Partial transcripts of presentations are from a PDF file at the main Herzliyah Conference site.

Prof. Richard Landes, The Second Draft, The Augean Stables

Yesterday we studied the lessons of the Lebanese war. If I could summarize them I would place them at 3 levels: 1. Withdrawals are problematic. It's just an observation. Withdrawals are viewed as acts of weakness. One thing that we have to do is consider how others view us, just as we have to think about viewing ourselves. We can withdrawal, without liking ourselves. Western civilization works in a civil society in which Jews thrive. A lesson of Lebanon that we have to learn is that when we make consecions we make the situation worse. For example, if America withdrawals from Iraq one of the places that will be most uncomfortable will be the EU. Because it will be read by global jihads when Russia left Afghanistan in 1979. The irony is that the EU wants the US to fail. 2. The current situation in Lebanon and whatever advantage Israel had on the ground, they lost at the bargaining table. 3. Lethal narratives. The Arab and Muslim worlds have become extremely skilled in lethal narratives and we are usually the aggressions they are talking about. We have up until now, not fought back at these lethal narratives. The big daddy of this was Al Dura...it hit Israelis blindsided. Al Dura did more than turn the tide in Israel; it unleashed a wave of anti Semitism especially in France with Muslim immigrants. And now we need to fight back. We need a panel of experts, medical forensics, ballistics, customs and traditions, languages, video experts, so that we can deal with these lethal narratives. We have got to take a more agggressive stance. Another lesson learned from yesterday's proceedings is that there is not only a means with which to communicate with the public, but that they are listening.

The EU and Israel are too nice. We don't know how to be nasty, but there're good ways to be nasty. This second day will look at a strategic approach to dealing with the next 10 years of Israel hasbara.
We need to rebrand not only Israel but our adversaries as well.

Panel I: What Challenges face Israeli Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century?

Chair and Comment: Daniel Seaman, Director, Government Press Office

I disagree with Rich on his three points. We did think of how to redefine our press. Even in 2002, and narratives were used as far back as 1977 with the right wing governement; they began in Israel and went on throughout the world. I have always been a great supporter of Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center. They are unashamedly Zionistic. The new Sami Ofer School of communications is great. The Israel public is Zionistic. It is once again the media that is the issue, and its not always because of what the Arabs are doing, the fact of the matter is that it also has to do with the politically liberal left wing tendencies in the media. They are very difficult to work with, and the more conservative journalists are afraid to speak up because of their colleague environment. Challenges that we have for redefining ill in the 21st century: 1. In the 90's we didn't have a Hazbara policy, because if we felt that if we did the right thing, make concessions for peace then we wouldn't have a problem. These ideas came from the geniuses who said if we give them weapons we'll have peace. 2. Gaza, there has been no reciprocity. Immediately after the disengagement they began firing rockets into Israel proper, and Hamas was elected into power. 3. How does the media deal with this, that the Palestinians didn't act the way they said they would? It must be Israel's fault. 4. The terminology that the mainstream media used was very aggressive. Ours was reportive. The question is it enough for us to redefine where we want to go.

Philippe Karsenty, Media-Ratings - The al-Dura report is a dangerous fiction than has to be revealed.

I'm Philippe Karsenty and I worked as a financial consultant for over ten years. After a brief foray into French politics in 2002, I founded Media Ratings (www.M-R.fr), the first-ever French media rating agency. Media- Ratings monitors and critically rates political news coverage. Since 2004 Media Ratings has been served with a number of defamation law suits by mainstream media firms and individuals unhappy with our criticism. And the most sensitive case is the Al Dura controversy.

As everybody may remember, all the televisions of the world broadcast, on September the 30 th 2000, a news report that showed a young Palestinian boy and his father hidden behind a barrel and, according to the comment of the French journalist, Charles Enderlin, shot intentionally by the Israeli army for more than 45 minutes. Those of you familiar with this subject probably conclude, as I do, that this whole scene was staged. No blood 34 stains on the bodies whereas the father and the son were supposedly shot by 11 bullets. Just one impact on the wall behind them whereas they were supposedly shot for 45 minutes by machine guns. No bullets recovered either from the site or the eleven wounds the hospital reported treating. And most obvious of all, in the final scene, after Enderlin pronounced him dead two scenes earlier, the boy raises his elbow, looks at the cameraman, and then slowly lowers his elbow. Not surprisingly, Enderlin cut that scene and the public didn't see it.

Those discoveries have been made by an Israeli physicist, Nahum Shahaf. And for those of who are not convinced it's a fake, there is no evidence whatsoever for the most damaging accusation ­ that the Israelis shot the boy on purpose. And yet, as you saw at lunch yesterday, that "on purpose" is at the core of the libel and the hatred.

The problem with the Al Dura fiction is that this icon of hatred had a terrible impact on Israel, the Jews and the whole Western world. There was almost no bullet impact on the wall behind the boy and the father but the psychological impact the world over were huge. If you have any doubt that this image and the name of Mohamed Al Dura are the strongest icons of this period, try to find a name so well known or an image that everybody can remember so well and which symbolizes this period. You won't find any and this is why, now that we are sure that it was forged, we have to correct it. Worldwide. All over the world, Mohamed Al Dura is THE representation of the so-called Israeli cruelty and daily criminal activities. And this is probably why it is so difficult to get rid of it. The ones who want to picture Israelis as criminals are very happy to have this image. And they'll do whatever they can to protect their icon.

Unfortunately, for reasons that remain mysterious even to those of us who think we understand why, the Israeli government has chosen not to defend itself in the case of Muhammad al Durah. Were those images too shocking for Israeli people? Understandably, most Israelis want to forget those traumatic and disastrous images. But, it would be a bad strategy because others, haters of Israel, have not forgotten it, and, all over the world, it's for your enemies the proof of the Israeli vicious brutality. This image is a blood libel and it joined the museum of horrors of the false documents against the Jews over the centuries: blood libels, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the fake document which accused the Dreyfus captain.

Revealing the truth should be a subject of concern for the Israeli government for many reasons. First, because it would clean the reputation of Israel. Don't forget that the Palestinian cameraman of France 2 testified under oath that "The killing of the child Mohammed al-Durrah by Israeli Occupying Forces was intentional and happened in cold blood". He also said that the Israeli soldiers shot at Mohamed for 45 minutes. Second, because it would show to those who slander Israel that they pay a price. Third, this image continues to damage Israel not only in the eyes of the nations, but even in the eyes of many Jews. In addition to encouraging people to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, it alienates many Jews who live in the Diaspora and who don't know the truth. They don't want to be associated with such a reckless army, and when their neighbors denounce Israel, they don't know what to say. Israelis may have trouble imagining being forced, at almost every dinner, to try to justify which is unacceptable. Why can't we get help them arguing that it's not true? Fourth, it hurts Jews, especially in Europe, where Muhammad al Durah has brought on a wave of anti-Semitism that now threatens to get out of hand. Those images and distortions of facts in the news create a gap between Jews and Gentiles, and between Israel and the Diaspora.

The situation in France around al Dura is difficult. There are many Jews who are very influential in the media, but they do not support Israel. On the contrary, they pay a tribute to the larger culture by being more anti-Israel 35 than the regular French journalists. And this lobby has been very active in the Al Dura forgery where our worst opponents are some Jewish French journalists who support France 2's fiction.

Enderlin has now sued three French Jews and one Christian for daring to criticize him and thereby defame his honor and consideration. I was the first to go to court. During the trial, we produced piece after piece of evidence that called into question the credibility of the France 2 film. For its part, France 2 sent no representatives to the trial. Its attorney did not question any of the evidence submitted by us nor did she cross-examine any of our witnesses. She brought no witnesses of her own. She simply produced a letter of support for France 2 from President Jacques Chirac. Even the procurer of the Republique, a court official, recommended dropping the charges.

The stunning result however is that we lost the trial. And in their judgment, the judges argued that our allegations against Enderlin and France 2 could not be credible since "no Israeli authority, neither the army which is nonetheless most affected, nor the Justice [Ministry] have ever accorded the slightest credit to these allegations" regarding the mendacity of the Dura film. This is partially true because when the investigation headed by Shahaf, and later when both Danny Seaman and Ra'anan Gissin asked France2 for a copy of the raw footage, Enderlin refused to send it. He even told Esther Shapira, "Why should I give the rushes to the Israeli army? So it can whitewash itself?

Over the years Israeli officials have justified their silence by saying that it was a losing proposition to reopen the Al Dura case. We'll be accused of blaming the victim, they said; if you talk about it, the only thing people will remember is that Jews kill children. But as wrote Caroline Glick on October 23 rd : "This statement is both cowardly and irresponsible. As the French verdict shows, without an Israeli protest, the protests of private individuals, however substantial, ring hollow. When Israel refuses to defend itself from blood libels, it gives silent license to attacks against Israel and world Jewry in the name of those libels."

Now, we are going to the appeal court and we have good chances of winning if we can reverse certain things coordinate our efforts in defense of Israel. Emile Zola, who was the French writer who saved Dreyfus, but who was initially convicted under exactly the same law of defamation I've been found guilty said this: "Whatever it may be, I shall be satisfied. My conscience cannot reproach me with anything, for my conduct has been dictated by my conscience alone and I place that verdict above all other verdicts. Whether I am convicted or acquitted is of no importance to the only real trial, the one taking place before mankind's universal conscience. If my conviction could hasten the solution to this controversy, in which I have pledged my rest and my honor, I would certainly prefer it to my acquittal."

But I'm not Emile Zola and I want to win this case because it's not just me whose well-being is at stake. It is a decent and honest European society that stands attacked, not just me, or the Jews, or Israel. How can Europe deal with its Muslim problem, if its media both misinform the public and at the same time incite the Muslim immigrants to hate both the Jews and the West? We have to work in order to have Israeli officials asking for the raw footage. If they do so, it's game over. Because, either France too gives them, which is unlikely, or the truth about how much of TV news from this area is staged by the Palestinians comes out. If they don't, the judge will be forced to admit that the main argument of the French TV, which is that the Israeli government never complained or asked for those images, is irrelevant.

I'd like to add that before this trial, I've been trying to have this affair revealed by other means. I met the French communication minister, the authority which controls the media accuracy, the directors of France 2 and many other people in every French media outlet. Nothing succeeded and my opponents kept repeating to those who supported our case that I was an Israeli secret agent making Israeli propaganda... Before concluding this presentation, I would like to say that decent people, Jewish or non-Jewish, can help Israel to face anti-Israel propaganda. But they can't do it against Israel officials. If the Israeli government keeps on admitting mistakes they didn't do and if they don't challenge journalists who lie, it's going to be difficult to counter fight anti-Semitic propaganda. Because of Israel bashing, it's being difficult to be a Jew in Europe, and maybe one day, it's going to be the same in America.

I'd like to finish by quoting again and again Caroline Glick:

Israel's continued silence is a sign that Israeli officialdom has still not understood what the war of images demands of it. The Dura film, like the fictional massacre of Lebanese children at Kfar Kana in Lebanon this summer, shows that victory or defeat in wars is today largely determined on television. To win, Israel must go on the offensive and attack untruthful, distorted images that are used to justify the killing of Israelis and Jews throughout the world. If the Israeli government continues to be silent as the good name of the IDF, of Israel and of the Jewish people is dragged through the mud by distorted television images broadcast by foreign news outlets; if the Israeli government does nothing to defend those who are persecuted for fighting against these distortions, then Jews will have to ask themselves some questions about how on earth we are supposed to defend ourselves, let alone win this war against those who seek our destruction.

Maj. Avital Leibovich, Head of the Foreign Press Division, IDF Spokesperson's Unit

I have been dealing with the Hasbara for eight years. We had a lot have a lot of challenges, and the 21st century has many of the characteristics of the familiar challenges, but there are a few new elements as well.

Media awareness is so strong today. During the recent Lebanese conflict EVERYTHING was a live broadcast, and we faced many challenges because of this. In response we opened 24/7 news desk IDF. Any journalist can call and get info Universal media runs a story and others pick it up. Take for example the German ship incident; of course the IDF did something about this. The story wasn't true, but it didn't matter.

There is a never ending conflict between credibility and quickness, and reporters today are choosing less reliable sources because of quickness. There is hope though; pressure groups under one body can influence the outcome for journalists that use compromising sources. Christina Amanpour was suspended for not checking in facts. To conclude, I'm not sure that we have to be aggressive, perhaps we just need to be more assertive.