In a November 14 Knesset meeting, the end of the financing of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ public diplomacy efforts abroad came up. The chairman of the Subcommittee for Foreign Policy and Public Diplomacy, MK Ze'ev Elkin, stated, “It is unthinkable that in the middle of the war, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ ongoing public diplomacy system is disabled due to the lack of a budget.” The representative of the Ministry of Finance advised that a budget was allocated, but it is awaiting the approval of the Finance Committee.
This is not a budgetary event; rather, it points to the state of Israeli public diplomacy. Even if presumably cooperation during war improves, as the head of the public diplomacy system claimed during the meeting, the reality that the party entrusted with public diplomacy abroad is left without resources is not reasonable. Could you imagine a division ceasing to function due to lack of fuel or ammunition?
Clearly there are many elements in the Israeli government involved in public diplomacy, some of which were inactive this past year. How can the national information system integrate bodies that it does not know because the head of the office has just assumed his position? The division between the Ministry of Diaspora and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is also not clear, and is taking shape during the war.
Above all, there are serious question marks about Israeli public diplomacy: what is the appropriate approach at this time – public diplomacy that tries to prove Israel's righteousness or act as an influence campaign that adapts its messages to the various target audiences in the world? What is the relationship between the IDF spokesperson who also addresses the international audience, and the Foreign Ministry, which specializes in this? What is the chance of creating synergy between the government ministries and the security establishment in war, when some bodies are not in their routine? Would it not be wise to reduce the number of civilian agencies dealing with the issue? What should the state's position be toward “civilian public diplomacy,” which was created in a moment of shock and is fading quickly?
The post is published in collaboration with the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Israel
In a November 14 Knesset meeting, the end of the financing of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ public diplomacy efforts abroad came up. The chairman of the Subcommittee for Foreign Policy and Public Diplomacy, MK Ze'ev Elkin, stated, “It is unthinkable that in the middle of the war, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ ongoing public diplomacy system is disabled due to the lack of a budget.” The representative of the Ministry of Finance advised that a budget was allocated, but it is awaiting the approval of the Finance Committee.
This is not a budgetary event; rather, it points to the state of Israeli public diplomacy. Even if presumably cooperation during war improves, as the head of the public diplomacy system claimed during the meeting, the reality that the party entrusted with public diplomacy abroad is left without resources is not reasonable. Could you imagine a division ceasing to function due to lack of fuel or ammunition?
Clearly there are many elements in the Israeli government involved in public diplomacy, some of which were inactive this past year. How can the national information system integrate bodies that it does not know because the head of the office has just assumed his position? The division between the Ministry of Diaspora and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is also not clear, and is taking shape during the war.
Above all, there are serious question marks about Israeli public diplomacy: what is the appropriate approach at this time – public diplomacy that tries to prove Israel's righteousness or act as an influence campaign that adapts its messages to the various target audiences in the world? What is the relationship between the IDF spokesperson who also addresses the international audience, and the Foreign Ministry, which specializes in this? What is the chance of creating synergy between the government ministries and the security establishment in war, when some bodies are not in their routine? Would it not be wise to reduce the number of civilian agencies dealing with the issue? What should the state's position be toward “civilian public diplomacy,” which was created in a moment of shock and is fading quickly?
The post is published in collaboration with the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Israel