Issue number 100 of #Kol_Hamon is dedicated to a topic that burns within us, and public discussion about it, is meager at best and manipulative at worst—the value of the "Israel" brand
Is it correct to refer to Israel as a brand? We are accustomed to perceiving commercial brands this way—iPhone is a brand, Tesla is a brand (in trouble), BMW is a brand (desirable), as are Nespresso, Nike, Prada, Facebook, X, and TikTok. Wherever we turn, we are surrounded by brands—and each of them affects us emotionally, for better or worse. When it's good, we desire the product that the brand promotes and we buy it, or long to buy it; when it's bad, we distance ourselves from it, and even disparage it. If Twitter under Elon Musk has become a sewage pipe for many people, not only are they not willing to log-in to X (in its Muskian incarnation), but people will also convince others of the vital need to distance themselves from the brand.
Public figures are also brands; this is their public persona. After all, none of us truly know them up close. Amnon Abramovich is a brand, as are Danny Kushmaro, Benny Gantz, Yair Lapid, Merav Michaeli, Gil Shwed, Yariv Levin and of course Benjamin Netanyahu. The mere mention of their names is enough to evoke feelings ranging from erotic attraction to nausea that turns one's insides upside down.
Absolutely all of us, live through stories and within narratives, and a brand is essentially a story (the brand story) that aim to position us on within their narrative. —attraction-indifference-rejection. That's why countries are also brands. Qatar is a brand (complex), the USA (perhaps desirable), Portugal is that charming place that grants citizenship to Israelis, Greece is nearby and perhaps worth to purchase a beach house, and Turkey is sometimes attractive and sometimes repulsive, and who will replace it as the capital of hair transplants?
Just like in the commercial world, a country "brand", also asks for consumers to make decisions—we won't fly to Turkey because Erdogan badmouths Israel, but we will fly to Dubai because they became friends of Israel, and in Ireland they don't like Israel so why should we visit there? We've learnt that in Hungary, despite Orbán being a sort of dictator, he still protects Bibi from being arrested, so maybe it's safe there (or not).
And this applies not only to the recent trip but also to pension funds, and giant companies considering establishing a foothold in one country or another, or state entities deciding to impose sanctions on a country (brand) that violates the rules of the game, and so on. In other words, it's a serious story. Very much so.
Israel was a coveted brand after the Holocaust, if you want an example of positive and respected branding—so much so that the world knew to ignore the ethnic cleansing that took place around the War of Independence. It knew how to identify with the members of European culture who were part of it and were almost wiped out in the bloodbath that swept the world over five years.
Unlike the Arab world, which imposed a boycott on Israel from its very first moment of existence, the Western world knew how to embrace the young state and also its struggles for survival in a hostile environment—it perceived Israel as a villa in the jungle (and who lurks in the jungle? The predatory, uncivilized animals).
Even after the Six-Day War, the world continued to embrace the young state that knew how to inflict an impressive military victory on its neighbors. It also helped Israel withstand the hardest war in its history, the Yom Kippur War. But later, the sweeping support cooled, as territories were conquered in '67, and especially due to the inferior civil status of the residents of those territories, which led to damage to the Israel brand. All this underwent a major change in the 1990s, and the world once again embraced that same state when it showed willingness to reach a settlement of peace and reconciliation with its neighbors. Even the Arab boycott was largely breached, certainly in relation to global brands.
In the years that followed the tech boom era, reactions towards Israel became somewhat schizophrenic. Admired for its technology, but attacked for policies that reminded many of apartheid in South Africa—two civil statuses in the same country, one status subject to law and upholding civil rights, and a second status under military rule.
October 7th constituted a watershed in this prolonged story—the world rushed to embrace Israel after Hamas's murderous attack (which had largely grown militarily thanks to Israeli governments themselves), but the embrace was quickly replaced by widespread condemnation in light of Israel's brutal response in what was perceived globally as an ongoing campaign of revenge and destruction, in which about 50,000 men and women lost their lives, the vast majority civilians, along with tens of thousands of wounded, and essentially two million displaced people.
How did Israel manage to turn widespread support into an almost global display of condemnation? The court in The Hague declare Israel's Prime Minister and Defense Minister war criminals—a mark of disgrace previously imposed only on dictators and mass murderers
Henry Kissinger, who is mentioned in our special project, said back in the 1970s that Israel has no foreign policy, only domestic policy. And indeed, the discussion about the collapse of the "Israel" brand hardly takes place, certainly not in the Hebrew media. Internal propaganda attributes the treatment of Israel since the war to "antisemitism." This is also what the public claims, as revealed by a special survey we conducted for this issue.
We believe that the status of the Israel brand is a core issue, which is pushed to the sidelines, just like the core issue concerning the (lack of) civil status of Palestinians beyond the Green Line.
Benjamin Netanyahu mocked Ehud Barak for years when the latter spoke about the diplomatic tsunami.
But the diplomatic tsunami has arrived, and when Netanyahu flies to his friend Orbán, he makes sure not to fly over countries that have issued arrest warrants against him. If that's not a tsunami, what is?
And such a tsunami affects each one of us, down to the pensions we will need to live on in retirement age, and the balance we all do or don't have in our bank accounts.
A country that the world condemns is a country that the world is cautious about investing in, and a small, open economy like Israel's cannot afford this luxury.
So yes, in this issue we are also pleased to publish a special article by the publisher of the "B'Sheva" media group, who argues that "a people that dwells alone," but are we fully comprehending the implications of such a people dwelling alone?
Speaking of implications, it is a great honor for us to host in this special project several writers and additional interviewees, experts in their fields, who discuss the various aspects of the brand crisis that Israel is undergoing—because such a discussion requires an experienced and skilled orchestra.
We would be more than happy to receive comments, remarks, and insights on the topic. Because this discussion simply must take place. It is in our soul. Not just ours, but in our collective soul.
