Giora Eiland
צילום: עופר עמרם
Lieberman’s wrong approach
Op-ed: Foreign minister fails to make distinction between PR, leading diplomatic moves
A few years ago, a Norwegian UN diplomat called Terje Larsen served as a Middle East envoy. In the Israeli government’s view, he was controversial, yet in my view he was the perfect diplomacy teacher – indeed, I learned much from him.
One of the things I learned about was how to undertake a diplomatic move, and Larsen gave me an example: Let’s assume, he said, that Prime Minister Sharon wishes to undertake some kind of change, but Arafat’s agreement is also required for it. What should Sharon do? If he would appear before the Likud Central Committee and in a public speech demand that Arafat agree to the move, this would obviously fail. Arafat cannot accept an offer that looks like an Israeli ultimatum.
On the other hand, Arafat is likely to agree if a European envoy comes to him and whispers in his ear: “How about agreeing to this change? After all, this move is much better for the Palestinians than it is for Israel, and if you agree, I have reason to believe I can convince the Israelis too.”
In other words: The proverb we recited in our childhood, “don’t judge a book by its cover,” is the opposite of what one requires when engaging in diplomacy. Here, the content is secondary, while that which can be seen is essential.
Israel’s leading diplomat, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, conducts himself in the exact opposite manner. Even when he comes up with appropriate ideas (in my view at least) he makes sure to create the conditions that would prevent any chance of implementing them.
An ambassador of an important state told me about a meeting held a few weeks ago between his foreign minister and Lieberman. The Israeli minister surprised his guest and asked what he thought about Lieberman’s latest initiative for a second disengagement from Gaza. The guest was embarrassed. Firstly, nobody prepared him for this issue. Secondly, Lieberman publicly declared his initiative a few days earlier, and as could be expected prompted public, overwhelming objection – by the Arabs and by others. So how could the guest laud something that already encountered great objection?
Thirdly, the guest was unclear as to the Israeli government and prime minister’s position on the matter.
Fundamental rule forgotten
If Lieberman indeed thought that it would be proper to initiate a move that would fully disengage Israel from Gaza, and minimize our responsibility for what goes on in the Strip, he should have picked a credible neutral party, discretely told him about the notion, and asked him to promote the idea as if it was his own. However, it appears that Israel’s foreign minister does everything as not to give any chance to moves which he seemingly wants to see materializing.
Just like many of his predecessors, Lieberman fails to make the vital distinction between public relations and leading diplomatic moves. The objective of PR is to convince others how good and righteous we are, and how evil our enemies are. The PR effort is not insignificant, yet on its own it cannot create any kind of substantial diplomatic move.
A diplomatic move, on the other hand, is produced when some kind of third party also has some influence, as well as an interest in initiating action that would be commensurate with our interests, or at least, that the price we’ll pay for it will be smaller than its benefit. The essence of diplomacy is identifying such actors and creating an incentive for them to act in a manner that would serve us.
It appears that this fundamental rule has not been guiding Israeli diplomacy in recent years. We are operating in the opposite manner: Rushing to make declarations that creating automatic resistance, while at the same time also insulting potential mediators. Meanwhile, adopting this path also requires us to redouble our PR efforts later on.
- Follow Ynetnews on Facebook
