Why Israel should drop hasbarah

Despite the importance of the topic, national images had never been systematically measured. So in 2005 I launched the annual Anholt Nation Brands Index (NBI), in which 20,000 people in 20 countries report on their detailed perceptions of the culture, landscape, people, government, products and economy of 50 countries. The study has now accumulated over a billion data points measuring “how the world sees the world”.

Israel has seldom been included in the NBI, as there’s only room for 50 countries and we have to give priority to the countries that subscribe to the study. Israel was last included in 2006 and 2007, but its scores are still worth examining.

In the third quarter of 2006, Israel ranked 36th out of the 36 countries measured. In the following quarter it ranked 37th out of 38 countries (I included Iran for the first time and it scored well below Israel); it ranked 38th out of 40 countries in the first quarter of 2007 (Israel scored fractionally better than Indonesia and again, well above Iran); and 37th out of 38 countries in Q2 of 2007 (Iran was dropped from the list).

The NBI is an extremely stable indicator, so it’s likely that if it was included again today, Israel would still find itself near the bottom of the ranking. People don’t like changing their minds about other countries: among the 31 countries included in both the 2007 and 2019 NBI, the biggest mover is South Korea, which has risen six places. But the average rank change for all countries over this period is barely more than one place; and the top 10, middle 10 and bottom 10 clusters each contain exactly the same ten countries as they did in 2007.

I think it’s unlikely that most people give Israel low scores because of something specific they know or believe about its relationship with its neighbours. International public opinion is simply put off a country by any association with conflict or other grave problems (it’s likely that if Palestine were included in the NBI, it would rank very close to Israel). In the all-important question of national image, with its profound impact on trade, tourism, diplomacy and foreign investment, conflict serves all parties equally poorly.

Israel’s use of hasbara to promote its side of the story is easy to understand, but may actually make things worse by reminding people of a troubling issue they would rather not think about. Media researchers found in the 1960s that attempting to tackle a negative national image through public relations will often produce the opposite effect, merely reminding people of the country they already know they mistrust. Being constantly presented with “good news” stories about a country they know they hate is more likely to result in them rejecting the media than changing their minds about the country. 

And ‘changing the subject’ seldom works either: when a country becomes defined by its problems in the public imagination, as is I think the case with both Israel and Palestine, people often show very little interest in topics other than those defining problems.

So what should Israel talk about in order to improve its image and thus improve its engagement with the international community?

Nothing, is the simple answer. All my research suggests that international propaganda simply doesn’t work: there is no detectable correlation between the amount of money spent by any country on self-promotion and its international image. What Condoleezza Rice memorably called ‘the diplomacy of deeds’ is clearly the answer: but what kinds of deeds can shift the image of a country?

Analysis of the NBI shows that by far the most powerful driver of a positive national reputation is behaving responsibly, imaginatively and proactively in the international community, and collaborating with other countries on tackling the ‘grand challenges’: this is what I call being a Good Country. It’s the central argument of my new book, The Good Country Equation, that such behaviour isn’t so much a duty as enlightened self-interest (moral arguments never having much sway over nation-states or their leaders). Helping humanity and the planet produces a better image, and a better image is good for business.

Many people familiar with the Jewish state would argue: what about Israel’s recent peace deal with the UAE and growing ties with a number of Sunni states; its provision of medical aid to thousands of civilians and fighters injured in the Syrian Civil War; or its commitment to regional environmental causes through projects such as the Red Sea Pipeline? Why does that not have an effect on its NBI ranking?

Enter the Good Country Index (GCI). The GCI, which I launched in 2014, attempts to measure – in reality, not in perception – what each country contributes to humanity and the planet, outside its own borders. In the first edition Israel ranked 37th out of 125 countries; 44th out of 163 in the second edition, and 53rd in the third and fourth editions. When the newest edition of the Good Country Index is released next week, it will show that Israel has moved back up to a very creditable 45th position: relative to the size of its economy, it contributes almost as much to the world as does the United States, and slightly more than Russia. Israel is, very clearly, no freerider when it comes to the international community.

It’s worth asking why this commitment to responsible international behaviour in some areas doesn’t translate into a more positive international image for Israel. The overall correlation between the NBI and GCI has been as high as 87% in some years, so it’s curious that perception and reality appear so far apart in Israel’s case.

If we go back again to the 2007 NBI, we find that Israel ranks last of all countries in response to the statement: “This country behaves responsibly in the areas of international peace and security.” Since Israel is associated with armed conflict in the public imagination, this is not surprising: but why should it also rank close to last for its perceived “contribution to the environment and world poverty”? Here, perception and reality begin to diverge, and looks as if Israel’s entire international image – the good and the bad – is overshadowed by its geopolitics.

One conclusion is that a positive international image – with all the benefits this brings – is unobtainable if a country is consistently linked to conflict. As long as Israel’s image remains rusted into place as a land at war, its efforts to earn the world’s respect, affection and admiration will continue to fall on stony ground. And the same, of course, applies to Palestine.

It is also possible of course that Israel’s long-term association with violent conflict is only one part of the reason why its image is weaker than expected: it may also be “systemically” downgraded as a consequence of widespread antisemitism. To assess whether this is the case, and to what extent, would require further analysis – but a glance at the data on antisemitism from the ADL and the Pew Research Center suggests that this is a plausible hypothesis. It is equally likely that in some countries, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment provides some measure of “systemic” underpinning to negative associations with Palestine too.

If it should turn out that widespread ingrained ignorance and prejudice are significant contributors to the image problems of either or both countries, then the problems start to look more wicked than ever. Still, there can be little doubt that a peaceful solution to the conflict would unleash the potential for a significant increase in international goodwill towards both countries, and in consequence, the opportunity for the economies of both countries to benefit. 

Simon Anholt's new book, The Good Country Equation, is out now