Talk:Public diplomacy of Israel

POV II - Redirect Israeli propaganda

Israeli propaganda links here. If this is not POV, what else would it be?--Aschmidt (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Having a redirect doesn't mean that the concepts are the same. It means this is the article in which the topic is discussed. This seems to be the most appropriate article for discussing Israel propaganda, so it links here. Zero^talk 12:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RNEUTRAL Sean.hoyland - talk 15:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the point is, the term "isreal propaganda" is POV in itself, isn't it?--Aschmidt (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, redirects are allowed (to some degree) to be less neutral or POV. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC) This article is **incredibly** white washed. Which is not surprising. Hasbara is not "public relations" in a neutral sense, but a coordinated effort by Israel and its internet 'sayanim' to present an entirely skewed picture of what it does, and of course, to smear legitimate criticism as "anti-semitism" - even to the point of absurdity such that protesting Israeli war crimes or the racist statements of Israeli officials is itself "racist." Hasbara is more Ministry of Truth from 1984 than some sort of advertising campaign.

http://wikispooks.com/wiki/Hasbara_-_overview 50.136.53.238 (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)rpt

Restored removal of longstanding source

In this edit, Brewcrewer removed a source that has been in the article for over two years:

... The term is used by the Israeli government and its supporters to describe efforts to explain government policies and promote Israel in the face of negative press, and to counter what they see as delegitimisation of Israel around the world. Hasbara means "explanation", and is also a euphemism for propaganda.

References

Brew gave the edit summary, "rm paritisn oped. not sure about the the other source". The source is not an op-ed, however; it's a news story written by a reporter under the auspices of The National's foreign desk. Further, every source that discusses this topic will inevitably include a significant measure of subjective opinion. That's just the nature of this topic; it's a "soft" or "subjective" one, not the same as if we were writing an article about an objective topic, like, say, rocks. I've restored the source.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Btw, the preceding source notes, "They [volunteer bloggers] are expected to work in tandem with a team of undercover staff created in the foreign ministry last July whose job is to pose as ordinary surfers and post good news about Israel on websites." Attempting to conceal the true origin of a message is, as many dozens of academic sources aver, a hallmark technique of propaganda organisations.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda

Isn't "hasbara" basically = propaganda? --Autismal (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

CN tag to Ref

This seemed to be the simplist way to remove the cn tag, and replace it with a ref. It was originally added here, in content of considerable longevity. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Quote mining

Yes, israelnationalnews.com wrote "propaganda strives to highlight the positive aspects of one side of a conflict, hasbara seeks to explain actions, whether or not they are justified.", but it also wrote:

Hasbara, which means "explanation" in Hebrew, is the new user-friendly term for Israeli propaganda.

Would I be allowed to use the same source for quoting "the new user-friendly term for Israeli propaganda"? --80.114.178.7 (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If is is properly ref'd, neutrally stated, and flows with current content, yes; the ref has been accepted for a long time. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why a small newspaper, like http://www.israelnationalnews.com, is getting so much attention. On this topic, it is also biased: whithout the Zionist occupation of Palestine, it wouldn't even exist. --80.114.178.7 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinkwashing (LGBT)

The entry for Pinkwashing (LGBT) contained far more material about "Brand Israel" than is appropriate for that WP entry. As I'm about to trim it to some nugget of relevant material, I'm placing the material I plan to edit down here, so that anyone who finds useful material can add it to this Public diplomacy (Israel) entry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Brand Israel campaign

Sarah Schulman, a writer and professor at the City University of New York, describes pinkwashing as an indespendible part of the official government campaign, which she calls ""Brand Israel", to alter public perception of Israel as "militaristic and religious" and promote it instead as a "modern democracy", a "safe and secured place for investment", and a "tourist destination with the sun and the sand". She traces its origins to 2005.

2005: In October 2, the "Brand Israel" marketing was adopted by a group of senior officials in the Foreign Ministry, the Prime Minister's Office, and the Finance Ministry. It included a three-year consultation with American marketing executives and aimed at upgrading Israel from a "well-known brand" to a "likable brand" in the United States by selecting appealing images of Israeli society and highlighting the symbols that represent "progressiveness" and "modernness". The Brand Israel Group (BIG) Several conducted studies to establish international and domestic perceptions of Israel.

2007: The Israeli Foreign Ministry organizes a "Brand Israel" Conference in Tel Aviv to launch the campaign with a 4 million dollar budget. Another 3 million in annual spending on public relations efforts. This year also witnessed the first wave of a niche marketing strategy, which targeted the heterosexual population. Specifically, a photo-shooting project was initiated by the Consulate General of Israel, featuring Israeli female veterans in swimsuits. This project was featured in Maxim Magazine, the largest young man life-style magazine in America with a monthly readership of over nine million, under the title of "Women of the Israeli Defense Forces". It was reported by the Electronic Intifada in 2007, the global advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi started to work for the Israel in improving its image without charge.

2008: Israeli started to commission its artists in promoting the liberal and progressive image of Israel. PACBI published a sample contract between Israeli artists and the government, which reveals that the artist is paid with transportation and accommodation expenses to attend international events on the condition that their works need to “promote the policy interests of the state of Israel via culture and art including contributing to creating a positive image for Israel.” However, the contract specifically indicated the artist is forbidden to "present himself as an agent, emissary and/or representative of the Ministry." The general theme of those movies is to portray the victimhood of Palestinian gay community and the needs of saving Palestinian gay people from their homophobic society.

2009: The International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association announced an October Conference in Tel Aviv with the goal of promoting Israel as a "world gay destination." Halem, a Lebanese LGBTQ organization, responded with a call for a boycott. The symposium took place despite of opposition. In its newsletter, the Travel Association acknowledged and dismissed the protest, specifying the goal of this event is to support LGBT business around the world, not to focus on Israeli occupation of Gaza. In May 5, the Foreign Ministry of Israel announced to send an Israeli delegation to the 2009 World Outgames in Copenhagen and to sponsor part of the event.

2010: Statistics showed that, by 2010, the Foreign Ministry of Israel had allocated over 26 million dollars toward the "Brand Israel" campaign. In April, Brand Israel launched Israeli Pride Month in San Francisco, an event funded by Israeli government. Later in July, the Ministry of Tourism and Agudah, the largest Israeli LGBT organization joined together in launching "Tel Aviv Gay Vibe." Run in England and Germany, this online tourist campaign aimed to promote Tel Aviv as a tourist destination for European LGBT community. The campaign included advertisement on gay community websites, magazines and gay social mobile applications. A slogan was featured on Gay Tel Aviv, the official website for this campaign, indicating Tel Aviv as on of the "most intriguing and exciting new gay capitals of the world." An investment of NIS 340 million (about $88.1 million) was made jointly by the Ministry of Tourism and the Tel Aviv Municipality.

2011: The Tel Aviv Tourist Association filed a formal request with the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association to host World Pride in 2012. In July, The Anti-Defamation League hosted StandWithUS, with Yossi Herzog speaking on gay rights in Israel and gay presence in the Israeli Defense Force. In August, the Jerusalem Post reported the Foreign Ministry is promoting Gay Israel as part of its campaigns to break apart negative stereotypes many liberal Americans and Europeans have of Israel.

2012: In May, the 20th Annual Equality Forum was held in Philadelphia, which featured Israel as the country of the year and invited Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren as the keynote speaker. In the official page of the event, Israeli Embassy in Washington and the Israeli Ministry of Tourism were listed as the collaborators and the sponsors. Later this year, Tel Aviv's 14th annual Gay Pride Parade was held on June 8, 2012, following an event that marked the conclusion of the week-long carnival in Israel's largest city. On the event, the U.S. ambassador addressed the crowd in Hebrew, saying that "this is a day to celebrate and rejoice. Human rights are gay rights and gay rights are human rights." Following this event, the website Gaycities published a survey conducted by American Airlines, naming Tel Aviv as the world’s "Best Gay City of 2011".

2013: In August, Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai endorsed a project of erecting a monument for gays and lesbians persecuted by the Nazis during World War II. The project was proposed by attorney Eran Lev, who explained the project as "the first and only memorial site in Israel to mention the victims of the Nazis who were persecuted for anything other than being Jewish." He further indicated the purpose of the monument as "a place of quiet that will invite visitors to sit, contemplate, reflect and be in solitude." Existing monuments honoring gay Holocaust victims can be found in San Francisco, Amsterdam and Berlin, which also famous for its gay community presence.

Criticism of Israel

Scholars from various disciplines in many different countries have criticized Israel's pinkwashing as a form of colonialist propaganda. Jasbir Puar, an associate professor of Women's & Gender Studies at Rutgers University, pointed out that pinkwashing by Israel attempts to diverting attention from Israel's role as a colonial power with a distracting and exaggerated comparison between gay rights in Israel and in Occupied Palestine. Others describe it as an instance of classic Orientalist ideology, in which Arab society, specifically Palestine, is portrayed as "backward and stagnant" due to its percieved "barbaric, tribal, uncivilized and Islamic" nature, in contrast to the Jewish State of Israel.

Joseph Massad, associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University, contends that these practices are the continuation of colonial power in legitimatizing their occupation by blaming the natives for their moral lacking. And the reason for Israeli government and its propaganda organs to "insist on advertising and exaggerating its recent record on LGBT rights", according to him, "is to fend off international condemnation of its violations of the rights of the Palestinian people."

Some Israeli activists argue that the Israeli state is hypocritical in portraying itself as a gay-friendly society. In an interview with Haaretz, Palestinian Israeli activist Haneen Maikey indicated that the LGBT community does not have real rights behind the seemingly tolerant image portrayed internationally. Haaretz also published a poll showing that 46 percent of Israelis surveyed population see homosexuality as a perversion. Sarah Schulman pointed to a considerable number of people and movements in Arab/Muslim countries who are or sympathize with LGBTQ people and that the non-Muslim world harbors much anti-LGBT intolerance centered in religious fundamentalist groups, especially in the Catholic Church and Orthodox Judaism.

Keegan O'Brien writes:

Nothing illustrates the highly selective and hypocritical nature of Israel's supposedly "progressive" character more clearly than the experiences of LGBT Palestinians. As the Palestinian LGBT organization Al Qaws has pointed out, there is no special pink route for LGBT Palestinians to get them around the daily humiliation of checkpoints throughout the West Bank. And being LGBT most certainly does not grant protection to Palestinians when the Israeli Defense Forces decide to rain down missiles on their homes, schools, and hospitals in Gaza as it has been doing.

Responses

Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard University law professor and a frequent defender of Israel, has said that this term is used against Israel by "some radical gay activists" who are antisemitic "bigots." He called the use of the term pinkwashing in this context as "nothing more than anti-Semitism with a pink face." In an opinion piece in the New York Post, he examined Israel’s record of recognizing and protecting the rights of its gay population in contrast with the treatment of the LGBTQ community in the West Bank and in Gaza, arguing that the state practice of promoting the gay-friendly image and social progressiveness is not whitewashing. In 2012, after the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies at the City University of New York announced a conference on Homonationalism and Pinkwashing, Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a trustee of CUNY, called the event "disgusting". He said that adopting the term "pinkwashing" to describe the state practices of Israel is "a continuation of idiocy by people, leftists, anti-Semites, and Islamists to demonize Israel."

Shaul Ganon of the Israeli based gay rights group, Aguda, says:

Each side is trying to gain some points. The truth is the only one who gets screwed by this is the Palestinian gays.

Yair Qedar, an Israeli filmmaker, says:

Rather than openly opposing international anti-Israel LGBT groups, the gay community in Israel has essentially ignored the pink-washing issue... This is a real shame because LGBT rights are something Israelis should be proud of — for ourselves, our neighbors and all peace-seeking people.

References

Apologetics

Given how the word is used, wouldn't a more appropriate translation be "apologetics"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DsouzaSohan (talk • contribs) 03:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Hasbara Fellowship's external link and subsequent revert

Yesterday, and in light of the previous edit, I removed the HF link in External links with the comment “thanks for prev revert, but I do believe this non-public recruiting tool should indeed be removed.” The 'non-public' may have been a slow-connection impulse, since only the headers and a request for my email came up quickly. I still believe the 'recruiting tool should indeed be removed'; I additionally consider that edit summary a reasonable explanation already given for the edit.

HF is currently mentioned 5 times in the article. It is linked to its article on its formation; unlinked in its anti-Wikipedia campaign; article-linked again in See also; noted as a ref; and lastly linked differently to its official site in External links. That seemed to me overly weighted to the point of direct advocacy thereof, by Wikipedia, through its editors.

After checking WP:EL today, my immediate response to a sysop's subsequent revert is this one, and I'll note alternatively that the header and points 1 and 2 seem also to apply. This page is not that article's page; that page is an outgrowth of this page, and it adds little other than a sign-up sheet and a request for donations of time and money for only the pro side. Additional comments appreciated. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

MediaMonitors.net

An opinion by Edward Said is sourced from this website, but it seems to be one of those bizarre sites that has meaningless content but hopes to get search engine traffic to display ads. See this, for example. Can the quote can be sourced elsewhere (also it needs to have quote marks if it's a quote)? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Propaganda in Israel

@Icewhiz:, so you are saying that "Propaganda by Israel" is a more appropriate category? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that would be npov, as we would be endorsing criticism in our own voice, however that would rectify the factually incorrect in.Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at the parent Category:Propaganda by country, dozens of categories and articles in there. Don't see why the Israeli cat would be a NPOV violation. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the category as POV-ish either. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"Propaganda in Israel" is clearly an incorrect category because these are efforts to influence public opinion outside of Israel. "Propaganda by Israel" would be more appropriate, but there don't appear to be any other such categories and I recommend against making Israel your test case at WP:CFD. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

But doesn't this propaganda originate in Israel and is then disseminated to the outside world? It would be still "Israeli-origin" propaganda, i.e. "in Israel"... K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This actually does not, for the most part, originate in Israel - but by Israeli diplomats and affiliates abroad. Grammar aside, referring to Israeli public relations, as propaganda in Wikipedia's own voice (as opposed to a claim raised by critics), is a gross NPOV violation.Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: "Israeli diplomats and affiliates abroad" -- they are presumably gov employees (at least the diplomats). It's Propaganda originating in Israel, so the cat seems applicable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The NPOV problems here are deeper than the in/by discussion, however, public diplomacy or "hasbara" is for the most part not conducted in Israel as Israelis are well aware of the challenged they face, and have little need for explanation. Where or how this material is assembled is immaterial to dissemination.Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to look for a parallel situation, and here's an example: Propaganda_in_the_Soviet_Union#Soviet_propaganda_abroad is covered as part of the main article (in the Soviet Union). One of the linked article, Active measures talks about influence operations directed outside of the Soviet Union, and is categorised as Category:Propaganda in the Soviet Union.

But what is the deeper issue that you see with the category? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The word propaganda appears many times in the article backed by sources and is even mentioned in the lede. I agree with K.e.coffman that the propaganda originates in Israel even though the intended audience is outside. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You would need, in my mind, mainline RSes agreeing this is propaganda - and not just have polemic sides saying this is so and mainline sources mentioning critics saying it is so. There is generally a consensus that the totalitarian Soviet regime engaged in propaganda, such consensus does not extend to all other countries.Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Which the article already has. I restored the article given that (1) Category:Propaganda by interest is already there, and (2) Lack of a better category for propaganda done by Israel. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda

The description "Hasbara means "explanation", and is also a euphemism for propaganda." is, ironically, ipso facto propaganda. Why are the articles on Public diplomacy of the United States, Public diplomacy of South Korea, etc. not described as "a euphemism for propaganda" as well? I also can't help but notice that all the sources for this claim are opinion pieces that don't quality for WP:RS. VwM.Mwv (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

From Public relations, "In international relations, public diplomacy or people's diplomacy, broadly speaking, is the communication with and dissemination of propaganda to the general public of foreign nations to establish a dialogue designed to inform and influence." Propaganda is not in itself a negative word. It derives from words such as propagation, which simply means to spread something. Sewing seeds, for example, is commonly referred to as propagating.

Now I don't feel polite following you around, @VwM.Mwv:. I want you to go to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Israel, and bring all of these suggestions to them, because you seem to have a lot of good faith to contribute, but you are just going around testing and people are only going to start fights with you. You are just beginning Wikipedia it seems, with a deep interest in Israeli politics, so that Israel project is going to link to things that interest you, as well as people who will support and guide you as a beginner. Best of luck now, o/ ~ R.T.G 19:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@RTG: Okay thanks, I'll take a look at the Wikiproject.
(Though regarding this specific article, I still think the "propaganda" description is POV and insinuates something very negative.) VwM.Mwv (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@VwM.Mwv: Make it your business to fix it and make it perfect, but you can't war it in. The largest parts of Wikipedia outside articles and commentary, are the rules of interaction, and the manual of style. We are expected to aim for a certain method on the articles. I am sure you have something to contribute WPP:Israel. Go over the article and compare it to Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV. Try to get it how you like it, but strictly to the guides on NPOV and sources in particular. Don't be afraid to wait until you've a couple of hours and read the article one section at a time, opening all the sources and searching for more while you read, and that's how articles develop really best. o/ ~ R.T.G 00:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@VwM.Mwv: Be careful, VwM, at the top of this talk page is a banner which states this is a controversial topic which has been restricted at the highest level on Wikipedia because of disputes. You cannot revert more than once per day on this article. ~ R.T.G 00:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Pictures

The pictures seems to me like WP:OR.We need WP:RS that ties them to Hasbara. I will remove them if WP:ONUS is not met --Shrike (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hasbara is what the IDF Spokesperson's Unit does. That's their job. This is a fine example of WP:BLUE. Zero^talk 13:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, Its you own WP:OR that is an example of Hasbara we need source that ties this picture together --Shrike (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Btw I invite you to read the comment by Sean Talk:Public_diplomacy_of_Israel#Hasbara_pictures: on this page --Shrike (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If these two images are not hasbara, there is no hasbara. It's pure BLUE. But I have too many other problems at the moment to care very much. Zero^talk 02:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, pictures do not reliable sources, and if they had reliable sources we likely could not use the pictures as they wouldnt be free at that point. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Image_description_pages: Reliable sources, if any, may be listed on the image's description page. Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. I am removing the tags. nableezy - 15:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Name-change?

This article was moved from Hasbara to present name back in 2009, after very little discussion, with the arguments given here.

Note the quote from User:Nagle in 2009: "There was an official effort from the Israeli Foreign Ministry back in 2005 to substitute the phrase "public diplomacy" for "hasbara"[20]. So even the Foreign Ministry moved away from using the term "hasbara"".

I would say the move from "hasbara" to "public diplomacy" is in itself a hasbara move...

And in the years since, "Hasbara" has become far more common, (I came here because a recent article about Amin al-Husseini use the word).

Also, the present name does not convey the correct impression, IMO: Hasbara is not only "diplomacy", it is (far) more "public relations" (some would say "propaganda"), Comments? Huldra (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is another article from just this week:

To achieve this, the organization recruits pro-Israeli activists and organizations for 'Hasbara' purposes ('Hasbara' means roughly 'explaining' in Hebrew, and is a general term used for Israel's public diplomacy efforts aimed at the international community in defence of its actions).

I don't think we should use the Hebrew name for a title but it is I think fine for a bolded altname. Public diplomacy in the given context essentially means lobbying or what we would call POV pushing.09:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, User:Selfstudier; I am not sure I agree with you. BTW, the Israeli Foreign Ministry has (at least) since 2005 tried to change "hasbara" into "Public diplomacy"[2] Should we follow the Israeli Foreign Ministry?

But if you see the article Public diplomacy; it is all about open informations. Nothing about covert operations, and that is what is typical for Hasbara/"Public diplomacy of Israel".

If you look at that recent Haaretz article you linked to; it continues:

• "In its previous format, the organization was allocated 250 million shekels to fund covert pro-Israeli propaganda and “consciousness shaping” activities on social networks. Like with the current decision, half the budget, 128 million shekels, was meant to come from the government and the other half from donations. However, due to low contribution, likely caused by reluctant donors hesitant to identify themselves with covert propaganda operations". (My bolding)

The word to note is "covert". "Covert" has nothing to do with "Public diplomacy"; quite the opposite.

I agree that we should (mainly) stick to english words on en.wp, but sometimes there simply isn't any English word which cover the original concept; take Sumud; what english word could that accurately be translated to? AFAIK; none. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

But hasbara need not be covert and the page topic would be changed if only covert hasbara was included. I'm finding it hard to decide on this one. I have a natural antipathy towards foreign-language article titles, unless the word is quite well known to English speakers. For example Mossad is lovely, Irgun is unavoidable, Aliyah is borderline, and Olei Hagardom is unacceptable. I'm not sure where "hasbara" fits into this scale. Maybe around the 'aliyah' point? Zero^talk 03:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There is Jewish lobby, hmm, yes and no. Atm there are Israel lobby articles only for UK and US, maybe this should be the parent article of those named Israel lobby (links to dab page) rather than the current euphemism? Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No enthusiasm for that suggestion? It seems logical to me given the article content (the Israel lobby in the United States is linked out as a main and the UK lobby should be as well. Then we can rename this to be the parent of those two (and any others that might get set up, like Israel lobby in the Gulf or whatever). Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"Hasbara" no direct translation?

The article says that hasbara has "no direct English translation," but it does - it's just the gerund of 'explain' in Hebrew. The propagandistic connotations are just a result of Sokolow and later others using the term to describe propaganda efforts (i.e. "explaining one's side").

Preferably this bit could be updated? Add that it's a verbal noun of explain (maybe cite a Hebrew-English dictionary) and remove the bit about it "roughly meaning" 'explaining'. As it stands it gives the impression that hasbara is a word barely glossed by English 'explaining' rather than what it is, a word fully glossed by it with a note in the margins. Kyoto Grand (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Change "Palestine Media Watch" to "Palestinian Media Watch"

The article erroneously refered to the organization that has nothing to do with pro-Israel media operations. "Palestinian Media Watch" is the actual organization that is related.Lags331 (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Have changed the link in the diaspora advocacy section to Palestinian Media Watch. Andykatib (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)