills in using Social Media.

More than anything else, what we achieved in the course was the awareness of the participants, coming mainly from the generation of baby-boomers, to the need of going digital. Digital diplomats is not anymore a sci-fi for them, but something that could be done not in a life-time - 40 academic hours are quite enough!

Since many participants are experienced diplomats, and some of them are in senior positions in the Ministry, the whole idea of Diplomacy 2.0 and Government 2.0 now has more supporters. The bottom-up movement of Diplomacy 2.0 initiative will win gradually more supporters on all the levels, and the transformation will come inevitably. This is how we, evangelists of Social Media in government, should work.

See some pictures in the slideshow (below), taken on January 12, featuring the Youtube worksop and the presentation of Steve Ressler, founder of Govloop (US Government social network) who joined us through video-conference from Florida. He actually already wrote post about the video-conference:
http://www.govloop.com/profiles/blogs/thoughts-on-gov-20-and-israel?xg_source=activity

The program of our course could be reached here:
http://digitaldiplomacy.blogspot.com/2009/11/digital-diplomacy-program-of-course.html

We could and should go digital - it's easy and fun!

Yaron

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Israel Defense Forces hold a joint training program

2009-12-28T11:16:00.007+02:00

Last week, on December 20-24, Israel MFA and IDF hold a joint training seminar under the title: "Diplomatic aspects of Political-Military Cooperation".

The program was the first of its kind: the participants, as well as the lecturers, came from the two organizations. The goal of the program was to improve the mutual understanding of the ways the two bodies operate and to see how the cooperation between them could be facilitated on the wide range of issues. Among the issues discussed was the operation in emergency situations, working with the media, policy planning and others.

You could read more about the program here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1261364487721&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I was one of the coordinators of the program, and also had the chance to make a presentaion about the idea of Government 2.0. Never miss a chance to spread the gospel of Digital Government...

Happy Holidays to everybody!

Is Gov 2.0 just another passing fad?

2009-12-06T07:25:00.000+02:00

Very good article about the 2009 developments of Government 2.0 in US.

http://fcw.com/Articles/2009/12/07/FEAT-Gov-2dot0.aspx?p=1

Cours de formation aux Media Sociaux au Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres

2009-11-26T16:14:00.001+02:00

La semaine derniere, le Departement de Formation du Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres israelien a inaugure un nouveau cours : « Diplomatie a l’age des Media Sociaux »

Ouvrir un cours special centre sur les Media Sociaux est un tout premier pas, non seulement pour notre ministere mais aussi pour tout le secteur public israelien.
Le but principal de ce programme est la formation des diplomates a l’utilisation des outils propres aux media sociaux. Le cours comprend trois parties :
1. Connaissances de base est les outils fondamentaux propres aux Media Sociaux– reseaux sociaux, blogs, wikis, etc.
2. Revue d’ examples de Gouvernment 2.0 et Diplomatie 2.0 en Israel et dans le monde.
3. exercices pratiques sur l’usage des outils propres aux Media Sociaux dans le travail diplomatique.
Je vous tiendrai au courant quant aux prochaines rencontres sur mon blog et Twitter

Social Media training in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

2009-11-21T18:11:00.006+02:00

Last week the training department of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs opened the new course: "Diplomacy in the age of Social Media".

It's the first time not just in our Ministry, but in the Israel public sector in general, that there is a special training program dealing with social media skills.

The major goal of this program is to train the diplomats to use the tools of social media in their work. The course includes three parts:
- basic knowledge and skills in social media, including social networks, blogging, wikis,
- review of the best practices of Government 2.0 and Diplomacy 2.0 in Israel and in the world
- practical exercices and sumulation of social media use in diplomatic work.

I'll update more on the meetings of the course (scheduled once a week), here and on twitter.

US embassy in China reaches out to citizens through social networks

2009-11-20T06:58:00.001+02:00

Look here:
http://ow.ly/Dvgn

This is the essence of what the diplomats stationes on the host countries should when they plan public diploamcy through social media tools.

Diplomacy 2.0 - the Israel experience

2009-11-13T10:48:00.003+02:00

Here is the PP presentation, about the use of Web 2.0 tools by Israeli diplomats, since 2004.

There are also some tips on how to work with social media.

http://ovdeimedina.ning.com/group/web20/forum/topics/short-pp-presentation-on

EuroMed Training of Public Administration - notes from Rome conference

2009-11-03T11:30:00.025+02:00

Last week (October 27-28) I represented our Ministry's Training Bureau in the Second Meeting of the EMPTA Network - the network of representatives from Public Administration Instituitions in the Euro-Mediterranean area. The conference was held in the Scuola Superiore della Pubblica Amministrazione, Rome http://www.sspa.it/ (below see a symbol of the school).

The conference was a real success. First of all, the fact that the representatives coming from countries which don't have diplomatic relations, sit around the table and talk to each other - is an achievement in itself. There were no discussions of political situation - just the dialogue about the issues important to all of us - in Israel, Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, and of course our European neighbours.

We were discussing the skills and competencies that are necessary for all public servants in our area. Despite the differences in our cultures, in our backgrounds and our political systems - the conclusion was that we have many things in common, and we could share our knowledge to help each other to define best training practices for the public servants. The description of the conference is here http://www.sspa.it/index.php?mod=pagina&id=1717,

and its program here: http://www.sspa.it/share/pagine/1717/EN-Programme%20Euromed_26_10_09.pdf

The EMPTA network has been launched 5 years ago, and succeeded in creating commitment among its members to work towards defining contents of a common training pathway for civil servants. Moreover, the network members expressed their interest in creating training course for senior civil servants. The special Scientific Committee meeting was held at the end of the conference to discuss the program of the training seminar for public servants from EuroMed area.

The central point in the presentation I've made during the Roundtable "Common Elements for leadership training in the Euro-Mediterranean area" was the digital aspect of the public servant competencies. One of my proposals dealt with creating social network for the members of the EMPTA network. In the working group of the conference I reiterated this idea, stressing the importance of the Web 2.0 outreach by public administration to the young generation. It was nice to hear that other participants in the conference expressed their support of this idea.

No doubt, there is a lot of work ahead of the EMPTA network. The cultural, institutional and language difference make the dialogue more difficult. The political situation in the area is volatile, and as one of the european participants put it: "We must be very realistic about what we could and what we couldn't achieve. It's still unrealistic to see the exchange of public servants between Israel and many of its arab neighbours".

However, we must be optimistic and do what we can. We should show good examples of the regional cooperation: those that already accomplished thier goals, and those that are to be implemented. We should feature the positive examples, and there is nothing wrong about it. For too long time, too many people were focusing on bad experiences...

The conference was a success thanks to a wonderful organizational work done by SSPA and EIPA. The director of SSPA, Valeria Termini, director of International Relations Office, Stefano Pizzicannella, Sarlo Santoro and Dominique Bourdenet from SSPA, Javier Cano, Stephanie Horel and Monica Casares from EIPA - Thank you all!

And of course, last but not least, another reason for the conference success - the city of Rome itself... The weather, the food, the athmosphere...

Here are some pictures from the conference:

with Valeria Termini, Director of SSPA

with Hans Kunsmann, Director for European Affairs in BAKOV

tips on social media outreach by governments

2009-10-22T23:12:00.002+02:00

Here is a link to the wonderful post in GovLoop about using the social media tools in the right way:

http://www.govloop.com/profiles/blogs/military-and-government

Future Diplomats and the Future of Diplomacy

2009-10-12T20:08:00.004+02:00

The following link leads to an intersting article by Ernst Sucharipa, Director of the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna. http://campus.diplomacy.edu/lms/pool/BD%20materials/Sucharipa.htm

The article was written a couple of years ago, but many conclusions are even more relevant today.

There are two points that I'd like to bring to your attention - one talks about the transformation in information sharing between the diplomats and the institutional consequenses of this change, the other deals with the characteristics of a future diplomat/

1. Information sharing"

"The introduction of Intranet-systems has brought about most important changes for the diplomatic service. Among them:
- direct contacts between all officers, without the need for prior authorization, to get a message, an inquiry, an information note out or to get it received. The welcome results are higher motivation, no loss of time and greater sense of responsibility among younger colleagues;
- development of an informal reporting style;
- teamwork: officers can – independently from their geographic location – work together on a report to the minister, a draft statement, a position paper. The strict delineation between central authority and missions abroad is slowly vanishing;
- ministerial structures and lines of command at missions are being redefined, flatter authority, more delegation of responsibility are necessary by-products;
- introduction of task-oriented structures independent of the physical location of the diplomats involved: limited and geographically dispersed experience or academic background in particular areas (e.g. international law) can more easily be pooled together electronically, thus also creating incentives for the continuous upkeep of specialisation (particularly important for smaller services);
- the introduction of Intranet systems leads to flatter lines of authority and increased possibilities for team working. Task-oriented organisation will change the relationship between the ministry and missions abroad;
- missions ought to be better integrated into the overall structure of the ministry, including decision making;
- integrated resource management needs to preserve the standard functions of missions abroad in relation to their geographic location and combine these functions with new tasks relating to the available expertise in individual missions, which can be employed for specific projects."

2. Characteristics of diplomats:

"What then constitutes the ideal ”new age” diplomat? I think a thorough mixture of traditional and not so traditional characteristics:
· a pluridisciplinary education;
· linguistic skills;
· patience to listen and observe;
· proficiency in intercultural communication;
· sensitivity to socio-cultural differences;
· feeling comfortable with the latest communications technologies;
· ability to perform at ease in public;
· free of elitism;
· service orientation;
· a high level of tolerance;
· neither a ”softie” nor the ”elbow type”;
· readiness for life-long learning, mid career training;
· stress resistance, coolness in crises;
· management skills;
· ability to work in teams; collaborator instead of competitor;
· a keen interest in global issues."

How you do you like this definition: "Free of elitism"? I do...

New social network for public sector employees in Israel - Diary 1

2009-08-29T09:06:00.003+03:00

One month ago me and my good friend Alex Gafni created the new social network for public sector employees in Israel. The example for us was the american government network GovLoop that was created one year ago.

After one month of activity we have 40 members and 10 groups, most of them created by two of us. So far this network's activities are based on our enthusiasm. It could be expected that not everybody will jump into active participation. So we will keep doing it, until we'll become a fashion first, and later - a tool for networking and inforamtio n sharing. And this will happen sooner than we think...

public diplomacy in multi-ethnic environment

2009-08-01T22:48:00.006+03:00

One of the important components of public diplomacy - in the past, in the future, and to even greater degree, in the future - is engagement with different ethnic groups in the host country/city. As public diplomacy strategy requires identification of groups and subgroups as target audiences, in order to try and influence them, the multuethnic environment provides good definition of such groups. The modern day communication, including social media, could serve as a tool for broa outreach effort as opposed to the limired outreach to formal heads of the ethnic groups if they exist.

For many years diplomats were aware of the importance of leveraging the influence of ethnic groups. The ethnic communities that originated in the country of a diplomat were obvious and central targets in an effort to improve the image the country they represent inthe host country. Thus, for example, Italian Americans wanted to help their country of origin on US soil, and of course Jewish Americans are involved in promoting Israel's interests. No doubt, the nationals of your country that live in the countries were you work as a diplomat, could be important facilitators in promoting interests of their home country.

However, the whole idea is to engage with other ethnic groups. This presents considerable challenge for diplomats as the language, the culture and codes of conduct of these groups could differ from those of the country they now live.

It is easier to bring examples from personal experience. During my post in LA, I saw first hand the importance of this dimension of public diplomacy. Our involvement with the communities from Latin American or Asian countries was always accepted as the right thing, and even gave some exposure in the media: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/07/local/me-asiajews7

And why will we see more of that multi-ethnic environment, and not only in LA? Just look at the migration of people from country to country. Wherever you go in the West, you will find this phenomenon.

Two more things to mention - first, like everything in diplomacy, the engagement with ethnic groups requires higher level of sensitivity and deliberation. Not always it is possible to engage with the group if your country is in a state of animosity with the country of origin. Second, the real and effective engagement of the diplomat with the ethnic groups is possible in democracies. In authoritarian or limited democracies this kind og engagement is less effective and limited in scope, and even could be perceived by local authorities as subversive activity.

how social networks help in recruiting young diplomats?

2009-07-12T22:05:00.007+03:00

It is already common knowledge that social media became a tool in recruitment process in the private sector.
I would like to bring to oyur attention our experiment with social media (forum in one of the most popular israel's websites TAPUZ ("orange") whan dealing with the candidates to the new cadet course that will start next year.
The forum started without our previous knowledge or involvement. We found it accidentally, but immediately started to engage with the candidates sharing information about the diplomatic service in general, about the selection process and encouraging them to contact us directly when the questions were too specific or private.
It's not that all the participants respected the rules of civilized dialogue... it is not that we could just give the candidates all the questions and aswers in the written test... But the responces were very positive and encouraging and most of them mentioned that we helped them to understand better the whole process and even make decision. Most of the information we provided on the forum exists on the ministry's website, but on forum the very delivery of the information and the specification of it to the individual cases made the whole difference.
Those of you who read hebrew can visit the forum:
http://sc.tapuz.co.il/communa-29928-0-.htm

Our experiment evgen got praise from local media for the "successful e-government availablity to the public"...

The tool is hihgly recommended for all diplomatic recruitments.

Tyranny's new nightmare: Twitter

2009-06-25T18:25:00.002+03:00

Good article by LA Times journalist Tim Rutten
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oe-rutten24-2009jun24,0,4671617.column

US Under Secretary of State on Public Diplomacy

2009-06-12T15:52:00.001+03:00

Everybody should listen to it...
And act accordingly.

http://www.state.gov/r/remarks/124640.htm

How diplomats should use the social media - practical guide

2009-04-26T23:45:00.012+03:00

Let's say you are assigned to a new diplomatic position abroad. Your responsibilities include public relations, or media, or both. What is even more important - you've decided to engage with the new world of social media which you see as a useful tool in your job.

I would like to suggest a few possible guidelines on how you can use social media. The tips Iprovide are based on my personal and work experience with the social networks. If you already have experimented with it, please see this post as an invitation for open discussion on the topic.

1. Social media is a useful tool, not an end in itself, for your proffesional puproses. Therefore, the first task is to decide who is your audience and what are its characteristics. It could be people of certain age group, it could be students, it could be your colleagues from local diplomatic corps, it could be an ethnic group, it could be anything you think is important for your country and your mission. You should be very specific when identifying the audience. At the same time, remember that the social media, because of its "internet nature", is an open sourse, and anybody can see your messages, so the potential scope of your outreach is far beyond your planning. So are the possibilities of backlash in case you add there some sensitive or incorrect materials.

2. Assign one of your local employees (or more than one - if you can afford!) who will be dealing with the social media.If you are serious about your engagement with social media, you should make sure it's updated and checked on the dayly and hourly basis. Social media is about your presense there. Keep inmind that if you are not there - somebody else's posts/blogs/pictures will be impacting the audience.

3. The next important task is to define the code of conduct in dealing with social networks. Some Ministries of Foreign Affairs already started to think on the issue, but if you don't have something written and approved, take as your pointf departure the code of conduct you apply in the real world and adopt it to the virtual one. You will see that it is all about common sense. It is obvious and goeswithout saying that as a diplomat or an employee in a diplomatic mission you should act in certain way and have some limitations - apply them accordingly in the social media environment.
Moshe Dayan, Israel's defense minister, was asked onceby a journalist what does he think on the possibility of another war. He said that as a defense minister he can answer the question. So the journalis asked what does he think as a private citizen. On that he replied: "As a private citizen I am a minister of defense". The lesson: nothing is private when you represent the government.

4. Local staff could and should be your facilitator in dealing with local audiences through the social networks. See if they are using social networks and try to engage them in spreading the word about the mission website, facebook page or blog. If you feel thay are not interested in this, at least give them the"red lines" based on code of conduct that was mentioned above. Even if at the first glanse this suggestion looks to you "non-democratic", think that there is something non-democratic in working in any organization. After all, many private companies defined policy on the use of the social media by the employees. They want employees to be there, but define rules and code of conduct. Examples: IBM, Sun Microsystems, and many others (see Larry Weber's "Marketing to the Social Web": http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marketing-Social-Web-Customer-Communities/dp/0470124172)

By the way, you can read more about this and other useful insights onusing the local staff here:
http://publicdiplomacymagazine.com/public-diplomacy-in-practice/public-diplomacy-and-local-staff-%e2%80%93-the-cornerstone-of-long-term-relationship-building/

5. Facebook could be used in many ways. First of all, open your private page, and invite your friends from your own country to join. You will see that some of them could have interesting and helpful connections in a country of your mission. When you meet local counterparts ask them if they are on facebook. If yes - ask to be their freinds. In your profile you don't have to appear blacktie, casual dress will be good enough. However - no nude or beach style photos! May be one day the standards will change, but don't try to be the first who changes them...

Second of all, Facebook should be used for opening the page for your diplomatic mission. This page will look more officially than your private page. You can create your mission's community with the help of this page. Facebook is especially useful tool because of its global outreach - it has versions in 95 languages, and is very popular in non-English speaking countries. Facebook can be used as your official website, as your own news agency, as your message will be defined by you and not by the media outlets. In order to expand your community you have to spend time, but the effort pays you back.

6. LinkedIn, however, is better for opening personal page, even though many compaines have their pages there. I think that diplomats can find interesting professional information and ties through LinkedIn. It could also be a good tool for recruitment local staff, at least in US and Canada, since this network functions as a huge Human Resourses agreggator. There are also very good groups dealing with different aspects of Public Diplomacy which I find useful and insightful. Diplomats from different countries can create there own groups. As the trend of localization in social media becomes more dominant, diplomats based in certain city can comminucate through the group they can create on LinkedIn.

7. Twitter is something so new and the people are so involved with Facebook and LinkedIn, that many are not running to this new tool of social media. The greatest advantage of Twitter is that it could function as mission's news agency. It's the best way to connect to the young generation and to the most advance audiences. By the way, it's also a good way of being updated on-line and for free - while the sourse of information could be quite valuable. For diplomats, the twitter of Hillary Clinton could be very interesting, nottomentio all the interantional agencies that started opening their twitters.

Probably I'll stop here. There is much more to add and say - but next time...

diplomacy and green politics - by Secretary of state

2009-04-25T18:57:00.001+03:00

Insightful sppech about green diplomacy by Sec. of State Hillary Clinton:
http://ad.vu/bhbp

Twitter and handling public relations

2009-04-22T00:46:00.002+03:00

I'm bringing for your attention an article from LAT about Twitter and how big companies deal with its impact on PR and branding. There are some insights that could be applied in public diplomacy:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-twitter20-2009apr20,0,2701874.story

Virtual worlds and international affairs

2009-04-16T21:21:00.003+03:00

Dear friends,

I would like to introduce to you the virtual reality project that deals with journalism and international affairs. I had a priviledge to meet project's founders, Joshua Fouts and Rita King. And even to give short interview to the virtual world...

To say it briefly: this stuff is mind-opening and breath-taking. Simultaneously.

http://eurekadejavu.blogspot.com/2009/04/launch-of-journalistic-experiment.html

yaron

personal branding by diplomats - is this part of a country branding?

2009-04-15T15:18:00.001+03:00

Diplomats, like anybody else, create their Facebook and Linkedin pages. They even happen to like it...

Whenever diplomats participate in the social networking, they do it not just as private citizens. they are always seen as their countries' official representatives. However social networks are non-formal forums, where personal and public areas are interwoven. This condition allows soft influence, as opposed to imposing opinions and positions through the official statements, articles and interviews. On social networks you share your interests, your opinions, your ideas with others, creating your own brand. But because you are still perceived as a person related to the government of one's country everything you share there is relevant to the image of your country. Your own image adds to the image of your country.

In the next post you will find a couple of useful tips on upgrading your social networks pages.

tips on personal branding in Social Networks

2009-04-15T09:23:00.001+03:00

Here are some tips by Randy Ingbritsen, from Workforce Solutions at Penn State University:

Social networking and Web 2.0 technologies can impact a job search in both positive and negative ways and, in today’s job market, it’s important to make sure Facebook and other tools are not working against you.

To tweak your social network:
Change the privacy settings on your Facebook profile. The default settings aren’t very private — anyone in your networks can see anything you do unless you make parts of your profile available to only your friends.

Review all photos and videos that others have tagged of you on Facebook and remove tags from any that you wouldn’t want a recruiter or potential employer to see.
Review comments that friends have left on your Facebook profile and remove anything that you feel is unprofessional.

If you don’t want a certain person or people (recruiters, co-workers, etc.) to see any part of your Facebook profile, you can exclude them completely.

You can also create two separate profiles, one with your personal information and one for professional use. LinkedIn is another option for creating a professional social networking presence.

Google your name with and without quotation marks. Work to remove any inappropriate content if possible by contacting the authors or Web site administrators.

If you have a blog, Twitter account, or any other public social media presence, be aware that employers and co-workers may be reading it.

To build your personal brand:
Harness your “essence” — Who are you? How do you want others to remember you? What do you want to be known as an expert in? How can you set yourself apart from others? All of these are important questions to ask yourself when determining your brand.

Once you have these ideas in place, work on packaging them in a clear, concise statement that will make you memorable when speaking with recruiters and potential employers.

the opening remark

2009-04-13T14:18:00.000+03:00

Can diplomats blog? And if yes - why should they?

Five years after the social networks revolution - and nobody questions the success of the use of Web 2.0 for diplomatic purposes. Look at all the Facebook pages of the Israel's consulates and embassies, that emerged in US and spread out in Europe. Look at the Twitter press conference hold by NY Consulate, that even was mentioned in Wikipedia article on public diplomacy. The examples are many - yet, wneh we look at the blogoshpere the situation is different.

The nature of blogging is expressing the views - as different as they can only be. The nature of representing country's official position is exactly the opposite. Therefore, if as a diplomat you open a blog - what are you going to discuss? Are you going to ask the readers to express their views on this position? Are you going to allow all the views to be expressed without editing? or allow only "good" responses to be published. In both scenarios you are going to loose - either you will get all the hate language possible, or become just another official site, which is the opposite of blogging. As a diplomat you can react to the blogs of others - in the same you respond to newspapers and TV, but you can't really open a blog on the country's policies. You don't question it - you express it.

However, as we're searching the possibilities and limits of Web 2.0, we would like to try this medium of communication. Let's blog about the things that are common for all of us, the diplomats: the issues of dealing with the accomodation for us and our families, the ways of upgrading the learning and training practices in the diplomatic service, and of course the challenges and the very future of diplomacy. So many people tend to say something about the death of diplomacy as a profession, or some other "truths" about it. I think we can and should have a say in this discussion.

May be it would be easier for us to think about dipomatic blogging as a small talk through the internet. And who knows better than us the real value of a professional small talk?

You are welcome!