The Covid-19 pandemic has placed Israeli diplomats on the nation’s frontlines, particularly in helping obtain medical equipment and bringing home Israelis stranded abroad. Although the Foreign Ministry has had to withstand the erosion of its authority and budget, efforts to undermine it and the deterioration of its staff’s working conditions in recent years, Israeli diplomats have been operating relentlessly to accomplish their assigned tasks, with some even contracting the disease.

The pandemic has challenged the core of the diplomatic profession. Diplomatic activity entails forging and developing ties with key economic, social and political figures in foreign states; the professional-personal relationships with those key figures is a crucial element in achieving the tasks assigned by Jerusalem. For instance, such relationships made it possible to fly an experimental drug from Japan to treat Covid-19 patients in Israel, helped bring home Israeli travelers stranded in Peru, and freed a shipment of facemasks held up at an airport in Turkey.

The social distancing induced by the pandemic hampers Israeli diplomats’ ability to conduct the face-to-face meetings traditionally used to develop connections with foreign representatives. Within a very short period, all interpersonal communications have shifted to technology-mediated interaction. Whereas digital platforms served as a supplementary and targeted means in the diplomats’ toolbox in the pre-coronavirus era, at least in the short term, a sharp shift to digital-virtual diplomacy has been necessary. At present, diplomacy is only possible through technologically enabled means of communications. Reliance on digital-virtual platforms should not be perceived as a problem, but rather as an opportunity. The Foreign Ministry should take advantage of the Israeli spirit of entrepreneurship and Israeli technological pre-eminence to invent and lead new diplomatic communications, firstly for Israel’s Foreign Service and subsequently as an example to other diplomats around the world. Efficient implementation of this new form of diplomacy involves three key aspects.

First, planning communications with representatives in a foreign country must include all forms of communications: e-mail, social media platforms and video conferencing. Each suits a different part of the job and different type of relationship-building. For example, to initiate contact and send out feelers regarding shared values and interests, e-mail is preferable as it allows open-ended questions and ambivalent formulation (to the extent necessary). In order to conduct a conversation on sensitive or controversial issues, chat over a digital platform is preferable, because it makes saying “no” easier and the delayed response provides time to consult or find arguments and references to buttress the answer. The World Health Organization (WHO) provided an excellent example of why discussion of sensitive issues should be avoided on video conference when its representative simply hung up on a journalist who asked him about the role of Taiwan in confronting the pandemic. Video calls are best for strengthening personal ties, signaling empathy and reaching agreements, making them a unique form of communication in terms of content and significance. They have in fact become the “physical” meetings between diplomats in the coronavirus era.

Second, complete technological mastery in operating these tools and virtual platforms is a must. That includes simple tasks such as positioning cameras at the correct angle during a video call and silencing microphones when needed. Applications must be used correctly and technical mishaps, such as Boris Johnson’s inadvertent exposure of the dial-in code for the British cabinet’s Zoom meeting, must be avoided. Suddenly, diplomats have not only to control the tilt of their head or the perfect way to tie a bowtie. They must speedily learn the correct use of various technological tools.

Third, professionalism must be acquired in the intricacies of digital and virtual language. In this context, diplomats will have to learn how nuances and cross-cultural codes come across on digital media, such as WhatsApp or a video call, as opposed to during a face-to-face encounter. Should diplomats now employ emojis or GIFs in place of a smile and a slap on the back? On a video call, the choice will be between formal attire, replete with the Foreign Ministry logo and Israeli flag as a backdrop, and informal attire with family photos hanging on the walls, to emphasize common denominators and add a personal dimension to the interaction.

One of the major challenges posed by digital-virtual communications is information security, especially when the subject of the conversation is of a sensitive political or diplomatic nature. This challenge must be addressed in two ways: use of advanced technologies and information security tools, and mutual commitment to avoid revealing the contents of the discussion. Success in maintaining secrecy in a digital-virtual environment will likely raise the level of trust and as a result improve cooperation between the sides.

It is important to note that although a significant part of diplomatic communications will be digital-virtual from now on, this will not replace a diplomatic presence on the ground. Even in the current crisis, Israeli diplomats were required to show up physically at airports to ensure they accomplished their tasks, despite the danger involved. Diplomats’ presence at foreign posts will remain highly significant. Physical proximity enables first-hand comprehension of the climate, culture and reality that cannot be easily reflected in online research or big data tools. While digital-virtual communication will assist diplomacy and retain its newfound importance even once the pandemic is controlled, even now it is no alternative to a physical presence.

Just as companies, schools and universities have shifted to managing tasks and telelearning, once the new diplomacy is implemented, we may find that it yields faster, more precise and efficient results. We may even see negotiation processes and mobilization of political support in international institutions yielding better results when significant use is made of digital-virtual tools. Civil society organizations promoting dialogue between parties to a conflict have already achieved success in recent years through the use of new technologies to build trust and understanding. Now it is the turn of the official representatives to learn from them and bridge gaps. The coronavirus crisis is shaking up political and economic systems and its impact will be evident for a long time to come. Diplomacy is challenged by social distancing rules and diplomats are being forced to adapt to the new world, in an era in which foreign ministries are also challenged to adapt their activities to the rules of modern diplomacy. With the growing dominance of politicians as well as non-state actors in foreign relations, foreign ministries the world over are striving to justify their existence, redefine their mission and fight for relevance in decision-making processes. Diplomats must study the advantages and drawbacks of various technological tools and immediately adopt new and varied means of communications so they can continue carrying out their tasks.

For years, Israeli diplomacy marketed Israeli technological innovation and entrepreneurship to bolster Israel’s image abroad. In recent years, Israel has also demonstrated achievements in digital diplomacy, especially in creating new discourse channels with the citizens of Arab states.

The coronavirus pandemic offers Israeli diplomacy an opportunity to take another step forward and show that it can lead deep and significant change in forging innovative processes of communications to help it successfully implement Israeli foreign policy.

(originally published in the Jerusalem Post)

הפוסט The Coronavirus Crisis Offers Opportunities for Innovative Israeli Diplomacy הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Meanwhile, European governments are debating privacy laws that can allow them access to data about potential terrorists, in light of the Paris and Brussels terror attacks. It appears that in the aftermath of The War on Drugs and The War on Terror, governments have a found a new common enemy: The War on Social Media.

There is little doubt that social media is used for spreading messages of hate, incitement and recruitment of terrorists – acts that eventually cost lives.

However, there is much more room for states to cooperate with social media rather than seeing it as an enemy.

Instead, there are ample opportunities to use social media’s features, low costs and high effectiveness as tools to promote a state’s foreign policy objectives.

The presence of billions of people on the same network offers unprecedented capability for countries to reach out, communicate and deliver messages to citizens of other states. Foreign ministries can (and do) use social media to promote relation building, trade, tourism, education and even disaster management.

The most frequent use of social media by states is public diplomacy. Twiplomacy – a website dedicated to researching how governments and international organizations use social media – publishes a variety of reports about this engagement and its effectiveness.

These include the most followed heads of state on Twitter, peer-peer connections between foreign ministries, virtual diplomatic network of European embassies and even a report of world leaders who take selfies and those who use Snapchat. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will be glad to know that he is ranked as the second most “likable” world leader, with an average of 127,432 likes for each of his Facebook posts, despite his critical approach to social media in Turkey.

Worth noting is how some states use social media to support foreign policy strategies as state branding. Last year, the Finnish government created a set of 30 unique Finnish emojis that can be downloaded by anyone in an effort to create awareness of Finnish culture worldwide. The official Israeli Twitter channel exposes Israeli innovations and culture to more than 300,000 followers (more followers than official US and Russian Twitter channels) in an effort to rebrand Israel as more than the “conflict.”

Beyond presenting foreign policy, social media can also be used for creating foreign policy, especially between states that do not have diplomatic relations.

Groups on Facebook or WhatsApp can serve as platforms for dialogue processes between governments and high-profile individuals from other states as part of conflict management processes.

Another use could be direct state-tostate public dialogue negotiations via Twitter. In this context, publicity could serve as an advantage for states that want to present their own willingness to promote peace, especially if the other state chooses not to respond.

All of the above can develop into a whole new level of influence, that of when future technologies – such as virtual and augmented reality and artificial intelligence – become more common and embedded in Facebook, Twitter and others.

The giant tech companies that operate social media networks share the same interests with states and do not want their platforms to be used for exercising virtual or physical violence. Just as other multinational corporations, they seek legitimate goals as profit and influence. States and international organizations should work with them in cooperation to fight those who use social networks for harmful purposes – as the US government is currently doing as well – to use social media’s power to achieve foreign policy objectives and promote national interests.

(originally published in the Jerusalem Post)

הפוסט If you can’t beat them, ‘like’ them הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Ajmal begins with an introduction to himself and the party. In addition to working as an economic advisor for the vice-presidency of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Ajmal twice ran for the parliamentary elections, suffering a narrow defeat each time. He is a political economist and frequently appears on national and international news outlets. He has written three books (A Journey to the Edge of Liberalism, Globalization or Global Capitalism and Capitalism of our Era). In addition to his current duties, he is leading a group of Afghans determined to make an ‘Afghan Spring’ happen in order to bring about democratic changes and to rid Afghanistan of corruption and nepotism.

The Afghan Liberal Party was established in 1998 by a small number of youth and academics who subscribed to a liberal interpretation of contemporary governance. It began its activities in 2001, and in 2004 cemented its progress by registering with the Ministry of Justice of the Islamic republic of Afghanistan.

The Afghan Liberal Party operates on the basis of several political principles, namely the support of individual rights and justice, free markets and equal access to social services for citizens, the rule of law, and social and religious pluralism.

—

Shifting gears in the interview to contemporary events, Ajmal begins to describe the current situation in Afghanistan. The current situation, however, is as multi-layered and complex as ever, and seems to confuse not only Israelis but also Afghans themselves. Acknowledging the confusion, Ajmal tries to clear out some of the mess and tells about his perspectives:

“The situation in Afghanistan is pretty critical: it is full of challenges, war-lords are in place, corruption, and lawlessness have tremendously strained the Afghan people. Most importantly, the insurgency has become formidable. Most of the bordering areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan and between Afghanistan and Iran are not within the control of the Afghan government.”

These are the main issues that currently set the agenda for Afghans:

“The upcoming Presidential elections have become a grave concern for Afghans since they believe that the president wants to make a secret deal with the opposition that will help him to establish a new ‘chief executive post’ and in the future he would maintain his control in the country. This is similar to the political maneuver Putin and Medvedev have done in Russia and many blame the president that he tries to apply the same scenario in Afghanistan”

“Security is another main issue. Many believe that as soon as NATO withdraws from the country the vulnerable security forces of Afghanistan will not be able to defend the country and Afghanistan once again will become a safe haven for terrorist cells. While still many others fear that in addition to increased terrorist activities in the country, regional countries may come over to use Afghanistan as political stadium for their strategic goals in the country.”

“The difference between Kabul and Washington over the US’ long-term strategic presence in the country is an additional troubling issue in Afghans daily life. There are signs that both Iran and Pakistan are anxious with a long-term US presence in Afghanistan, as this is viewed as a threat to their national security. Therefore, we have seen Iran and Pakistan engage in lobbying to get the president halt any long-term strategic relationship between Kabul and Washington.”

“Drug trafficking is an added horrible issue which ruins the legal economy of the country and helps the terrorists get funds to wage extra-wars in the country”

Finally, Ajmal discusses Afghan views of Israel and a possible future cooperation between the states.

“Israel is not an enemy of the state. As in many countries, there are folks on both sides of the conversation. In general, Afghans are divided in this regard with the Islamic fundamentalist, political pundits and leaders backed by Iran and Pakistan comprising a side who yearn for the annihilation of Israel; but the youth are open minded and moderate. There are Afghans who regard Israel as a potential ally for establishing a counter-weight against those countries that support terrorism and that seek to wreck Afghanistan. To be honest, the conflict between Israel and Palestine should mostly be the concern for Israelis and Palestinians. It has no direct geopolitical, geo-strategic or geo-economic impact on Afghanistan; but still, Afghanistan supports a peaceful solution and co-existence of Muslims, Jews, Christians and others.”

“I can tell you that Afghanistan is not opposed to business or trade with Israel. The people at the very top understand the power of money and the economic value of not shutting anyone out in the global environment. I recommend to both sides not to make huge media announcements. Do it slow and grow.”

And what does Afghanistan offer for Israelis?

“Afghanistan is making the most progress of all the ‘Stans’. Deep cultural environmental learning through business development is likely the best. Economic development gives the best opportunity for all countries to best experience Afghanistan. Banking, mining, and alternative livelihoods hold the best opportunity for Israel to cooperate with Afghanistan.”

To conclude, Ajaml sends a message to Israelis:

Use the experiences in your own area to help Afghans affect the Peace Process. For example, share what went right or wrong. There is no reason to keep this a secret and your experiences could mean a lot for us at the political and public levels.

הפוסט An Interview with Ajmal Sohail, Leader of the Afghan Liberal Party הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.