See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271765174

Winner Take Naught: A study of international

communications and propaganda during the
Israeli – Lebanese...

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 19

1 author:

James Welch
Leiden University
15 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Security Training Program for Professionals in the Oil& Gas Industry View project

University of Maryland Term Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by James Welch on 03 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Winner Take Naught
A Study of International Communications and Propaganda during the Israeli –
Lebanese conflict of 2006

International Communications has been largely concerned with investigating the fields of

propaganda, advertising, and political campaigning. The Israeli-Lebanese conflict of 2006 is

used, as a case study, in support of the current research... Finally, the process of propaganda as a

form of public diplomacy, mass communication and political manipulation is examined as a

platform of instrumentality and social identity projection.

 INTRODUCTION
“War is politics continued by other means”
— Carl Von Clausewitz

According to Gundykunst & Mody international communications, is a

mixture of old and new sources. The base components involve

propaganda advertising and the spread of media [i.e., Hollywood],

through technological development. “When social research tools developed at the end of the

1920s, the state was the primary agent of communication between nations. By the end of WWII,

US firms were expanding domestically and internationally” (Gundykunst & Mody, 2002).

Hollywood, it appears, also conicided with the rise of propaganda as a tool of mass

indoctrination. Certainly mass communications played a major role in the development of

Hollywood, propganda and as political tool. Noam Chomsky writes:

Let’s begin with the first modern government propaganda operation. That was under

the Woodrow Wilson administration. Woodrow Wilson was elected President in 1916

on the platform “Peace Without [sic] Victory.” That was right in the middle of the

World War I. The population was extremely pacifistic and saw no reason to become

involved in a European war. The Wilson administration was actually committed to war

and had to do something about it. They established a government propaganda

commission, called the Creel Commission, which succeeded, within six months, in

turning a pacifist population into a hysterical, war-mongering population which

wanted to destroy everything German, tear the Germans limb from limb, go to war and

save the world. That was a major achievement (Chomsky, 2002).

1
It is vitally important when examining or writing on a topic to define the characteristics for a

more comprehensive understanding of the subject at hand. The Merriam Webster dictionary

offers three definitions, of which two are relevant to the subject at hand: “1: the spreading of

ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a

person 2: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an

opposing cause; also: a public action having such an effect.” While this gives an indication of

what constitutes propaganda, unfortunately the fact of the matter is that he subject remains

amorphous and eludes precise description. Furthermore, the emphasis of the importance of the

impact of the image upon the human psyche is not mentioned. During the war in Vietnam many

of the political reverberations and consequences were particularly influenced by images

portrayed by the media. John Martin states, “…there is no consensus either among the

practitioners or among the theoreticians as to what constitutes propaganda” (Martin, 1971).

Propaganda is not entirely different from its close cousin advertising. Both forms of

communication aim to convince an unsuspecting group of listener’s readers or spectators of the

judiciousness in their choices; be they commercial, political or otherwise. As John Martin states,

“Propaganda is persuasive communication, as are advertising, education and political

campaigning. Propaganda differs from the latter in source, purpose, and target” (Martin, 1971).

Thus, while the mean are the same, only the ends vary. Both Propaganda and advertising attempt

to influence towards a specific goal, a particular cause, belief or product. Propaganda, however,

can have several different functions and the definition can differ drastically depending upon the

orientation of the usage. Martin, offering his own working definition, writes, “I will define

propaganda as a persuasive communicative act of a government directed at a foreign audience”

2
(Martin, 1971). Since this article was written in 1971, it is possible to excuse Martin’s seeming

shortsightedness. In today’s environment, the domain of propaganda is not exclusively held by

the state or state actors, but can also be adopted by non-state actors and transnational terrorist

and criminal groups. In military terminology, propaganda, a covert operation, is termed as either

“gray” or “black.” According to Jeffery Richelson, “there are several distinct types of covert

action: black propaganda (propaganda that purports to emanate from a source other than the true

one); gray propaganda (in which the sponsorship is not acknowledged); paramilitary or political

actions designed to overthrow, undermine, or support a regime (Richelson, 2012).” Jowett and

O’Donnell, examine a host of assorted forms of propaganda, in their seminal work. The authors

indicate, “The people are not aware that someone is trying to influence them, and do not feel that

they are being pushed in a certain direction. This is often called “black propaganda. “It also

makes use of mystery and silence. The other kind, “white propaganda,” is open and aboveboard”

(Jowett & O'Donnell, 2006). White propaganda appears to be merely the symbolic

representation and image projection common to every state, nation or ethnic community. While,

in most cases, propaganda is an instrument meant to bolster the positive image of the end user, to

enhance its international standing or domestic image; it is apparent that there is also ‘realist,’ and

instrumentalist facet which can be combined with actual use of force and a determined objective.

When used in such a manner other aspects such as symbolism become very important and this

aspect will be examined later in the body of this research.

Origins: When speaking on propaganda all roads lead to Walter Lippman. Noam Chomsky

writing on Lippman states, “Another group [John Dewey Circle] that was impressed by these

successes was liberal democratic theorists and leading media figure, like, for example, Walter

Lippmann, who was the dean of American journalists, a major foreign and domestic policy critic and

3
also a major theorist of liberal democracy (Chomsky, 2002).” Gundykunst & Mody writing on the

origins of propaganda and the writings of Howard Laswell state, “This approach joined the concept

of “public opinion” arising from the work of Walter Lippman (1922) with a model that attempted to

identify both the factors shaping public opinion and the effective action taken by leaders in shaping

and directing public opinion” (Gundykunst & Mody, 2002). Jowett and O’Donnell narrow these

concepts further as they write, “Laswell divides propaganda into two main streams according to

whether it produces direct incitement or direct incitement” (Jowett & O'Donnell, 2006). Once again,

propaganda is seen as an active force bent on changing or modifying an existing state or condition.

Of course, propaganda is not always so readily apparent or easy to define. It may be subtle and quite

indirect, as with military psychological operations, for instance.

Public Diplomacy, Impression Management and Propaganda:

If public diplomacy is the body which houses international image projection, then propaganda is the

left hand and protection of that image is the right. Ben Mor, accomplished scholar, points out this

factor; represented as a dyadic set of ‘predicaments.’ Mor, citing the work of Tedeschi & Riess

writes, “From these two predicaments [positive and negative attribution], the logic of self-

presentation strategies can be derived as either addressing the attribution of responsibility or the

perception of consequences, or both” (Mor, 2007 citing Tedeschi & Riess 1981:5-10). Thus, the use

of propaganda, in this sense, can be seen as an active agent of change, or alternatively, a quest for

social power, where the justification and legitimization of action can be found within a compelling

normative framework. There is a two part dynamic involved in the use of propaganda; a pushing and

pulling. On the one hand there is a hard power, realist approach and on the other a soft power (Joseph

Nye, 1990), constructivist approach. In reality, however, the lines of demarcation are blurred and

there is little distinction when propaganda becomes instrumental. There is a reciprocity which takes

place between social norms and the instrumentalization of public diplomacy. Martin importantly

4
emphasizes, “Most of the international activity that goes by the name of propaganda, however, is not

persuasive communication but is what the author refers to as facilitative communication” (Martin,

1971). A “fine” example of this dichotomy can be seen in the registered videos of radical Islamic

beheadings. On the one hand they are meant to convey fear and loathing to the opposition and on the

other a sense of inevitability born of helplessness, a need for revenge, self-defense and a justification

of what is undeniably a savage, base and barbaric retribution. As far as impression management is

concerned the above example is an excellent example of the enormous contrast which can exist in the

use of propaganda. Mor writes interestingly, “The behavior is further shaped by evaluative or moral

constraints. The complex interaction of motive cognition and morality determines the choice of self-

presentational strategies” (Mor, 2007). Closely related to this perception is the Rational Actor or

Rational Choice theory. Rewards and punishments are seen as a driver for certain actions or

behavior. While this may, indeed, represent a part of the driving force behind the use of propaganda

the subject, itself is much more vast and complex and influenced by numerous variables. Finally,

Mor interestingly gives a definition of public diplomacy, which shadows the original definition of

propaganda. “…it is possible to view public diplomacy as a specific form of impression management

by the state in which self-presentation is used for social influence, communications direct and means

persuasive” (Mor, 2007). It is interesting and worthwhile to note that the external, public perception

of nations are often anthropomorphized and seen on an individualistic level by the collectivity.

Symbolism and Propaganda: Perhaps in no other context has the symbolic use of

imagery been as important or as powerful as that exercise by the nonviolent

revolutions sponsored by the former Serbian group called Optor and now

rechristened “Canvas..” Based upon the “neo-Gandhian” writings [from Dictatorship to Democracy]

of, Dartmouth University professor, Gene Sharp; Canvas, has been the driving force behind uprisings

in more than 50 countries and many recent revolutions including those of Tunisia [Jasmine

5
Revolution (beginnings of Arab Spring)], Belorussia [Denim Revolution], Ukraine [Orange

Revolution], Egypt, [White Revolution] Iran [Green Revolution] and Georgia [Rose Revolution] to

mention but a few. They host workshops and seminars and advise the reactionary groups how best to

utilize and monopolize their resources, music and symbols to lead a successful nonviolent revolution.

The symbol is clenched fist, which carries back to the time of the socialist workers revolution, [some

even assert as far back as the Assyrians and representations of Ishtar] the international workers

symbol and the internationally recognized representation of resistance, power and defiance. The

symbols of national power and influence; be they the Italian fasces, the hammer and sickle, the

American eagle or the sword and crescent, are an integral part of image projection. John Pilger,

disparaging and extremely biased columnist for the New Statesman remarks the symbols of American

imperialism which adorn the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC. Perhaps the only thing correct

in an article academically worthless otherwise, and an extreme example of left wing propaganda

(Pilger 2006).

Case Study: The Israeli – Lebanese [Hezbollah] War of 2006 “Operation Change Direction.”

The Israeli –Hezbollah conflict of 2006 represented a watershed in journalistic reporting and

widespread media coverage. Much like the war in Vietnam the conflict was brought directly in to the

homes of viewers however this time at a far more frequent and real-time basis. Kalb and Savietz

note:

But not until this war have networks actually projected in real time the grim reality of

the battlefield—pictures of advancing or retreating Israeli troops in southern Lebanon;

homes and villages being destroyed during bombing runs; old people wandering

aimlessly through the debris, some tailed by children hugging tattered dolls; Israeli

airplanes attacking Beirut airport; Hezbollah rockets striking northern Israel and Haifa,

6
 forcing 300,000 to evacuate their homes and move into underground shelters—and all

conveyed “live,” as though the world had a front-row seat on the blood and gore of

modern warfare (Kalb & Savietz, 2007)

Another aspect, hitherto neglected, was the advent of internet and the importance of the role played

by individual bloggers or what is commonly referred to as the “blogosphere.” In many instances the

blogs painted Israel in a vulnerable light. The coverage of the events which took place during 34 days

of combat in 2006 decidedly favored Hezbollah’s projection of its image as a victim in the events,

despite the fact that they initiated the conflict. If it can be safely asserted that neither side was

victorious at the end of hostilities, then it is equally true that Hezbollah won the war of propaganda

hands down. This is perhaps the most classic example, to date, of the media becoming [intentionally

or unwittingly] an instrument of choice in asymmetric conflict. While the traditional view of media

reporting is one of impartial and objective reporting of events; this ethic has not been maintained in

the case of the Middle East in General and Israel in particular. In the case of the 2006 conflict, the

reporting was decidedly negative with a heavy emphasis on what was deemed “disproportionality, in

Israel’s response to the Hezbollah initiated aggression. A report by Marvin Kalb and Carol Savietz,

points out various discrepancies and bias in reporting among the major news networks, particularly,

among the television and newspapers, such as: Al Jazeera out of Qatar and Al Arabiya from Dubai.

They also cover the Internet and its growing influence in public opinion and policymaking. Kalb and

Savietz emphasize this point when they write, “This new and awesome technology enabled

journalists to bring the ugly reality of war to both belligerents (and others around the world), serving

as a powerful influence on public opinion and governmental attitudes and actions” (Kalb& Savietz,

2007). Many reporters were now armed with both forms of technology, the camera and the

computer, making instant field editing a reality. This obviously raises moral and ethical issues

concerning the questions of: impartial and objective reporting; reporting as a breach of military

7
security and the use of media as a tool or instrument of propaganda [i.e., playing up to popular

sentiment or sensationalism]. The more open and democratic a society is, the more vulnerable they

become to their own openness. “A key consequence of this new warfare is that the role of the

journalist in many parts of the world has been dramatically transformed—from a quest for objectivity

and fairness to an acceptance of advocacy as a tool of the craft” (Kalb & Savietz, 2007).

The narratives of television and the Internet were not the only major influences involved in

painting the picture of the war however. Yaghoobi examined two written sources: the coverage by

Newsweek, with an expectedly pro-Israeli bent and that of the Iranian journal Kayhan International,

unsurprisingly supportive of Hezbollah. Yaghoobi found that the subtle use of language had a

significant impact upon the presentation of the news items in question. Yaghoobi clarifies in his

report and writes “on the function of language as a social practice in media discourse” (Yaghoobi,

2009).Using the theory of Critical Discourse Analysis, Yaghoobi examines the approached of the two

polarized media forms and “to show how media workers and journalists’ linguistic choices differ

from a diverse ideological point of view to another one in the treatment of the same event”

(Yaghoobi, 2009). Finally, Yaghoobi points out that language, carefully manipulated can both

impact and manipulate the readership through the use of “repetition of negative actions,”

nominalization and passive sentences (Yaghoobi, 2009).

Hezbollah’s strategy was actually quite transparent, at least to unbiased observers. Unfortunately

most international customers of news are not critical thinkers and hence the message which was

continuously trumpeted: that of disproportionate attacks, and victimhood, of Lebanon and the non-

message of Hezbollah’s aggression, fell on sympathetic ears. As might be expected reporting in the

US was also polarized with Fox news giving Israel a more balanced presentation than, that of what is

now commonly referred to as “lame stem media,” represented by, NBC,ABC and CBS, who were

more critical of Israel than of Hezbollah, with CNN attempting to remain neutral. “Rarely was there

8
“proportionate” mention of Israeli civilian deaths suffered during Hezbollah’s sustained rocket

attacks” (Kalb & Savietz, 2007).

Several noteworthy eaxmples of biased and unobjective repoting have been underlined by Kalb

and Savietz:

 Asharq Al-Awsat ran24 “photographs related to the war on the front page;” all but 2 “showed
death and destruction in Lebanon caused by Israeli attacks”
 “Media Tenor, the highly respected media research organization in Germany, found, first,
that Al-Arabiya ran 214 stories on the subject, and, second, that 94 percent of them referred
to Israel as the aggressor.”
 The BBC ran 117 stories. Thirty-eight percent fingered Israel as the aggressor, only four
percent fingered Hezbollah.”
 “On the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post, Israel was portrayed as the
aggressor nearly twice as often in the headlines and exactly three times as often in the
photographs, according to another Shorenstein Center Survey.”
 “Al-Arabiya, for example, stressed Lebanese victimizations in 95 percent of its stories,
according to Media Tenor.”
 Katja Nasr, Al-Jazeera’s Beirut correspondent loaded her reposts with terms such as
“martyrs.” (Kalb & Savietz, 2007).

Conclusion and Summary

It should be noted that as far as an instrument of public the media

coverage of the Israeli—Hezbollah war was very effective, if unethical.

Israeli policy makers are certainly still mulling over the consequences and

the possible responses to Hezbollah’s use of the media as a tool of modern

asymmetric warfare. Hezbollah’s success lay not in expertise in media manipulation rather in weak,

partial and unethical practices by journalists, both from Arab nations as well as western states.

Reporting became biased, unbalanced and disproportionate, allowing Hezbollah to claim, rightfully,

a propaganda victory. One example of staged reporting was that of Salem Daher, purported

“Lebanese civil rescue worker,” who was seen to reload a body into an ambulance so that the

9
newscasters could obtain a better shot. Newscasts were based on sensationalism; pandering to the

public and plating off emotional appeal rather than presenting the news in an impartial way. The

Hezbollah leader Nasrallah, was portrayed as a charismatic figure, and lauded by the Arabic leaning

press. In several cases journalistic misconduct was even discovered, thanks to astute bloggers, such

as Charles Johnson of “Little Green Footballs.’ A case in point was the infamous Reuters scandal

surrounding Adnan Hajj, who doctored photos of the war in Lebanon. This discovery had the effect

of enhancing the reputation of bloggers in general and helping to increase their overall credibility.

Following the scandal a new term, “fauxtography,” began circulating. At least in this specific case

the pendulum swung in favor of honesty. Kalb and Savietz sum up quite nicely the atmosphere

which prevailed when they state, “Throughout the conflict, Hezbollah guerilla. It was as if the war on

the Hezbollah side was being fought by ghosts. Those reporters who did attempt to take photos of

Hezbollah fighters were discouraged and threatened. In many cases the reports which did filter in

where atypical and stage managed by Hezbollah’s propaganda arm. In only one case, rather

miraculously, was a newspaper successful in portraying the actual reality of the situation of the war

of the ground in an objective way:

Yet, on July 30, the Sunday Herald Sun in Australia did just that. It published photographs, that in its

own words, “damn Hezbollah for conducting military operations in populated suburbs. In one

photograph of a “high density residential area,” Hezbollah was shown preparing launch pads for

“rockets and heavy-caliber weapons.” In another, men were firing an antiaircraft gun “meters from

an apartment block” where laundry was drying on a balcony.” (Kalb & Savietz, 2007)

Modern warfare is a dirty, nasty business. The use of propaganda during such conflicts is uglier and

more effective. With advances in technology, the use of propaganda is destined to increase

proportionately and an instrument of public diplomacy and warfare. The study of propaganda as a

science is still in the early stages, though some attempts have been made to understand and expand

10
knowledge of the subject. Future conflicts should attempt to play less to the winds of public passion

and pay more attention to ethical reporting. Given the recent examples, however, it appears that

journalism is a dying are and being reduced to sensationalistic observation instead.

11
References:

Druckman, D., & Harris, R. (1990). Alternative Models of Responsiveness in International

Negotiation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34(2), 234-251.
Good, Jenifer, E. (2008) The Framing of Climate Change in Canadian, American, and
International Newspapers: A Media Propaganda Model Analysis. Canadian Journal of
Communication, 33(2), 233-255.

Gundykunst, W. B., & Mody, B. (2002). International and Intercultural Communication (2nd
ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Hsu, M. (1990). Packaging the News: Propaganda Model Revisited and the Implications for
Foreign Affairs Coverage.
Jowett, G. S., & O'Donnell, V. (2006). Propaganda and Persuassion. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

Kalb, M., & Saivetz, C. (2007). The Israeli--Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in
Asymmetrical Conflict. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12(3), 43-66.
doi:10.1177/1081180X07303934
Lau, Ursula, Mohamed Seedat, and Victoria McRitchie. 2011. "Discursive Constructions of the
Israel-Hezbollah War: The Struggle for Representation." American Journal of Islamic
Social Sciences 28, no. 2: 1-33. Historical Abstracts, EBSCOhost (accessed December
26, 2012).
Martin, L. (1971). EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNATIONAL PROPAGANDA. Annals of the
American Academy of Political & Social Science, 39861-70.
Martin, L. J. (1985). The Media's Role in International Terrorism. Terrorism, 8(2), 127-146.
Mor, B. (2007). The rhetoric of public diplomacy and propaganda wars: A view from self-
presentation theory. European Journal of Political Research, 46(5), 661-683.
Mor, B. D. (2009). Accounts and impression management in public diplomacy: Israeli
justification of force during the 2006 Lebanon war. Global Change, Peace & Security,
21(2), 219-239. doi:10.1080/14781150902872125
Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, 2nd ed. New
York: Seven Stories Press, 2002.

Orme-Johnson, D. W., Alexander, C. N., Davies, J. L., Chandler, H. M., & Larimore, W. E.
(1988). International Peace Project in the Middle East. Journal Of Conflict Resolution,
32(4), 776-812.

12
 Propaganda - Definition. (n.d.). Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved
December 26, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

Uttaro, R. A. (1982). The Voices of America in International Radio Propaganda. Law &
Contemporary Problems, 45(1), 103-122.
Yaghoobi, M. (2009). A critical discourse analysis of the selected Iranian and American printed
media on the representations of Hizbullah-Israel war. Journal of Intercultural
Communication, (21), 6.

Images: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Flags and missiles:

http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ou.edu/eds/imageQuickView?sid=59d85d99-aa76-4742-
ad01-
704711483fe5@sessionmgr4&vid=6&ui=1453986&id=21826048&parentui=21826048&tag=A
N&db=f5h
Merkava on side: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-
G1CekFRXr9w/UAc1gJCveSI/AAAAAAAAc1A/qS8l145-nVs/s1600/2006-
08MerkavadestroyedinSouthofLebanon-785731.jpg
Soldier hands on head: http://www.meaus.com/110-lebanon-1.JPEG

Mass Funeral 250 civilians: http://www.meaus.com/110-lebanon-mass-funeral.JPEG

Police Chief Nyugen Loc: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/10/article-0-

03D2C265000005DC-153_468x286.jpg
Optor Egypt revolution:
http://anarchitext.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/april_6_youth_movement.jpg?w=300&h=280
Optor Georgia: http://www.american-buddha.com/chossudovsky.6.gif
Optor Venezuela: http://danielssun.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/otpor-venezuela.gif?w=600

13

View publication stats