The Foundation for Defense of Democracies has released a study on Palestinian social media entitled “P@lestinian Pulse: What Policymakers Can Learn from Palestinian Social Media.” Researchers analyzed Arabic-language blogs, news sites, forums, and other resources, the majority of which were said to have originated in Gaza and the West Bank, in an attempt to take a temperature reading of Palestinian public opinion.
As Mondoweiss pointed out last week, the report puts forth the (rather unsurprising) findings that Palestinian social media users are educated and primarily use Arabic online, and that the Palestinian Internet is largely uncensored. All true, certainly. The report also found that, generally, Palestinians have an overwhelmingly negative view of Israel, that Israel has no genuine interest in the peace process, and that the two-state solution is “on its deathbed.” Also unsurprising. There were, of course, more specific findings, but I’m more concerned about the policy recommendations.
The first two recommendations acknowledge that the Palestinian online environment should not be taken lightly be policymakers, and suggest that more intensive study of the environment should be undertaken to get a better feel for what Palestinians think. Fair enough.
The third recommendation, however, is incredibly troubling when looked at in detail. The researchers recommend that the State Department’s Digital Outreach Team become more engaged in Palestinian online discourse. I had the pleasure of meeting one of the people involved with the team at this year’s Al Jazeera Media Forum. I was pleased, actually, to see such an attempt to engage with them. What the Outreach team does is engage in conversations online in Persian, Arabic, and Urdu in attempt to “correct misinformation.” They sign all of their messages with “email@example.com” and are required to be transparent in their conversations. Though I’m personally not a fan of this approach–I can’t imagine it’s terribly effective at changing people’s minds–I also think it’s relatively harmless.
The Foundation’s researchers, however, would prefer the Outreach Team not identify themselves a la China’s 50 cent army:
FDD’s research found that, during the nine-week observation period, the State Department’s efforts to influence the online discussions were largely ineffective. This may stem from the fact that the team is small in number, and cannot possibly challenge even a plurality of the views expressed on sites where sentiments run counter to U.S. objectives. However, it also may stem from a process whereby the engagement team has the odds stacked against it. Indeed, the Digital Outreach Team identified itself in every online interaction, which nearly always drew fire from users with a pre-existing bias against the United States.
To be effective, the outreach team must not advertise its presence. More importantly, it must launch a broader campaign to limit and discredit violent messages, expose Palestinian extremists on the Internet, and thwart their ability to gain credibility. This will require a more aggressive approach than the one currently employed. It may also require additional personnel.
The Digital Outreach Team should also be viewed as an important source of intelligence. Indeed, they regularly assess sentiments expressed online in the same way that Foreign Service Officers assess political sentiments on the ground. As such, they can add an additional window of understanding into the Palestinian political landscape. To this end, they could participate more actively in conversation threads and pose specific questions on a range of topics. This will allow them to assess opinions on a range of issues with a higher degree of focus, nuance, and specificity more commonly gauged by polling.
State Department decision-makers can benefit from these findings. For example, if anti-peace sentiment is running high online, an understanding of these sentiments could inform the decisions of State Department officials responsible for advising the White House and briefing Congress on peace talks or other diplomatic initiatives.
Let’s ignore for the moment the disingenuous definition of “anti-peace sentiment” and focus solely on the recommendation at hand. What we have here is a lobby group that purports to promote democracy suggesting that the United States government manipulate Palestinian conversations in an attempt to “win the hearts and minds” of the Palestinian people…secretly.
The fear, of course, is that the State Department might take this seriously; after all, FDD credits itself with pushing them to shut down Al-Manar broadcasts. Were the State Department to implement such practices, they would follow in the footsteps of Israel and China. Incidentally, there is already plenty of suspicion in the Arab blogosphere that the U.S. does pay commenters to surreptitiously engage in discussion, so were it to actually be implemented, it’s possible that Palestinian netizens would be wary enough not to fall for it.
I don’t see how this is in the spirit of democracy. It seems to be that an institution that claims to defend democracy would consider it wise to honor Palestinian agency, but hey, what do I know?
6 replies on ““Democracy Defenders” Urge State Department to Meddle with Palestinian Online Conversations”
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jillian C. York, Jillian C. York. Jillian C. York said: "Jillian C. York » “Democracy Defenders” Urge State Department to Meddle with Palestinian Online Conversations" ( http://bit.ly/9mj2w1 ) […]
great post Jillian. You forgot to talk more about the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ background. A “prominent member of the web of neoconservative-aligned think tanks,” according to International Relations Center. And one of the “top neocon think tanks” according to the Christian Science Monitor. FDD was also founded shortly after the 9/11 by top-neocons.
There is no democracy in Israel as a state is illegitimate and illegal and not recognized
Evidence of this if anyone wanted to write a comment in the Israeli websites
Does not allow him or be there are many obstacles to prevent him from writing a comment The reasons for Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation of Palestine in 1948.
Palestine Arab Islamic state like the rest of the Arab and Islamic states surrounding
Them. Means that there are Jews and Zionists in Palestine a big mistake, because this entity
Zionist is not consistent with the surrounding area (such as language, customs, traditions and religion)
The only solution to end the Arab-Israeli conflict is the expulsion of Jews from Palestine
All of Palestine. The Jewish people will not rest and will not feel comfortable and stability
But if it gets out of Palestine and the Middle East completely. If people continue to
Jews in Palestine and the Middle East, the death and destruction will continue.
Palestine Arab Islamic state and will remain
I have to firmly disagree with you, as your comment is ignorant of history. Jews are absolutely native to the area and have right to live there peacefully just as anyone else does. Remember that the neighboring countries are not all Muslim either; Christianity too is native to the region.
The problem is not Jews living there whatsoever, rather, the problem is the exclusionary nature of the state of Israel as it currently stands. Were all people who live there to have equal rights, in whatever capacity, there would be no problem.
In any case, what does your comment exactly have to do with my post? I considered removing it, but decided that it would be better to engage. That is one point on which I agree with the State Department’s methods; engaging in speech is better than censoring it.
There is no state called Israel
State of thieves called Israel a
basis of the displacement
and killing of Innocent nation of thieves
basis bloodshed and war
And the arrest of people
for tens of years to
prevent him from claiming
The right to life .
basis steal the land of the
And then people will steal
the land of the Arab-Muslim
The entire State of the
thieves do not know the law …..
Does not recognize the
law of the United Nations,
a state that considers itself above the
law . the law is the siege of Gaza
And the bloodshed and
destruction of houses and
killing innocent people
and occupying the country
This is a country named Israel thieves
Thanks Sami – sorry, your comment got caught in my spam filter :(
You’re right – I had intended to add some background and completely forgot. Nevertheless, even without the background, the actions of this group speak for themselves, I think!