by Prof. Eytan Gilboa
"Sharp power" is the use of subversion, manipulation, distraction, and lies authoritarian to undermine an enemy.
Screen shot of YouTube video of drone footage of March of Return,
near Khan Younis, April 6, 2018
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 800, April 17, 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In the
so-called “March of Return,” Hamas is utilizing a new kind of power in
international relations called “sharp power.” This term originally
referred to the subversion, manipulation, distraction, and lies
authoritarian governments employ to undermine liberal democracies. The
concept can now be applied to terrorist organizations like Hamas.
Democracies don’t know yet how to effectively cope
with the challenges of “sharp power”. They do not understand how
vulnerable they are, and are largely unable to prevent abuses of
fundamental freedoms and human rights. Unfortunately, the Western media,
including the major social media networks, as well as international
organizations like the UN and its affiliated agencies along with human
rights organizations (which are major tools of sharp power), collaborate
with the Islamic dictatorship of Hamas in Gaza.
Types of Power
Power is the ability to influence others to get
what you want. In the past, there was only “hard power”: getting what
you want by using or threatening to use force or sanctions, or inducing
compliance with rewards. When the Cold War ended, Harvard professor of
Government Joseph Nye, Jr. coined the term “soft power”, defined as
getting what you want by attracting and persuading peoples through
values, policies, institutions, and culture.
The next step in the power theory evolution was
“smart power”: a combination of hard and soft power where each
reinforces the other. Social media inspired the creation of a new term,
“collaborative power”: a bottom-up process of getting what you want by
mobilizing and connecting global communities around a cause.
The Russian intervention in the US 2016
presidential elections and attempts to cultivate favorable public
opinion in Europe via sophisticated information technologies and social
media yielded the “sharp power” concept, the most recent innovation in
definitions of power. In an article published in Foreign Affairs in November 2017, Christopher Walker and Jessica Ludwig
distinguished between soft and sharp power. They described the latter
as the influence wielded by authoritarian governments, primarily Russia
and China, through initiatives in the spheres of media, academia,
culture, and think tanks. They rejected the claim that what these
governments do is a legitimate effort to “share alternative ideas” or
“broaden the debate.” Sharp power “is not principally about attraction
or even persuasion; instead, it centers on distraction and
manipulation.”
The principal goal of sharp power isn’t a bona
fide dialogue between rivals on international issues. It rather exploits
and abuses freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and
sensitivities to human rights abuses in order to undermine, subvert, and
destabilize Western liberal democracies. People and organizations in
authoritarian regimes, in official and non-official capacities, assume
fake identities and disseminate lies to achieve their political goals.
They especially target the media, international organizations, and human
rights organizations. These despicable practices are frequently
undertaken by authoritarian non-state actors, such as terrorist
organizations.
Hamas’s Utilization of Sharp Power
Hamas has been using sharp power against Israel
since it violently took over Gaza in 2007 and established a ruthless and
violent Islamic theocracy. The US, the EU, Canada, Australia, and other
countries designated Hamas as a radical Islamic terrorist organization.
Hamas employed sharp power against Israel throughout all the military
confrontations it initiated against Israel in 2008-09, 2012, and 2014,
as well as in the recent “March of Return.”
Hamas systematically disseminated outright
fabrications and distortions and manipulated innocent citizens and the
Western and social media. They did this in order to increase tensions
and disagreements in Israel, cultivate support in Western democracies,
and obtain one-sided, extreme condemnation of Israel in international
bodies such as the ridiculous and fraudulent UN Council on Human Rights.
Hamas presented the “March of Return” as an
innocent and peaceful demonstration initiated by suffering citizens to
protest their awful economic and social conditions. Hamas also accused
Israel of committing war crimes by intentionally shooting and killing
demonstrators. The truth is exactly the opposite, and Hamas’s claims are
false and misleading.
The march was initiated and organized by Hamas,
not by oppressed citizens. Hamas invested millions of dollars in
building an infrastructure for the demonstrators, and called for the
breaking of the border fence and infiltration into Israeli territory. If
Hamas had been permitted to accomplish this goal, the life and property
of Israeli citizens living a few meters from the fence would have been
in danger. These were not peaceful demonstrations.
Hamas deployed operatives among the demonstrators
and ordered them to throw firebombs, shoot at Israeli soldiers, put
explosives on the fence, cross into Israel’s territory, and, if
possible, kill or kidnap soldiers and citizens. They sent women and
children close to the fence to provoke Israeli soldiers. They knew these
violent actions might trigger Israeli fire, but that was the point.
They wanted as many Palestinians as possible to be killed, including
women and children, in order to obtain favorable media coverage,
sympathy in world public opinion, denunciation from world leaders, and
condemnatory resolutions from UN bodies. These are all clear
manifestations of sharp power.
Hamas is lying and cheating about the reasons for
the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. It annually spends hundreds of millions
of dollars on operatives, rockets, attack tunnels, and violence. If
Hamas had spent that money on economic and social development, Gazans
would now live in a better economic environment. The more recent
deterioration in the Gazan economy resulted from a bitter feud between
Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, not from any Israeli action. The
head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, was fed up with
Hamas’s undermining of his authority, and cut funding for the power
station and salaries of officials. These measures caused, respectively,
electrical blackouts and severe reductions in income.
Hamas says it needs weapons because of the Israeli
blockade and attacks on Gaza. Not true. In 2005, Israel completely
withdrew from Gaza and expected a period of peace building. Israel
imposed a partial siege on Gaza only because Hamas explicitly and
repeatedly said it wished to destroy the Jewish state and constantly
used terrorism and violence. The siege was the result of Hamas’s
aggression and violence, not the other way around. Egypt, which also
shares a border with Gaza, also imposed a siege on Gaza because of
Hamas’s collaboration with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and radical
Islamic terrorist groups in Sinai.
Consequences
The media in the US and Europe, including the elite press of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Independent, CNN,
and the BBC to name just a few, largely accepted the manipulations,
lies, and fabrications of Hamas without much questioning or reservation.
The headlines tell how the media almost unanimously framed the story. The New York Times published the following headline: “Israeli military kills 15 Palestinians in confrontations at Gaza Border.” Reuters wrote, “Israeli forces kill 16 Palestinians in Gaza border protests.” CNN announced,
“Gaza protests: 17 Palestinians killed in confrontations with Israeli
forces.” At best, these were misleading headlines.
The Western media also published and broadcast
partial and biased reports, incorrect data and information,
exaggerations, and extreme commentary. They also omitted significant
contexts, which in itself caused distortion. For example, on several
occasions, The New York Times published false
statements like these: “The protests are aimed at Israel’s blockade of
Gaza, which began after Hamas seized control in 2007.”
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, EU foreign
policy chief Federica Mogherini, and other leaders have called for an
independent investigation of Israel’s conduct. At the Vatican, Pope
Francis lamented the killing of “defenseless Palestinians.” In Israel,
the radical left party Meretz and the controversial “human rights”
organization B’etzelem, as well as similar bodies abroad, accepted the
false Hamas narrative and demanded investigation only of Israel’s
defensive actions.
The media, leaders, and organizations of the
Western world, along with certain parties and organizations in Israel,
conveniently removed any reference to Hamas’s motivation, aggression,
war crimes, and manipulations. For them, it was only the Israeli Army
versus innocent civilian demonstrators. These attitudes played right
into the hands of Hamas, and strengthened its use of sharp power.
Hamas’s maximal and effective utilization of sharp
power presents Israel with difficult dilemmas. If you use force against
the terrorists implanted among the demonstrators, you might accidently
hit innocent civilians. If you don’t, you endanger your soldiers and
civilians who live close to the border, and you encourage further
violence and attacks from Hamas.
Remedies
In order to defeat Hamas’s sharp power Israel must
use smart power, which can be defined as the minimal and careful use of
force coupled with an intensive public diplomacy campaign. The campaign
should present the true facts about Hamas, which are often ignored by
the media, international organizations, and human rights organizations.
Israel must effectively utilize all communication channels to
disseminate the facts.
Critics of Israel’s handling of the demonstrators
in Gaza missed, or willfully ignored, the march’s slogan: “the March of
Return.” “Return” might seem an innocent, idealistic, and justified goal
– the return of refugees to homes they left in Israel seventy years
ago. In practice, “the right of return” means the destruction of Israel
as an independent Jewish state. Hamas has never supported either a peace
process with Israel or a “two states for two peoples” solution.
“Return” means the death of Israel.
Gaza was a test case of Palestinian intention and
ability to live in peace with Israel. In 2005, Israel dismantled all its
settlements in Gaza and evacuated all the Jews who lived there and its
entire military. The Israeli leaders who initiated and implemented the
withdrawal promised that the disengagement, the newly acquired
semi-independent status of Gaza, and the economic cooperation with
Israel would pave the way towards a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian
peace and turn Gaza into Singapore of the Middle East. Many foreign
leaders echoed these beliefs.
The result was exactly the opposite. Hamas turned
Gaza into a terrorism base and frequently used force against Israeli
civilians. Hamas has also become a proxy of Iran (after Hezbollah in
Lebanon), a country that threatens to eliminate Israel.
Israel did in Gaza exactly what leaders, UN
bodies, international organizations, and human rights organizations are
telling it to do today in the West Bank. These demands ignore the real
obstacles to peace. The Palestinians had an opportunity in Gaza to show
how they can live in peace with Israel. They failed. Hamas preferred
violence and sharp power to peace and reconciliation. This failure
suggests that territory and settlements have never been the main
obstacles to peace. There are much deeper reasons that the “March of
Return” clearly exposes.
The Palestinians are not prepared to accept Israel
as a Jewish state within any territory or borders. Ever since the
recommendations of the 1937 British Royal Peel Commission, they have
consistently rejected all territory-based partition solutions. They
rejected the 1947 UN partition resolution and failed to establish a
Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza when, between 1948 and 1967,
those territories were respectively under Jordanian and Egyptian
control. In 1999-2000, Arafat rejected two partition proposals offered
to him first by Prime Minister Ehud Barak and subsequently by President
Bill Clinton. In 2008, Abbas ignored a similar proposal offered to him
by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
The insistence on the “right of return” and the
refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state are demands to change the
character and identity of Israel. No country can accept such demands.
These have been the insurmountable obstacles to peace.
Given the natural sympathy for the underdog and
the too easy acceptance of Hamas’s false narrative, defeating Hamas’s
sharp power will be difficult. It necessitates an effective and
wide-ranging public diplomacy campaign. This requires reorganization of
the governmental ministries and agencies responsible for public
diplomacy. The current government separated functions and resources
among several ministries. Effective coordination and supervision among
them is lacking. The smart power remedy requires a synergy among all the
military, diplomatic, and communication systems as well as between the
government and supportive non-profits and NGOs.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family
Source: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/hamas-dirty-war/
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment