This document summarizes Israel's new approach to public diplomacy, called "peer-to-peer diplomacy". It involves empowering Israeli citizens to participate in grassroots public diplomacy efforts by utilizing social media to both consume and produce information. The Israeli government has launched initiatives like "Presenting Israel 2010" and "Faces of Israel 2011" to engage citizens and diaspora in public diplomacy. A survey found that most Israeli citizens want to represent Israel abroad and are willing to participate actively. The government aims to harness this willingness to improve Israel's global image.

1. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/1871191X-12341235
The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 (2012) 473-482 brill.com/hjd
Israel’s New Peer-to-Peer Diplomacy
Shay Attias*
Public Diplomacy Department,
Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, Jerusalem, Israel
shayattias3@gmail.com; shaya@pmo.gov.il
Received: 11 July 2012; accepted: 28 July 2012
Summary
The new Israeli public diplomacy approach seeks to empower Israeli citizens to utilize their position both as
information consumers and producers in order to participate in grass-roots public diplomacy efforts. So-
called‘peer-to-peerdiplomacy’reflectstheshiftfrom‘oldpublicdiplomacy’,wherethenation-statehassince
1960 been the sole actor in international relations, to today’s reality where average citizens play an increas-
inglyimportantrole.Thenotionof‘peer-to-peer’(P2P)describesthelatestdevelopmentindiplomaticprac-
tice, wherein civilians — by virtue of social media — are not only consumers of government information,
but also information producers, with the potential to bypass existing official government bodies. Today’s
public diplomacy is about more than governments employing ‘soft and smart power’. It is increasingly
about dealing and collaborating with a public that can obtain and produce the information themselves.
Keywords
peer-to-peer diplomacy (P2P), public diplomacy, national images, soft power, citizen diplomacy, social
media, international relations
Introduction: Peer-to-Peer Diplomacy across Nations
The power to administer information is today being captured by the citizens of
the world. People across the globe are increasingly connected to each other. The
internet is the common denominator that connects people of different cultures,
languages and nations. The combination of endless social media platforms has
created the phenomenon of so-called ‘peer-to-peer (P2P) diplomacy’, also called
‘people-hood diplomacy’ (see Fig. 1).1
Every citizen with basic internet access can
*)
A portion of this article was previously presented at the 2011 annual convention of the International
Studies Association (ISA), held in March 2011 in Montreal, Canada, for a panel on ‘Citizen Diplomacy’
that was organized by Harvard University and the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clin-
gendael’. Acknowledgments: The author would like to express his sincere gratitude to both Prof. Josef
Nye for inspiration, and to Prof. Jan Melissen for encouragement and insight in writing this article.
1)
M. Nelson, Facebook Diplomacy, lecture at TEDxGeorgetown, 24 March 2011, Georgetown Univer-
sity Lecture Fund, United States; J. Nye, “Citizen & Peer2Peer Diplomacy”, Roundtable presented at
the 2011 Symposium, ISA Annual Convention, 15 March 2011.

2. 474 S. Attias / The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 (2012) 473-482
receive news instantaneously and can become an entire ‘walking news system’,
analysing information, commenting upon it and distributing it to their peers.
As a result, governments want to harness new social media platforms to promote
their policies and diplomatic efforts. Nevertheless, governments lack both
resources (financial, human and structural) and credibility. However, it seems
that there is still a role for governments to play in P2P diplomacy. Governments
that can harness the communication potential of their citizens will be the ones to
conduct effective public diplomacy offensives.2
The most prominent change taking place today is the transition from govern-
mental to non-governmental influence in public diplomacy. This shift has increas-
ingly caused many public diplomacy departments in national governments to
apply smart and ‘informal’ programmes3
in order to achieve political goals. This
was how the integration of governmental entities with civilian and private indi-
viduals, bloggers and opinion leaders was conceived — to create deliberate gov-
ernmental influence.4
The inevitable result is that a state’s citizens become the
main target audience of modern public diplomacy, which is utilized by the play-
ers in the international relations network.
Israel is no exception in this regard. The challenges of Israeli advocacy are great
and often seem insurmountable. Over the past year, the challenges and difficul-
ties appear to have increased (for example, the United Nations’ so-called Gold-
2)
J. Melissen (Ed.), New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations (New York: Palgrave,
2006).
3)
“Soft power” — J. Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. (New York: Public Affairs,
2004), ch. 1.
4)
T. Weinberg, The New Community Rules: Marketing on the Social Web (Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly
Media, 2009).
Public Government
Government
Target audiences
Public
Public
Diasporas & Citizens
Public
Diplomacy
P2P
Diplomacy
Old
Diplomacy
Fig. 1. The evolution of governmental communication.

3. S. Attias / The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 (2012) 473-482 475
stone Report, sovereignty over Jerusalem, the Iranian threat, and the connection
between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism). Governmental advocacy in the digital
age has become increasingly difficult, even problematic, because of the complex-
ity of the expertise required to adapt to new technologies, and the ability to be
dynamic and flexible in a large organization. There has been a dramatic transition
to produce more creative and informal public diplomacy programmes. These
informational activities are much more sophisticated than in the past, and include
a variety of ultra-modern information tools, including: international courts
(so-called ‘law-fare’ is considered an illegitimate or manipulated use of interna-
tional law, with the intention of delegitimizing a targeted object); smart and
internet media5
(cyber-diplomacy);6
and social media, which have a direct effect
on numerous and segmented target audiences.7
These are complementary to the
use of ‘old-style’ information tools such as public relations and the application of
classic doctrines of psychological warfare.8
Such activities arouse an anti-Israel
sentiment in the world. Additionally, the Israeli government, like all govern-
ments, has a built-in disadvantage and an inherent weakness when conducting
public diplomacy campaigns — namely, they lack resources, advocates and pro-
moters of their policies ‘on the ground’. Their message is not considered credible,
and their messengers are seen as biased.
This partly explains why — in the new Israeli public diplomacy approach —
the Israeli government seeks to empower its citizens as both information consum-
ers and producers in order to participate more effectively in grass-roots public
diplomacy efforts. This contribution discusses two of the Israeli government’s
most prominent initiatives in this regard to engage Israeli citizens and diasporas
in public diplomacy, namely the ‘Presenting Israel 2010’ and ‘Faces of Israel
2011’ projects.
Finding Millions of Partners
Given the aforementioned ‘built-in disadvantages’, the new Israeli Ministry of
Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, which was established in April 2009,
began to pinpoint the most pertinent problems. These included: first, locating
and finding Israeli civilians who can be part of an effective public diplomacy
campaign platform; second, identifying urgent problems, including isolating the
major weaknesses in Israel’s global image, while emphasizing Israel’s strengths;
and third, building an immediate, mutual, public diplomacy working relationship
5)
E. Potter, ‘Web 2.0 and the New Public Diplomacy: Impact and Opportunities’, in Engagement: Pub-
lic Diplomacy in a Globalized World (London: Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2008), pp. 121-133,
available online at http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/publications/publications/pd-publication/.
6)
N. Kwak, N. Poor and M. Skoric, ‘Honey, I Shrunk the World! The Relation between Internet Use
and International Engagement’, Mass Communication and Society, vol. 9, no. 2, 2006, pp. 189-213.
7)
Weinberg, The New Community Rules.
8)
R. Schleifer, Psychological Warfare (Tel Aviv: Ma’arachot, 2007).

4. 476 S. Attias / The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 (2012) 473-482
between the Israeli government and the Israeli public and Jewish diaspora, in
order to improve Israel’s global image (through tools, messages and campaigns).
In order to formulate working programmes and effective strategies, as well as
acquiringthemuch-neededpublicengagementandcollaboration,acomprehensive
benchmark survey was taken among the Israeli and Jewish diaspora populations.
The research, which was carried out by the governmental advertising body, was
conducted in June 2009,9
and the sampling was executed on the basis of an inter-
net panel of over 60,000 people in an experimental research design structure: the
respondents were divided into three sub-samples while maintaining representa-
tive nationwide distribution according to age, gender and residential area.10
The
survey’s most important finding was that 94 per cent of the respondents agreed
with the statement that it is ‘important for me to represent Israel abroad and I am
willing to take an active part in it’, with 54 per cent of respondents defining it as
‘extremely important to me’ and 34 per cent defining it as ‘very important to me’.
The results convinced the Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs
that creating a working relationship and partnership with the Israeli population
would be realistic because of the population’s willingness to cooperate. Moreover,
the survey’s respondents also highlighted a variety of chronic problems regarding
Israel’s image in the world: 91 per cent of respondents felt that ‘Israel is not per-
ceived correctly in the world’, with 9 per cent defining the image problem as ‘very
severe’ and 52 per cent as ‘severe’; 90 per cent of respondents said they believe
that ‘Israel is perceived in the world as being a country mostly afflicted with terror
and wars’; and 80 per cent of respondents stated that Israel is ‘perceived in the
world as an aggressive state’.
To measure the population’s potential role abroad, additional questions needed
to determine how often they travel abroad. The survey showed that 37 per cent
of respondents travel abroad at least once a year, while 12 per cent travel once
every six months, and 3 per cent travel every three months. When cross-checking
these data with data gathered from border entries and exits, Israel’s Central
Bureau of Statistics maintains that in the first half of 2009, 1.59 million people
travelled out of Israel, half of whom went abroad at least once a year. In other
words, the study indicates that there is untapped civilian power, composed of
three million Israelis who travel abroad each year. In 2009 alone, 4.2 million
departures abroad by Israelis were recorded.11
9)
The research was carried out using the Mind Q software program, which enables visual presentation
and quantitative psychological measurement of the respondents’ reactions and hesitation time; see online
at http://www.mindqsurvey.com/Concept.asp.
10)
One of the creative trends was presented to each of the sub-sample groups, and then the sub-samples’
responses were compared.
11)
According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, as of 2009, this 4.2 million also includes repeat depar-
tures by the same persons who may be recruited for national advocacy. If counting individuals rather than
trips, some three million Israelis travelled abroad in 2009. This information is available online at http://
www.cbs.gov.il/reader.

5. S. Attias / The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 (2012) 473-482 477
‘Presenting Israel 2010’: Objectives and Means
In light of the statistics, trends and needs mentioned above, Israel’s Ministry of
Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs launched ‘Presenting Israel 2010’, a
rather ambitious project that was intended to create a fitting response to the chal-
lenges of contemporary Israel’s global image. The project’s main goals were: first,
building Israel’s modern public diplomacy ability through its citizens and diaspo-
ras; second, tapping the potential of the estimated more than three million
Israelis who go abroad each year and come into contact with foreign audiences;
and third, developing an organized and centrally managed public diplomacy sys-
tem to improve Israeli’s standing in the world.12
Focus groups and public opinion polls were utilized to determine a creative
theme for the publicity campaign. Three television spots were developed, with
each one showing a foreign news reporter who sarcastically and humorously
describes some stereotypical perceptions of Israel throughout the world. Methods
included using camels as the primary means of transportation in Israel, and por-
traying the barbeque grill as the ‘modern’ Israeli means of heating and cooking.
The reporters in the television advertisements were actors who were not associ-
ated with any known programme, and it was clear to viewers that these were part
of a humoristic promotional campaign rather than real newscasts. At the end of
the clips, the announcer invites the viewers to ‘See the Real Israel’ by entering the
campaign website to participate in the project.
Here, too, the participation and attitudes of the public were crucial. A resound-
ing 86 per cent of respondents thought that the ‘announcer’ concept was an
‘effective call to action’. When asked to provide a critique on the weaknesses of
the broadcast, 58 per cent responded that they had no problems with the televi-
sion advertisement; 11 per cent felt that it was unrealistic and removed from
reality (even though that number is relatively small, it didn’t affect the decision-
making process because the broadcast was supposed to be sarcastic); 10 per cent
were bothered by the camel; and 9 per cent stated that they did not like it. The
Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs was able to determine which
advertisements were better and which would attract more participants. Utilizing
the demographic data from the survey and cross-tabulating it to the specific
advertisements, an advertising placement and media strategy was developed.
Following the advice of the survey’s respondents, a public diplomacy website
was established to provide tools and tips to those who watched the television
commercials and who wished to improve their advocacy skills. The site —
www.masbirim.gov.il — provides the participants with a basic information
database, including answers to common questions about various subjects and
issues. It offers tools and empowers the user. This basic information on the website
12)
E. Gilboa, ‘Public Diplomacy: The Missing Component in Israel’s Foreign Policy’, Israel Affairs,
vol. 12, no. 4, 2006, pp. 715-747, reprinted in E. Inbar (ed.), Israel’s Strategic Agenda (London:
Routledge, 2007), pp. 102-134.

6. 478 S. Attias / The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 (2012) 473-482
is presented in a friendly and lighthearted manner and is intended for the general
public — all types of Israeli audiences who travel abroad, businesspeople, official
and unofficial delegations, and tourists. The site, which was constructed especially
for the project because of the need assessed by the focus groups, offers a wealth
of basic information on the subject of Israel, including historical facts and dates,
democracy in Israel, Israel’s accomplishments in technology and medicine, details
on Israeli Nobel Prize laureates, and Israel’s efforts to sign peace agreements with
its neighbours. It is intended for use by any Israeli or foreign citizen who is look-
ing for information about Israel.
Staff were hired and trained to manage the information and feedback on the
‘Presenting Israel’ website and in order to update and refine the online informa-
tion, and to post new material and topical news on the site continuously. The
site’s tips empower every travel-bound Israeli to receive basic information and
presentation skills for presenting Israel’s position properly and accurately. The
website has received hundreds of email messages per month encouraging its ini-
tiative, as well as positive press coverage. The public’s usage has exceeded the
Ministry’s expectations. With full information in Hebrew, Russian and English,
the website was visited by over three million people from February 2010 until
July 2012. The average daily hits were 1,758, the average time spent on the site
was 6 minutes and 20 seconds, and the most visited site was the ‘Myths vs.
Reality’ section. The amount of time spent on the site gave the Ministry the con-
fidence to invest more resources in the programme.
The main weaknesses in managing public diplomacy platforms are the ability
to recruit, train and qualify people in advocacy. As a result, Israel’s Ministry of
Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs made two strategic decisions simultane-
ously: to embark on the ‘Presenting Israel’ project; and to create a professional,
updated and innovative system to train and coordinate official, semi-official and
un-official Israeli delegations travelling abroad.
Utilizing the services of a professional debating-skills company, a special cur-
riculum was developed. A variety of coaching sessions were given to qualify the
participants in various realms. These included public-speaking skills, rhetoric,
methods of effective presentation and advocacy, preparing for questions and
answers sessions, and developing briefing books on topical subjects. The Ministry
made a strategic decision to focus solely on skill-building during the training
course and that content would not be part of it. Delegates and trainees were
encouraged to personalize their presentations and to express their own Israel — as
they see and experience it. This provided a level of authenticity and credibility to
the programme. In some cases, participants criticized the Israeli government’s
policies. Although this was not the programme’s intention, it demonstrated a
healthy and vibrant approach to the training.
As previously mentioned, the goal of the ‘Presenting Israel’ project was to
establish, for the first time, a full partnership between the public and government.
As well as the website and the training programme, the project published two

7. S. Attias / The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 (2012) 473-482 479
booklets including basic information: one, a comprehensive training booklet that
was distributed at the end of the coaching sessions; and the other, a pocket guide
that was handed out at the airport to Israelis who were departing Israel. Over
100,000 booklets in a variety of languages have been distributed to Israelis at Ben
Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv as they depart the country. The Minis-
try of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs continues to receive emails and let-
ters praising the written material for both its comprehensiveness and its brevity.
‘Faces of Israel 2011’: Engaging Israeli Diaspora
The positive response to the ‘Presenting Israel’ campaign indicated a shift in the
relationship between the Israeli government and its citizens. Diasporas play cru-
cial roles in the public diplomacy efforts of various nations. There are a number
of relevant examples, including: the Chinese diaspora, which has invested an esti-
mated US$ 2 trillion in China and is seen as the main driver of economic growth;
the Bosnian diaspora, which in 2001 formalized an international network in
all countries where Bosnians now reside (known as the BiH World Diaspora
Network); and the Afghan diaspora in the United Kingdom, which has made
steps towards establishing a European organized network.13
The Jewish diaspora abroad consists of approximately fourteen million
people — twice that of Israel’s Jewish population. Approximately six million live
in North America, concentrated mostly in urban areas and cities, including New
York, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, Atlanta and Toronto. There is also a signifi-
cant presence in Europe, South Africa and other countries. Israel is in a unique
position in this regard. Besides mobilizing its own citizens for public diplomacy
efforts abroad, it can tap into the Jewish community in the diaspora as well as
Israeli citizens living abroad. These two demographic groups are very significant
and often include opinion leaders. Diaspora Jewish and expatriate Israeli net-
works have become important ‘facilitators of internal, inter-state, and worldwide
political, cultural and economic connections’. They may be seen as ‘precursors of
post-modern trans-state social and political systems’.14
In February 2011, Israel launched a new public diplomacy campaign on North
American college campuses called the ‘Faces of Israel’. This was an innovative
strategy to promote Israel directly, face to face, in cooperation with regular and
diverse Israelis, not ‘diplomats in suits’. This programme took the concept of pub-
lic diplomacy one step further. With the willing participation of people who rep-
resented various sectors of Israeli society and who had no government or political
affiliation, the Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs created a ‘new
face’ of Israel to represent it abroad. The aim was to present a face of diversity,
13)
G. Kent, ‘Organized Diaspora Networks and Homeland Peacebuilding: The Bosnian World Diaspora
Network as a Potential Development Actor’, Conflict, Security and Development, 2006, pp. 450-452.
14)
See Kent, ‘Organized Diaspora Networks and Homeland Peacebuilding’, pp. 450-452.

8. 480 S. Attias / The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 (2012) 473-482
tolerance, openness and authenticity. A shift took place here, in that the govern-
ment of Israel was relying on volunteers to deliver its message rather than on
official public relations officers who were conducting traditional advocacy.
In order to prepare the delegations of volunteers, Israel’s Ministry of Public
Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs held various training workshops before launch-
ing the delegation, as well as individual training sessions lasting approximately
40 hours. Each group had a diverse composition including Jews, Arabs, represen-
tatives of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community and
Ethiopian immigrants, all of whom were meant to show the ‘real face’ of Israeli
society.15
Many Israelis felt that showing a country that was both democratic and
diverse was the best way to build Israel’s legitimacy abroad. The delegation was
divided into groups and went to various universities, where they participated in
panels and direct encounters on campus. The visits took place from 24 February
to 6 March 2011, and included New York, Boston and Washington, DC, in the
United States, and Vancouver and Toronto in Canada.
The success of these volunteers helped to make it possible to dispatch addi-
tional delegations. The most important component for success of this part of the
programme was to select people that were authentic, interesting and passionate
about sharing their personal experiences of Israel. The Ministry invested signifi-
cant time and resources in selecting the delegations to represent Israel. A commit-
tee was formed to review the applications of potential participants. First-round
interviews were then conducted with the involvement of various people at the
Ministry, as well as outside consultants. The next round of interviews was more
intense and involved role-playing. The final decision about participants was made
by a committee of professionals, and delegations were formed and consequently
trained to go abroad. The delegations gained direct exposure to more than 2,000
people, students in particular. In addition, they made personal and operative con-
15)
For example, the first delegation included a 22-year-old Israeli Arab woman from Upper Nazareth,
studying for an MA at the University of Haifa, who received her BA from Hebrew University in Jerusa-
lem in social work; an Israeli Arab woman who works as a civil engineer at the Israel Electric Corporation;
a 25-year-old from Jerusalem whose parents immigrated from Ethiopia and is in her third year of law
school at Hebrew University, and who also served as a commander in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) of
immigrant soldiers; an Israeli Arab woman who participated in the ‘National Service’ programme for
Israeli Arabs, who are not obligated to serve in the military; an advocacy and social affairs activist who was
born in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; a 33-year-old who is studying film and television and was a former DJ on
MTV Europe, and whose mother is a Yemenite Jew and whose father is a Jewish convert (from an Irish-
Catholic); an Israeli Arab who is a private detective and was an officer in the IDF; a successful artist who
immigrated to Israel from Sudan with her parents at the age of two; a 23 year-old student of government
and diplomacy at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya who is an adviser to a Tel Aviv city
council member on the gay community and was a human resources officer in the IDF, and who fights for
gay civilian rights and writes about fashion for a local internet site; a 27-year-old who was born in Tibe-
rias but spent his high school years at Great Neck North in New York, and who served in the IDF
Spokesperson’s Office, afterwards working in communications at the Consulate-General of Israel in New
York and the Israeli Mission to the UN, and who is currently Marketing Manager of the Israel Gay Youth
Organization and pursuing a BA in International Affairs; and a woman who was born on Kibbutz Givat,
served as a correspondent at Galei Tzahal, the military radio station, and for the past three years has been
working as a reporter for Channel 2 News, the leading television news station in Israel.

9. S. Attias / The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 (2012) 473-482 481
tact with Jews and non-Jews, as well as representatives on many leading college
campuses in the United States and Canada, such as Baruch College, Columbia
University, Harvard, NYU, Rutgers and George Washington University. These
contacts formed the basis for continued activity on these campuses. The ‘citizen
delegations’ received extensive positive exposure in print and broadcast media
both in Israel and in the United States.
Follow-up from the visits was conducted by the Ministry but implemented by
the local Jewish communities, which gathered feedback, conducted ad-hoc
research about the events, and were in touch with many of the event organizers
and participants. Contact information was collected at the events and partici-
pants were invited to Jewish community events. In addition, the Ministry estab-
lished a Facebook page to interact with participants from the events and to act as
a hub for participants to exchange ideas, opinion and information.
Conclusion
The biggest problem of traditional public diplomacy was that for years it was
perceived as government propaganda.16
Information that was disseminated by
governments was treated with scepticism, as it was considered both inauthentic
and unreliable. Governments would often say what they wanted people to believe
and most never admitted any policy failure, thus affecting their credibility and
making it hard for the public to believe them.
This new Israeli model of public diplomacy therefore consists of the public —
meaning the citizens — not only carrying the message, but more importantly also
shaping it. This case study of the ‘Presenting Israel’ campaign was exemplary, in
that a government (in this case Israel) accepted relinquishing control over its mes-
sage, which entailed risks and required a leap of faith. In essence, the Israeli gov-
ernment privatized its public diplomacy efforts by creating a partnership with
its citizens.
In general, governments are at a disadvantage when it comes to adapting to
new media and technology. New media and technology move very quickly and
change how people communicate, operate and live their lives. Governments,
meanwhile, move slowly. While the big fish had a distinctive advantage in the old
diplomacy model, in the new public diplomacy model it is the fast adaptable fish
that has a clear advantage. The age in which we are living promotes self-expression
and enables unlimited technological capabilities. The rise of civilian power is
therefore not only limited to the public diplomacy field. It is a multi-disciplinary
phenomenon. The transition to non-governmental activity as part of modern
public diplomacy by Israel’s adversaries has brought about a challenging need to
improve Israel’s image in the world through innovative programmes.
16)
See Fig. 1.

10. 482 S. Attias / The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 (2012) 473-482
‘Presenting Israel’ seeks to provide Israelis who are interested in helping to
improve their country’s image in the world with the basic tools to do so, regardless
of their level of knowledge in subjects of advocacy. The project addresses and
invites the three million Israelis who travel abroad each year to contribute to
Israel’s public diplomacy efforts. It aspires to enable every official delegation
departing from Israel — whether for business, sport, culture or government —
to undergo professional training at the Israeli government’s expense to improve
their advocacy skills.
Tocompletetheoveralleffectiveness,inthefuturetheprojectwillseektoinvolve
Israelis who stay at home and do not necessarily travel abroad. They may meet
people from foreign countries who are visiting Israel, or are connected to foreign-
ers through social media networks. Even if only a small percentage of Israelis par-
ticipate in this public diplomacy effort, it comprises a significant public diplomacy
force — and to Israel’s credit — that may very well improve its image in the world.
Finally, there are limitations and future challenges to effective and successful
‘peer-to-peer diplomacy’. First, the ‘civilianization’ of the government’s public
diplomacy platform has demands: legal, financial and bureaucratic changes must
take place in order to collaborate with civilians and diasporas. Second, the gov-
ernment must realize that it cannot control the message that these people will
carry; in other words, it must cede control and accept critical voices as part of the
project. Third, the government must reorganize this new relationship between
the state and its citizens (not as a condition). The state can be empowered by the
civilian society, which keeps the national state relevant by mutual collaboration.
Fourth, public diplomacy efforts by the government can only be effective if they
are based on civilian determination. It is hard or impossible to impose an image
that is desired by the state and not the actual picture.
While many practitioners and scholars have pinpointed the importance of
national branding,17
we are today watching a new global reality unfold before our
eyes. The world is changing and so are international relations. Nation-states inter-
act differently than in the past because the global communications infrastructure
has advanced at a breakneck pace. Global has become local and the key to effec-
tiveness in reaching out to foreign publics is to harness the power of the new
‘peer-to-peer’ world, and its own citizens. Now we are surely seeing a move
towards ‘power to the people’.
Shay Attias is the founder and Head of the Public Diplomacy Department at Israel’s (new) Ministry of Public
Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs. He is a lecturer at both Ariel College and the Interdisciplinary Center in
Herzliya, where he teaches modern public diplomacy issues. He holds degrees in Public Diplomacy Studies
from the School of Communication at Bar-Ilan University, and recently trained at the USC Center on Public
Diplomacy in Los Angeles, CA. Between 2007 and 2010 he served as an Israeli Public Diplomacy Emissary in
Boston in the United States, where he participated in the Public Diplomacy Collaboration Program at the
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
17)
P. van Ham, ‘The Rise of the Brand State: The Postmodern Politics of Image and Reputation’, Foreign
Affairs, vol. 80, no. 5, September/October 2001, pp. 2-6.