Branding The Blame
Words are vital in political communications. Words are how you frame history, how you sway populations, and how you convince voters. Listen carefully to how government leaders or official media refer to events. It’s important because how they use words to describe an event gives away how they want you to think about it and what policy options they will be using. Examples are plenty - Enhanced interrogation techniques (torture) ; Collateral damage (civilian death); Correctional facility (prison); Friendly Fire (death by one’s own side); Regime Change (overthrowing a government). There are multiple documents from John F. Kennedy’s White House on the importance of calling Agent Orange a ‘defoliant’ and its use of 'herbicidal warfare’ to avoid its acknowledgement as illegal chemical warfare. (Google it. Horrific.) The same idea for the ‘evacuation from Kabul’ as if it were a fire and not a loss. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was called a ‘special operation’ as if it were surgery and not a return of war to Europe.
Words are political and they influence how we view and accept certain policies. They are not always oppressive. Think of it more like subtle hypnosis. Political offices employ entire communications departments which develop headlines, buzzwords, hashtags, and soundbites. Words like terrorist, hooligan, fascist, or communist lose their actual definition in the sea of vague accusations. Some terms evolve. Cuts to social services were rebranded as austerity. The word austerity is now political poison, so ‘economic adjustment’ can be used.
Let’s look at the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in World War II, as recently revived in the public eye through Oppenheimer. Some may argue it was necessary, some say it was necessary but tragic, others say a crime. These are different narratives but they all believe 1) a bomb was dropped, 2) on Japan, 3) by the United States. These are the agreed facts. What differs is the narrative.
Which is why political communication on Gaza is so interesting - no one agrees on a frame. There’s not even an accepted term for what is happening (unless you use the legal definition - genocide).
In Gaza, not all parties want to agree on the facts. They can’t even agree on the players. Usual political debate can’t function when there are not competing narratives. Controlling a narrative is power. A lack of narratives is chaos. What we currently have is a consistent narrative by one side, and increasingly farcical chaos on the other. Why? Let’s look.
Three Things You Should Know:
Why Narrative Matters: A narrative creates a frame of how you want people to view an issue - whether it is a present issue or a historic event. Your frame also reveals the policy you plan to pursue and the policy of others you can find acceptable. This is also called controlling the narrative. Your goal eventually is for people to agree with your frame. Things inside of the frame are acceptable or possible, and anything outside of it are irrelevant, impossible, or extremist. For example, what is the difference between the Syrian revolution and the Syrian Civil War? It's the same event but two different narratives that usher in two different policies. Communists had ‘re-education’ centers, sounding like schools instead of prisons or Gulags. The US does not refer to the ‘retreat from Saigon’ but to the ‘fall of Saigon’. In campaigning, your opponent may frame you as old, and you frame yourself as ‘experienced’ and your opponent as ‘inexperienced’. In business, if your product is faulty, you may recall it out of ‘concern for customer safety’ rather than ‘fear of getting sued’. Sometimes people try to rebrand, or create a new narrative, around an existing one. US Senator Tom Cotton referred to protests on US campuses as ‘little Gazas”. Imagine using someone’s homeland as an insult! It is not even logical except to make people think “Gaza = bad”. There is also a strong element of racism to it. (Remember Senator Cotton recommended unleashing the National Guard on Black American protestors.)
Again, controlling a narrative is power. But just offering a narrative puts forward a policy and a path to resolving the issue. Calling Agent Orange an ‘herbicide’ is a policy path for its use. Calling it a ‘chemical weapon’ is a policy path for its ban. When there is no clear narrative, there is no clear policy or even path to policy.
The Framing of Jordan and its Allies:
Jordan was quick to control the frame on Gaza. For years King Abdullah II has warned the international community about the violence and expansion of Israeli settlements, and urged stepping out of the conflict management and engaging in a real peace process. Jordan knew that the situation was unstable and Israel's actions would beget violence. Jordan understands that narrative is future policy. It had coherent and clear messaging from the start of the war on Gaza - no mass displacement, an immediate ceasefire, and the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital. It has refused to turn the war on Gaza to a stand-alone humanitarian crisis outside of the wider Palestine issue.
Jordan placed Israel’s illegal settlement expansion, the occupation of Palestine and the lack of self determination and justice for Palestinians at the forefront of its frame. The shuttle diplomacy and consistent rhetoric of King Abdullah and Ayman Safadi over the past 8 months was centered on guaranteeing that frame - acknowledging the humanitarian crises as a byproduct of the lack of political solution. There has been a subtle disagreement between the Kingdom and some allies who tried to frame events as humanitarian only, for a standalone event. We saw Jordan, again, jump ahead and control it and recenter it on policy towards the Palestinian state, Gaza included. I do believe this relentless diplomatic effort has led to Three additional European states to recognize Palestine - Jordan has championed this and others are following. (Look carefully at what I did by saying ‘the Palestinian state’ - making it current - and not ‘a Palestinian state’ - making it aspirational.)
The US Framing:
But who is to blame? Many would cite the years-long system of settlement expansion and lack of rights for Palestinians. But what if you disagree with that frame, as do some in the West? Well, there is a strong movement to blame Netanyahu. By putting the blame on Bibi it makes this an easier political mess to clean. If the blame is put on an education system, judicial system, social media atmosphere, policing policies, or property law, it is much messier and difficult to move on from.
Some examples: Senator Chuck Schumer called for elections in Israel. Nancy Pelosi followed by saying she agrees and elections are the foundation of democracy, so who would be against them? Thomas Fredman wrote in the New York Times “Netanyahu cannot be Trusted”. A spate of articles talked about “Biden’s frustration” with Netanyahu, Biden’s ultimatum to Bibi, Biden ‘giving up’ on Netanyahu, and ‘The Biden-Netanyahu Relationship is Strained.” Biden still referred to himself as a Zionist, and still kept sending weapons. The goal was to blame Bibi and keep the rest of the policy. Netanyahu probably won’t make it through another election and is thus expendable. That narrative likely would have worked - blame one Israeli government but keep the relationship and policy intact. But that narrative has disappeared. There is no frame. There is no narrative.
Support for Israel in the US is a widely bipartisan policy that is politically popular and so widespread that its opposite was branded fringe. Any criticism is denounced to the point where even a Biden team narrative to blame Bibi gets crushed. For example, when news leaked that the International Criminal Court may issue a warrant for Bibi, a group of US Senators (hello again Tom Cotton!) threatened the court offical’s family with sanctions. When one of the many dozens of arms shipments to Israel was stalled, many in Congress and the Senate blamed Biden directly. Ben-Gvir tweeted, “Hamas hearts Biden”, and it got retweeted by US officials. Now that the court is proceeding, the goal seems to be to protect Bibi and not blame him. So what is really left for framing? What narrative remains? And most importantly what is the US policy?
My Take:
Let’s look at this as actual tragic history and not a Coen brothers comedy. The US, UK, Canada, and others do not recognize Palestine, yet the vast majority of countries do. International bodies like the ICC, ICJ, and parts of the UN may be using terms like genocide or war crimes, which have legal definitions. Other states supply their own definitions claiming the evidence doesn’t measure up. The ICC may issue warrants, although the US is a non-member and does not recognize the court’s authority. International institutions like UNRWA raise the alarm of crisis, while facing accusations of collaboration. So, to recap, the key players don’t recognize the same states, don’t agree on the key concepts, don’t recognize the same legal bodies, don’t agree on the standards of evidence, and can only vaguely agree, “too many civilians have died.” (Chris Coons, Antony Blinken, Kamala Harris).
Let’s go back to political comms. There is no way for the US to rhetorically win this. Framing is vital. Confused narratives, squishy definitions, and vague acknowledgements show weakness. The only strong rhetoric from the US seems to frame the policy as, “We will stand by Israel no matter what, and we don’t care what it costs the international system.” That communication is clear. This is the de facto frame. This is the narrative that remains.
But what will this look like after 40 years? How will John Kirby and Matthew Miller be remembered by history? They are not the most guilty, but in terms of political comms their roles are paramount. And it is not all on the shoulders of the US (although they are supplying a lot of the weapons). How will the UK look back on its role? How does Germany view this debate after 25 years?
There is the near-term argument about how to save face in the wake of mounting evidence. Then there is the later conversation about being on the wrong side of history.
Most importantly, de facto narrative will resound across generations of Arabs. This is not a Kirby cringe moment or a Biden hot mic moment, this is the policy of the United State’s and its lack of support for multiple “partners” in the region. Future generations are transitioning to adulthood under this narrative and will support policies in the shadow of this narrative. The leadership and partnership of the US will be viewed through this frame. Policies towards the US, the international system, Israel and most importantly domestic politics in their own countries will be developed in this frame.
Yasmina Guerda of the UN humanitarian affairs office, stated that: “We would need to invent brand new words to adequately describe the situation that Palestinians in Gaza find themselves in today.” At this point, maybe a new language.