Facebook users’ engagement with Israel’s public diplomacy messages during the 2012 and 2014 military operations in Gaza

Abstract

In an attempt to broaden our understanding on current uses of public diplomacy tools and their effectiveness, the study focuses on an Israeli citizens’ initiative (Israel Under Fire) that promoted messages via social media in the two recent rounds of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2012, 2014). The study examines the message strategies used by the initiative in their English Facebook page (N = 926 posts), and the users’ engagement they generated. Four message strategies were identified: (1) Israel has the Right to Defend Itself; (2) “What Would YOU Do (if you were in the same situation)?”; (3) Exposing Hamas’ Propaganda; and (4) Free Gaza from Hamas. The analysis revealed that the “What would YOU do?” strategy generated significantly greater audience engagement compared to the other message strategies. The study indicates that countries such as Israel, which suffer from a Goliath image problem, may benefit more from messages that encourage online audiences to engage in perspective taking and to think about the conflict vicariously than from messages that refer directly to the positions of the conflicting sides.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term ‘Hamas’ Propaganda’ was used by the heads of the Israel Under Fire initiative, and reflects their views on the messages they were trying to promote.

References

  1. AFP. (2012) Russia condemns ‘disproportionate’ strikes on Gaza. The Daily Star. 15 November 2012, http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Nov-15/195155-russia-condemns-disproportionate-strikes-on-gaza.ashx#axzz2CJLCPknc.

  2. Alexa Top 500 Global Sites. (2015) Retrieved from http://www.alexa.com/topsites.

  3. Aouragh, M. (2016) Hasbara 2.0: Israel’s public diplomacy in the digital age. Middle East Critique: 1–27.

  4. Avraham, E. (2015) Destination image repair during crisis: Attracting tourism during the Arab Spring uprisings. Tourism Management 47: 224–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Avraham, E. and Ketter, E. (2008) Media Strategies for Marketing Places in Crisis: Improving the Image of Cities, Countries and Tourist Destinations. Burlington, MA: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  6. Archetti, C. (2012) The impact of new media on diplomatic practice: An evolutionary model of change. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7(2): 184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ayalon, A., Popovich, E. and Yarchi, M. (2016). From Warfare to Imagefare: How states should manage asymmetric conflicts with extensive media coverage. Terrorism & Political violence 28(2): 254–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bátora Jr, J. and Neumann, I. (2002) Cautious surfers: The Norwegian Ministry of foreign affairs negotiates the wave of the information age. Diplomacy and Statecraft 13(3): 23–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Beaty, A. (2003) Poll controversy as Israel and US labelled biggest threats to World peace. Eurobserver, 30 October, https://euobserver.com/foreign/13324.

  10. Blondheim, M. and Shifman, L. (2009) What officials say, what media show, and what publics get: Gaza, January 2009. The Communication Review 12(3): 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Benoit, W.L. (2000) Another visit to the theory of image restoration strategies. Communication Quarterly 48(1): 40–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Benoit, W.L. (2015) Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Burns, J.P. and Bruner, M.S. (2000) Revisiting the theory of image restoration strategies. Communication Quarterly 48(1): 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Business Wire. (2006) Anholt Nation Brands Index: Global survey confirms Israel is the worst brand in the world. 21 November, http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20061121005222/en/Anholt-Nation-Brands-Index-Global-Survey-Confirms#.Ve7XYhGqpBd.

  15. Coombs, W.T. (2014) Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cowan, G. and Arsenault, A. (2008) Moving from monologue to dialogue to collaboration: The three layers of public diplomacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616(1): 10–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cull, N.J. (2013) The long road to public diplomacy 2.0: The Internet in US public diplomacy. International Studies Review 15(1): 123–139.

  18. Di Caro, G. (2012) D(e-)plomacy: Do social networks really contribute to the transparency of diplomacy? Equilibri 16(3): 481–484.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Frederick, H.H. (1993) Global Communication and International Relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gibson, M. (2014) Top 10 hashtags that started a conversation. Time, 2 December.

  21. Gilboa, E. (2006) Public diplomacy: The missing component in Israel’s foreign policy. Israel Affairs 12(4): 715–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616(1): 55–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gilboa, E. and Shai, N. (2011) Rebuilding public diplomacy: The case of Israel. In A. Fisher, and S. Lucas (eds.), Trails of Engagement: The Future of US Public Diplomacy. Boston, MA: Brill, pp. 33–54.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Graffy, C. (2009) The rise of public diplomacy 2.0. The Journal of International Security Affairs 17, 23 November, http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2009/17/graffy.php

  25. Guttman, S. (2005) The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians, and the Struggle for Media Supremacy. Michigan: Encounter Books, http://time.com/3591923/top-10-hashtags-that-started-a-conversation/

  26. Hanson, F. (2012) The History of eDiplomacy at the U.S. Department of State, a Brookings Institute report. October 25, https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-history-of-ediplomacy-at-the-u-s-department-of-state/

  27. Hayden, C. (2013) Engaging technologies: A comparative study of U.S. and Venezuelan strategies of influence and public diplomacy. International Journal of Communication 7: 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jeffries, C.H., Hornsey, M.J., Sutton, R.M., Douglas, K.M. and Bain, P.G. (2012) The David and Goliath principle cultural, ideological, and attitudinal underpinnings of the normative protection of low-status groups from criticism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38(8): 1053–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Keinan, A., Avery, J. and Paharia, N. (2010) Capitalizing on the underdog effect. Harvard Business Review 88(11): 32–34.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Khatib, L., Dutton, W. and Thelwall, M. (2012) Public diplomacy 2.0: A case study of the US digital outreach team. The Middle East Journal 66(3): 453–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kunczik, M. (1997). Images of Nations and International Public Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L. and Brown-Rovner, I. (2007) The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics 69(4): 1176–1209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lau, R.R. and Brown-Rovner, I. (2009) Negative campaigning. Annual Review of Political Science 12: 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lazaroff, T. (2012) Ashton, Merkel say Israel has right to defend itself. The Jerusalem Post, November 16, http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Ashton-Merkel-say-Israel-has-right-to-defend-itself

  35. Lemelshtrich-Latar, N. (2014) The legitimacy of Israel – Can nation branding affect change? Lecture presented at the Herzliya Conference, June 11, Herzliya, Israel, http://www.herzliyaconference.org/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/LegitmacyofIsrael.pdf

  36. Malhotra, A., Kubowicz Malhotra, C. and See, A. (2013) How to create brand engagement on Facebook. MIT Sloan Management Review 54(2): 1–4. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-create-brand-engagement-on-facebook/

  37. Malone, G.D. (1985). Managing public diplomacy. The Washington Quarterly 8(3): 199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Manheim, J.B. (1994) Strategic public diplomacy and American foreign policy: The evolution of influence. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Maziotta, A., Mummendey, A. and Wright, S.C. (2011) Vicarious intergroup contact effects: Applying social-cognitive theory to intergroup contact research. Group Processes Intergroup Relations 14(2): 255–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. McCann, I.L. and Pearlman, L.A. (1990) Vicarious traumatization: A framework the psychological effects of working with victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress 3(1): 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Melissen, J. (2005) The new public diplomacy: Between theory and practice. In J. Melissen (ed.) The New Public Diplomacy, (pp. 3–27). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Neureiter, M. (2012) Sources of media bias in coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: The 2010 Gaza flotilla raid in German, British, and U.S. newspapers. Masters Theses. Paper 1051, http://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/1051

  43. Nye, J.S. (2008) Public diplomacy and soft power. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616(1): 94–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Nye, J.S., Jr. and Owens, W.A. (1996) America’s information edge. Foreign Affairs 75(2): 20–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Oberschall, A. (2015) The 2014 Gaza War and the elusive peace in Palestine. Cornivus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 5(2): 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Peterson, P.G. (2002) Public diplomacy and the war on terrorism. Foreign Affairs, http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/public-diplomacy-war-terrorism/p4762

  47. Powers, S. and Samuel-Azran, T. (2015) A microeconomic approach to international broadcasting. The Journal of International Communication 21(1): 58–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Prusher, I. (2014) Israel and Palestinians reach open-ended cease-fire deal. TIME, August 26, http://time.com/3182848/israel-gaza-ceasefire-abbas-netanyahu/

  49. Ross, A. (2011) Digital diplomacy and U.S. foreign policy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 6(3–4): 451–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Samuel-Azran, T. (2010) Al-Jazeera and US war coverage. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Samuel-Azran, T. (2016) Intercultural Communication as a Clash of Civilizations. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  52. Schloss, K.B. and Palmer, S.E. (2014) The politics of color: Preferences for Republican red versus Democratic blue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 21(6): 1481–1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Shamir, E. (2012) Operation pillar of defense: An initial strategic and military assessment. Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies Perspectives Paper no. 189, December 4.

  54. Shenhav, S.R., Sheafer, T. and Gabay, I. (2010) Incoherent narrator: Israeli public diplomacy during the disengagement and the elections in the Palestinian Authority. Israel Studies 15(3): 143–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Simon, H.A. (1954) Bandwagon and underdog effects and the possibility of election predictions. Public Opinion Quarterly 18(3): 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Stocker, K.P. (1997) A strategic approach to crisis management. In: C.L. Caywood (ed.). The Handbook of Strategic Public Relations and Integrated Communications, (pp. 189–203). Boston: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Thussu, D. K. (2000) International Communication: Continuity and Change. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  58. van Evera, S.V. (2006) Assessing US strategy in the war on terror. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 607(1): 10–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wang, J. (2006) Managing national reputation and international relations in the global era: Public diplomacy revisited. Public Relations Review 32: 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wolfsfeld, G. (1997) Media and Political Conflict: News from the Middle East. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Yarchi, M. (2014) ‘Badtime’ stories: The frames of terror promoted by political actors. Democracy & Security 10(1): 22–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Yarchi, M. (2016a) Terror organizations’ uses of public diplomacy: Limited versus total conflicts. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 39(12): 1071–1083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Yarchi, M. (2016b) Does using ‘imagefare’ as a state’s strategy in asymmetric conflicts improve its foreign media coverage? The case of Israel. Media, War & Conflict 9(3): 290–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Yarchi, M., Wolfsfeld, G., Sheafer, T. and Shenhav, S.R. (2013) Promoting stories about terrorism to the international news media: A study of public diplomacy. Media, War & Conflict 6(3): 263–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moran Yarchi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yarchi, M., Samuel-Azran, T. & Bar-David, L. Facebook users’ engagement with Israel’s public diplomacy messages during the 2012 and 2014 military operations in Gaza. Place Brand Public Dipl 13, 360–375 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-017-0058-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • civic public diplomacy
  • digital diplomacy
  • Israeli–Palestinian conflict
  • facebook engagement