Israel Inside

A new documentary on how Israel's spirit and resilience brought them to the forefront of world innovation.

by Tanya Strusberg

These days it can be pretty hard to find something positive about Israel in the media. In fact, the outlook is pretty bleak. There seems to be no limit to the amount of bashing Israel receives. On top of that, Jewish students on campuses across the country are also having to face often overt hostility to anything related to Israel, be it from their professor, a student group or campus demonstrations.

Realizing how difficult it was for anyone to present Israel and its people in a positive light was exactly the inspiration for the filmmakers behind a new documentary called Israel Inside: How a Small Nation Makes a Big Difference.

In 55 minutes, this insightful and uplifting documentary sidesteps the usual conversation of politics, conflict and violence, and tells the story of the Israeli people – a resilient and dynamic nation – whose spirit has brought the tiny country of Israel to the forefront of world innovation and progress.

The film’s narrator, Dr. Tal Ben Shahar, also weaves his own life into the documentary and takes you on a journey to understand what being an Israeli is all about.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

You can also visit www.IsraelInsideTheMovie.com for a sneak peek and more information.

Jack Cohen writes:

I saw the documentary film "Israel Inside," subtitled "how a small nation makes a big difference," produced by Jerusalem Online and  narrated by Dr. Tal Ben-Shahar, a very engaging personality, who was previously a lecturer at Harvard University on subjects such as positive psychology.  This is a very positive view of Israel, without any mention of politics or conflict. For those who are interested in or who are supportive of Israel this is a great movie, because it shows the many important contributions of Israelis and their positive attitudes towards life and innovation.  In other words it is preaching to the converted. 

 

For those who oppose or are wary of Israel this kind of "soft" propaganda (hasbara) will have little or no effect.  For example, I wrote to a Jewish (left-wing) friend of mine in England about the IDF medical corps contribution in Haiti after the earthquake there, that was mentioned in the film and that saved many lives.  His comment was "they did if for political reasons."  There is no persuading these type of people with this kind of information, because by default they discount any such data with their preconceived views and for them this is all pro-Israel propaganda that is selected so as to avoid the truly terrible aspects of Israel that includes mistreatment and occupation of the Palestinians. 

 

The film is truly an excellent description of Israelis and why they are so productive.  It covers all the good subjects, the electric cars of Better Place, drip irrigation, the mechanical legs that allow paraplegics to walk, etc. And it describes the so-called chutzpah and engagement in controversy of Israelis and their reduced fear of failure, that paralyzes such nations as Germany and Japan.  But, no emphasis on positive contributions "to humanity" nor the persuasive talking heads of Allen Dershowitz or Nir Barkat will make any difference to those who we need to reach.  I suggest that in order to do that we need an entirely different approach.  It is easy to pontificate, but here is an example.  Take a quote from Jesus or the Bible such as "the lame shall walk", make a 60 second video entitled with this quote.  Show people who are bed-ridden and in wheel-chairs, then show one of them standing and walking and running in the London marathon, and then write in big letters, "product of Israel."  No talking heads, no persuasion that we are right or that we are real humanitarians, just the visceral impact of the fact.  And I bet you could make ten of these for a fraction of the cost of the movie.  What we need is for one of these to go "viral" on the internet.  That's the way to do it! 

The Balfour Declaration Clarified

I just became aware of an interesting book, The Balfour Declaration,  by Jonathan Schneer in which he provides an analysis of the Balfour Declaration, a 1917 document by British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour that I had always thought indicated that the British Government would aid in the formation of a "Jewish homeland" in Palestine.


Schneer points out that Britain had promised Palestine to three parties -- Arabs, Jews and international overseers.


You can read a Washington Post review of the book by clicking here. Or, you can read a NY Times review by clicking here. 

An Eritreans and Sudanese Solution for Israel

June 20: Outside the box

By JERUSALEM POST READERS

06/19/2012 22:59

Instead of the African migrants settling in Tel Aviv, which is grossly overcrowded, why not settle them on the West Bank?

Sir, – Regarding “Yishai says he will work to deport all Eritreans and Sudanese” (June 18), I have a modest proposal for the Israeli government that could kill two birds with one stone: Instead of the African migrants settling in Tel Aviv, which is grossly overcrowded, why not settle them on the West Bank? Israel has the legitimate right to build there. Who could complain about allowing black immigrants, most of whom are refugees fleeing war and poverty, from settling there? This way they could have their own communities yet benefit Israel by being on the West Bank.

Why should the Palestinians complain about this? They would be providing assistance to suffering humanity. Most of the Africans are Muslims anyway.

Why not have the UN support this? Surely, UNRWA could afford to do so from the billions of dollars it gets in aid.

By thinking out of the box we could solve two problems in one go.

JACK COHEN 
Netanya 

17 Tips on Being More Productive With Email

from CTSmithIII's Blog

Great e-mail suggestions to help you, and your colleagues, be more productive from David Grossman of The Grossman Group and author of You Can’t Not Communicate and the new ebook, The Definitive Guide to Taming the Email Monster
.

I’ve heard David speak and found him to be a great resource for all things related to internal communications and employee engagement.

David’s tips with my thoughts added:

In the spirit of using email better, and helping others use email better, below are tips anyone can implement to avoid the abuses and fix bad habits.

1. Keep your message simple and clear—Edit unnecessary words to focus your recipient on what’s most important. Short sentences and bullet points make your message easier to read on a computer screen, and a smart phone.  It is estimated that more than 40% of email is now viewed on a smart phone.
2. Answer all questions, be proactive—Avoid wasted time with back and forth emails. Answer all questions posed to you, and proactively answer your recipients’ likely next questions.
3. Respond quickly—Email is built for speed. Respond within 24 hours; if it will take longer to respond, let the sender know you received his or her email and are working on it.  You will build trust among your friends and business associates and will amaze your clients and prospects.
4. Use polite greetings and closings—Please and thank you go a long way in conveying a positive tone.
5. Use proper spelling, grammar and punctuation—Be professional and show you care. Always use spell check and proofread your emails.
6. Do not use all caps—Did you mistake the meaning of that statement because I didn’t put NOT in all caps? No? Neither will your recipient.
7. Don’t use special formatting, backgrounds, colored text or emoticons—Many feel they’re unprofessional.
8. Double check for correct email addresses and attachments—Avoid being embarrassed or disseminating proprietary information.
9. Be clear in the subject line—Avoid having your emails ignored by briefly explaining the content of your message.
10. Never send an email when you’re upset—Take a step away from your computer and consider how to best resolve an issue.
11. Don’t hide behind email—It feels so easy to avoid difficult conversations by sending an email, but research shows that conflict escalates quicker and lasts longer over email.
12. Don’t be afraid to pick up the phone—Email is not always the right vehicle. You should never give bad news over email. Complex information is best addressed in a face-to-face conversation; nuance is often missed over email.
13. Use the CC field as an FYI—The CC field says this is an FYI and you are not expected to take action. CC your manager when you want him or her to know you’ve taken an action.
14. Use the BCC field for large groups of recipients—Don’t advertise people’s email address.
15. Use “Reply All” only when appropriate—Use sparingly.  If everyone on the chain doesn’t need to see your response why fill up their inbox? 
16. Take care when sending large files—Check with your recipient in advance to see how they would like to receive the file. 
17. Avoid sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek humor—Email doesn’t convey the meaning behind these types of statements.
Which of these email tips could make a significant difference for you and those you email?

A Golden Age of Jewish Media

JUNE 20, 2012 11:28

This guest article was written exclusively for HonestReporting by Matthew Kalman, a veteran Jerusalem reporter for Time, Boston Globe, and other major international media. He is the editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Report. This article is based on a presentation given by Matthew at MediaCentral in May 2012.

When I was invited to become editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Report last January, I didn’t realize the challenges would be quite so intense.

The Jerusalem Report was founded in 1990, only the second major English-language news publication from Israel after the Jerusalem Post. Its proud boast to cover “Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World” made it just about unique. At the time, there was almost nothing published in English from the Middle East, and The Report was almost alone in trying to bridge the gap between Israel and Jews around the world.

It was also launched in the days before cable television, let alone the internet. CNN only took off the following spring, with the 1991 Gulf War. The Web was still several years ago. YouTube was a pipe dream.

More than 20 years on, the magazine that began as a lively upstart challenger to the crusty Jerusalem Post had itself become something of an old-timer, outpaced by the web-savvy offerings from Israel and around the Jewish world. Is there really a future for classic long-form print reporting on Israel-centered subjects in this mobile, cloud-based era?

We seem to have entered a golden age of Israel and Jewish-interest journalism. Just after I took over at The Report, a former editor of the magazine, David Horovitz, launched The Times of Israel, an exclusively web-based news site that seems to point the way forward for Israel news.

Horovitz’s site poses direct competition to the website of theJerusalem Post, which he edited until last summer. The Post was Israel’s first English website, and one of the first global internet news sites, and remains one of the most popular in the world, with millions of hits each month. Haaretz went online a decade later, after the launch of the English-language print edition, followed by Ynet News, the English version of the online edition of Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel’s near-monopoly Hebrew daily. A similar move by Maariv, Yedioth’s closest competitor, failed miserably – probably because the publishers branded the site as “NRG” instead of Maariv, rendering it meaningless to readers abroad.

Arutz 7, the mouthpiece of the national religious and pro-settler movement, also provides news and analysis online in English, completing the political sweep from Israeli left to right.

In 2011, the free daily giveaway Israel Hayom came up with a slightly different concept with the launch of a daily English-language newsletter emailed to subscribers. In May, The Times of Israel announced its own daily newsletter – adding to a growing arsenal of social media that includes a Facebook page linked to readers’ comments and a blog-hosting service modelled on the Guardian’s “Comment is Free.”

But my challenge in positioning The Jerusalem Report is not limited to Israeli publications. Readers around the world can now access high quality reporting from and about Israel via the websites of diaspora publications. The Forward and The Jewish Week are just two of the excellent news sites operating from the US. From Britain, the Jewish Chronicle has also developed a strong web presence.

In addition to these traditional newspapers, there are several new Jewish websites like Tablet,Jewish Ideas Daily and Algemeiner that only exist online – following the model of Slate and Salon – offering excellent coverage, quality writing and expert commentary.

Then there is the whole new world of blogs unattached to any broader publication.

On the left, the Israeli site +972 offers penetrating and sometimes censorship-busting commentary that takes readers far beyond the kind of material available from mainstream Israeli and Jewish sites. It often breaks stories that are then picked up by the established press and provide important examples of “citizen journalism” in action that must be rattling the establishment.

Another totally new phenomenon is Peter Beinhart’s “Open Zion” Blog on the Daily Beast – an online forum in a mainstream digital publication devoted entirely to discussion of issues around Israel.

Amid this flood of exciting new, instantly accessible material, it has been interesting to work out where an old-fashioned print publication like The Jerusalem Report fits in. Gone are the days when we could claim to be the only English-language publication from Israel, let alone the Middle East. And why would someone wait to receive the print edition of The Report when the same stories are instantly accessible online from a dozen different sources?

We are launching a raft of social media access points from Twitter to Facebook, as well as a blog and a new website.

But we don’t intend to compete with the breaking news sites. Instead, we will set our own journalistic agenda rather than following the news. While other sites rush to post stories online and beat the competition, we take a step back and deploy experienced and talented writers to research issues and carefully collect exclusive information.

Readers of The Report in the past few months have enjoyed a series of exclusive interviews with major figures – from Amos Oz to Moshe Feiglin to Salam Fayyad to Lord Jacob Rothschild – that simply are not available anywhere else. Our coverage of Israeli business and high tech is unparalleled in both its depth and range. Allowing writers a week or two to work on a single story has allowed us to set the pace in reporting such diverse issues as the revival of the Kibbutz, the plight of the Falash Mura in Ethiopia, the launch of a new Palestinian women’s police unit, and the harassment of women reporters covering the Arab Spring. These are just some of the stories that have been covered in depth in recent months only in our pages.

Our strength is in our style: long-form, well-written, well-informed journalism accompanied by excellent photography and graphics that provides readers with an informative and entertaining experience that allows them to relax – far away from the insistent demands of the computer screen.

What to Say When You’re Handed the Obama-Is-Good-for-Israel Talking Points

June 1, 2012 - 11:57 am - by Barry Rubin

Many Americans, and particularly Jews, are starting to receive mailings encouraging them to vote for President Barack Obama or donate to his reelection campaign of  by arguing that he is pro-Israel. Several readers have asked me to provide them with responses. Here is a brief answer.

These emails and mailings, though designed to look as if they were written by concerned individuals, clearly draw their texts from talking points posted on the Obama reelection site. The arguments are very thin and selective but are presented as if they represent the totality of Obama policy.

The main arguments are:

1. Obama says he likes Israel.

That’s nice, but so what? Of course it is good when he says nice things (by coincidence, no doubt, usually to Jewish audiences), but one can also find a lot of nasty remarks by him, his advisors, and various officials appointed by him. Every president for the last half-century has said similar nice things; not all the presidents put together during this period have said or done so many hostile things. While it is a great exaggeration to say that Obama hates Israel or wants to destroy it, I think it is fair to say that no president (including Jimmy Carter when in office) has been so cold toward Israel and basically failed to understand its nature and interests.

2. Israeli leaders say Obama is great.

Yes, that’s nice, but it’s not what they say in private. I can tell you authoritatively that not a single Israeli leader in any party has a high opinion of Obama with regard to Israel and its interests. But it is their job to lavish praise on America’s president. Their task is not to defeat Obama or to critique him but to get along with him as well as possible in order to protect Israel’s long-term alliance with the United States without sacrificing any of Israel’s vital interests. They’ve done it well. The one moment the truth emerged was when Obama betrayed Israel, on the diplomatic level, by announcing, without consultation, a new policy on peace terms while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was flying to Washington. You think Israeli leaders (and this is not ideological, not a matter of left or right) have a high regard for Obama? Read Netanyahu’s speech to the joint session of Congress.

Perhaps the equation can be summarized as follows: Obama just gave Israeli President Shimon Peres a presidential medal of freedom. He also has just helped give Israel a second Muslim Brotherhood-dominated regime next door and insists that this is a good thing.

3. U.S.-Israel bilateral relations are good especially with regard to military aid.

That’s true, but only a small part of that relates to Obama’s benevolence. Why?

a.  Congress supports Israel. There was more pushback against Obama from Democratic members on this issue than on any other, foreign or domestic. Thus, Israel is the only “target” of Obama whose constituency has vocal defenders within his own party that raise the cost of his actions against it, at least during his first term. (Note that last phrase.)

b. The same applies to public opinion, which is strongly pro-Israel. This factor also inhibits Obama, at least during his first term. (Note that last phrase.)

c. Regarding military relations, the U.S. armed forces are generally quite pro-Israel and want these programs. Many of them are based on previous commitments, which Obama merely continues.

An especially important reason why Obama’s administration hasn’t been far more hostile to Israel in practice is that the Arabs and Iran shafted his policy. Remember that Obama offered to support the Palestinians, pressure Israel, and accelerate talks if only the Arab states and Palestinian Authority showed some flexibility. They repeatedly rejected his efforts—refusing even to talk–giving him no opportunity or incentive to press Israel for concessions. Note too, though, that the repeated humiliations handed him by the Arabs never made him criticize them publicly, change his general line, or back Israel more enthusiastically.

The same point applies to Iran. While Obama has intensified sanctions on Iran, he:

• Did so only after a long delay.

• Did less than Congress wanted/

• Exempted in effect China, Russia, and Turkey from observing the sanctions.

Obama has been visibly eager to make a deal with Tehran, even on bad terms. Only Iran’s hard line has prevented some kind of arrangement that favored Iran. Instead, though, Tehran has used Obama’s slowness and desire for some compromise in order to buy time for its nuclear program to progress.

Finally, there’s the most important factor of all. The main damage Obama has done to Israeli security is neither so much in the area of  bilateral relations nor regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict but as a result of his regional policy in the Middle East. This includes his:

• Soft line toward antisemitic, anti-Israel, and also anti-American Islamism.

• Support for overturning the Mubarak regime and encouragement for a Muslim Brotherhood takeover there. During the 2011 crisis, Obama never even consulted Israel. The outspoken antisemitism, calls for genocide against Israel’s citizens, and support for anti-Israel terrorism by the Muslim Brotherhood have had no effect on Obama’s policy and brought no criticism by the U.S. government of that movement.

This point must be underlined. Do not forget for one moment that the Brotherhood is an explicitly antisemitic movement that calls for genocide against Jews in and often outside of Israel. It has never to the tiniest degree criticized or repented for its strong support for Nazi Germany. It is in fact that most important antisemitic movement in the world today. Anyone who claims that this movement is in fact moderate (denying its antisemitism and genocidal intentions) and helps it to achieve power is acting profoundly against the interests of Israel and of the Jewish people. Period.

• His soft line toward Hizballah in Lebanon, including breaking promises made to Israel to keep terrorists out of south Lebanon.

• Pressure on Israel to reduce sanctions on the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip greatly empowered that radical antisemitic movement.

• The Obama administration has been passive about the Fatah-Hamas merger and has virtually never criticized or pressured the Palestinian Authority.

• By distancing himself from Israel–something everyone in the world knows except about 60 percent of American Jews–he has encouraged Israel’s enemies to be bolder and others to  move away from support for Israel, too.

• One of his worst actions has been to come close to worshipping Turkey’s Islamist regime despite its tremendous hostility toward Israel. Obama’s passivity has helped turn the Turkey-Israel alliance into something verging on cold war. Since the Turkish regime continues to be rewarded by Obama despite doing things like getting Israel barred from the NATO meeting and indicting Israeli officers over the Gaza flotilla confrontation, Ankara has no incentive to stop or reduce its enmity.

• In Syria, he has supported the installation of an Islamist leadership for the opposition movement, posing a tremendous potential future danger for Israel.

• Regarding Iran, Obama was very slow to take up the battle against the nuclear weapons campaign. Despite the relatively high level of sanctions (for which Congress deserves a lot of the credit), one can well doubt his future determination to battle Tehran. He also failed to support the Iranian opposition.

• And by weakening American credibility and alliances, Obama has undermined the U.S. ability to protect its own interests which, in turn, hurts Israel’s security.

There’s a lot more and each of the factors above can be amplified with lots of examples and documentation. All of this far overwhelms the very short  “pro-Obama” list.

Did I mention that during a second term he won’t need to worry about fundraising or running for election again?

Article printed from Rubin Reports: http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin


URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/06/01/obama-is-good-for-israel-talking-points/

Choosing Hatred Over Clean Water

In a June 5, 2012 post on Commentary, Evelyn Gordon discusses how Palestinian leaders and activists would rather deprive their entire population of fresh water than allow an Israeli company to land a contract.


Until leaders put the interests of their people over their own political agenda, will peace come to the Mid East?


Read Evelyn's excellent post here.

Why Isn’t Obama Visiting Israel?

Barry Rubin speculates on why President Obama isn't going to visit Israel.

By now it’s clear that President Barack Obama isn’t going to visit Israel in his term of office. And yet that’s pretty curious, isn’t it? After all, American politicians who seek Jewish support usually find a trip to Israel a pretty good way to claim pro-Israel credentials. And Obama has been desperate to do so, especially this year.

Why, then, isn’t Obama going to visit Israel? Of course, we cannot definitively answer that question but here are some thoughts:

Read more by clicking here.

Israel’s Public Relations

Back in April, Ronn Torossian, CEO of 5WPR, posted a blog titled, Israel's Public Relations: As Ze'ev Jabotinsky Says The World Was Created By the Word.

Mr. Torossian points out that Israel's entire public relations budget for the U.S. is under $250K annually. He writes, "I believe Israel’s lack of financial investment in PR is a major mistake and Israel needs to invest in the PR battle as much as she does on the ground for military battle."

I agree.  I do not know of any effort by Israel to increase it's public relations efforts here in the US.  

While the Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs created a website that has tips for presenting Israel outside of the country, I am  not aware of any attempt to solicit advice from US public relations practitioners. You can read Mr. Torossian's blog by clicking here. 

Together we can change the picture of Israel

Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs has created a website that has tips for presenting Israel outside of the country.   Number one tip.... First listen, then talk.  Other good information follows.