BlueStarPR: Crude but aesthetically pleasing propaganda
In the fall of 2006, conspicuous posters printed by a marketing firm called BlueStarPR began to appear on the University of California, Berkeley campus. Others reported seeing them in places around the Bay Area. The stated goal of BlueStarPR is to “shape public opinion through knowledge and understanding” by producing “positive and educational posters, advertisements, and learning materials.” In other words, propaganda “designed to appeal to American sensibilities.”
There is nothing wrong with trying to promote a positive and humanizing image of Israelis. In fact, Israeli institutions may be acclaimed in a variety of different ways. The intention of these advertisements, though, given the context in which they are presented, are to present a distorted and fluffy image of the state of Israel in order to win the sympathy of Americans to the point that they are willing to overlook the crimes against humanity that have been and continue to be inflicted on the Palestinian population under the control of the Israeli military.
The posters produced by BlueStarPR should be scrutinized in a rational and methodical way, paying especial attention to the lack of a cogent and interconnecting ideology behind them. The vast majority of these posters are red herrings that intend to distract the general population from serious and troubling critiques of the state of Israel to some irrelevant rosy picture of what BlueStarPR wants us to believe the state is really like.
Like any good marketing firm, BlueStarPR caters to its audience. This is a reasonable course of action for anybody that intends to promote his or her political platform. However, such catering has its limits–if taken to the extreme where the presenter is being disingenuous and is compromising his or her own beliefs in order to convince the audience, the act can even be unethical.
The ends do not always justify the means. A sample scenario: suppose I am a human rights activist proposing that the United States divest from Israel on the grounds that it violates the rights of people under its military occupation. On Monday, I speak to a concerned audience of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch members using the language of human rights and compassion to win them over. On Tuesday, I present my argument to a clandestine but elite group of oil barons attempting to convince them that it is in their business interests to cease support for Israel so that the friendly and cooperative governments of Kuwait, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are not overthrown and replaced with people who may want to nationalize their oil fields. Then, on Wednesday, I find myself before an audience of the American Nazi Party where I lament the loss of American tax dollars to a Jewish state, emphasizing over and over again the Jewish nature of the state.
There are serious issues with such a scenario. If I am truly a human rights advocate, then it would be against my principles to employ the capitalist argument (given that it requires the maintanence of brutal, repressive governments that do not recognize the rights of their people) or the racist argument (given that racism would be contrary to the nature of human rights). The point here is that I have compromised my ideals, perpetuated racist sentiments, and encouraged irresponsible political alliances in order to seek my goal. I have no consistent ideology.
Enter BlueStarPR. A popular poster that BlueStarPR likes to distribute around San Francisco and Berkeley (I did see this on campus on December 6, 2006 in front of a table belonging to the Israel Action Committee) is one praising the tolerance that the state of Israel has for gays. Given the progressive nature of the Bay Area, such an image is supposed to appeal to a specific demographic.
The problem is, BlueStarPR also distributes a poster that invokes an appeal to celebrity. The celebrity happens to be Ronald Reagan, one of the most bigotted and rabidly anti-homosexual presidents in American history.
If BlueStarPR is indeed an advocate of gay rights, then why would it flaunt homophobe Reagan’s apparent love for Israel? On the other hand, if BlueStarPR is so enamored by Reagan that it chose to boast about his love for Israel, are they genuinely interested in the welfare of gay Israelis? This discrepancy did not go unnoticed on the BlueStarPR message boards. In response to a comment in which a critic complains that you can’t “win over a progressive audience by promoting the thoughts and ideas of a GOP puppet,” an editor responds:
Editor says:
Asher, you are absolutely correct…Reagan does not apeal to most “progressives,” nor is this poster intended to be used in liberal enclaves like San Francisco. We published this poster for supporters to give away at the Republican convention and for activists to deploy in “conservative” locations.Although we focus on materials geared towards the left, the source of most anti-Israel activity, we will sometimes design materials that appeal to a wide range of tastes. We give Israel supporters personal choice to use what works best for their own politics, comfort level and community.
at September 3, 2004 10:43 AM
No principles. A short browse through their poster gallery finds a number of other posters that are inherently anti-progressive, either because of their misogynistic undertones or their racist generalizations. To make matters worse almost all of the specific “facts” on the two posters above and the rest on the website reflect wishful thinking more than they do an accurate picture of reality and would require proper contextualization before they could say anything relevant to the real world, not to mention the on-going Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.
The point, I suppose, is that it doesn’t matter how liberal Israeli domestic policy might be. As long as Israel is occupying the Palestinian territories, what those ‘progressive’ policies reveal is something startlingly paradoxical, not redemptive.
Update 1/11/2007: I noticed last weekend that these posters have started to appear on the BART. Specifically, there was one praising Israel’s press laws. By that logic, Americans should stop voting and worrying. We have a free press, therefore everything about us must be perfect!
11 Responses to “BlueStarPR: Crude but aesthetically pleasing propaganda”
By raffi on Jan 7, 2007
I was just curious about where it is documented that Reagan was homophobic - I tried searching and couldn’t really find anything confirming that (only speculation, no real quotes).
By The Raccoon on Jan 8, 2007
Heyya Yaman
I followed you through a discussion at Midast Youth (I didn’t want to participate since it always, and quickly, deteriorates into a pointless virtual shouting match).
What I wonder is what alternative do you see to the Israeli military occupation of lands conquered from Jordan and Egypt in ‘67 (lands which these two states renounced all claims to). These lands are populated by people who are hostile to Israel and Jews, and constantly do their best to destroy the former and kill as many as they can of the latter. According to international law, these lands rightfully belong to Israel. IDF is being incredibly gentle with the hostile population living on these lands - gentility unprecendented in human history, in fact.
The Palestinians, moreover, claim that ALL of Israel is occupied land, and refuse to have a state. What is Israel to do? What sort of a reasonable solution do you see to this?
And… crimes against humanity? Like what?
*blink*
By Yaman on Jan 11, 2007
Raffi, he does not have to say “I hate homosexuals” to be homophobic. Look at his policies regarding homosexuality in the public sphere, regarding the government’s policies vis-a-vis the outbreak of HIV in the states (this happened under his watch, and partially because he was opposed to subsidizing programs that promoted safer sex), etc. I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to argue that Reagan promoted homophobic policies; he certainly did not discourage his evangelical followers from actively promoting hateful sentiment. Didn’t Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or one of those gentlemen say something to the effect of AIDS being God’s wrath on homosexuals? Regardless, these two posters are fundamentally incompatible on ideological and moral levels, and only show that BlueStarPR wants to be a cheerleader, not a promoter of constructive change.
By Yaman on Jan 11, 2007
Raccoon, I think it’s pretty clear that the alternative to military occupation of 67 lands is, no military occupation of 67 lands. I think it’s kind of demeaning to believe that the only goal of Palestinians is “to kill as many Jews as they can.” It’s funny that you can formulate this belief, and I think the only way to do it is to pretend that there were no crimes committed in 1948, that there were no refugees in the 67 lands wanting to return to their homes, and that there was no injustice with the way Israel dealt with its neighbors, not to mention its own Arab subjects. I don’t think it’s helpful at all to live in this fantasy land that the IDF is the most moral army in all of the history of the universe, and that it’s showing so much “constraint” that it hurts. It’s funny that you should ascribe a victim’s mentality to an occupying army. Do you want the Palestinians to reimburse them for the emotional strain of occupying their land, too?
There are some rejectionists among the Palestinians who believe that 1948 lands are occupied. This is not an unreasonable view if you are a refugee who was kicked out of his/her home forcibly, and now another family resides there while you and your children languish in a camp somewhere around the world. But, calling Israel itself an occupying state is not a radical or violent point of view and in fact says nothing regarding a belief in coexistence. The aim should be to seek justice for those who have been dealt with unjustly, and to promote the coexistence of peoples, not states. Most Palestinians today believe it is possible to live with two states, and all relevant Palestinian political leaders also ascribe to this view, though in different ways.
If Israel has always genuinely been interested in peace, it would not have continued occupying the land in this way, it would not have continued expanding settlements and expropriating water and other resources, and it would not continue refusing to deal with the Palestinians politically. It still resorts to underhanded tactics of secretly funding and supplying weapons amongst different factions in order to promote dissension and internal strife, even as it unrelentlessly harasses ordinary Palestinians who are trying to go to work, to school, or to visit their grandmothers. It’s easy for you to put the ball in the Palestinian’s court because it absolves you of all responsibility for the current situation, and the obstacles in the way of meaningful progress, but regardless of what you say, it’s hard for any mind to accept that Israel has no responsibility to bare and that it’s all up to the Palestinians when Israel effectively controls everything the Palestinians can or cannot do. Heck, the Prime Minister of Palestine can’t even get enter and leave his own country with money, let alone deal with Israeli non-recognition of his government.
By The Raccoon on Jan 15, 2007
Yaman -
There are some 200,000 Jews living on lands captured from Trans-Jordan and Egypt in ‘67. I presume that by “no military occupation of 67 lands” you mean these people should be either deported or abandoned?
Moreover, “no military occupation of 67 lands” means an unchecked terrorist hotbed in these territories. We have all seen the results of disengagement from Gaza. What, exactly, is Israel to do when Qassams and Katyushas start raining on Glilot fuel and gas deposits? Or Tel Aviv? Or the chemical factories of Ashkelon? Or the nuclear power plant?
Since you did not answer my other questions, allow me to respond to some points you have made:
“I think it’s kind of demeaning to believe that the only goal of Palestinians is “to kill as many Jews as they can.””
Only goal? Of course not. But it is a goal. Just read this.
“There are some rejectionists among the Palestinians who believe that 1948 lands are occupied.”
Oh please. Is this why Israel doesn’t appear on Palestinian maps or in Palestinian schoolbooks, and the official Palestinian map of “Palestine” includes all of Israel? If it was “some rejectionists”, the situation would have been sweet and fine and dandy. I’m afraid that “some rejectionists” are people who are NOT defining Palestine as all of Israel. And they have a strange tendency to get tortured to death and hanged from lamp posts.
“Most Palestinians today believe it is possible to live with two states, and all relevant Palestinian political leaders also ascribe to this view, though in different ways” - as in “Palestine from sea to river, with the Jooz in their own state on the bottom of the sea”?
“expropriating water and other resources” - nonsense. Substantiate please.
Dealing politically with terrorists who openly want you dead and your state destroyed is suicide. I, for one, am glad my leaders are not yet completely suicidal.
“It still resorts to underhanded tactics of secretly funding and supplying weapons amongst different factions in order to promote dissension and internal strife”
Substantiate please. Without resorting to strange and unsual conspiracy theories… uhm… well, other strange and unusual conspiracy theories.
“even as it unrelentlessly harasses ordinary Palestinians who are trying to go to work, to school, or to visit their grandmothers”
Substantiate please. Keep in mind that checkpoints are there to catch terrorists. A very effective tool.
“Most Palestinians today believe it is possible to live with two states”
Substantiate please. The only political party NOT advocating killing all the Jooz and destroying Israel got 2.7% of the votes in PA elections.
“I don’t think it’s helpful at all to live in this fantasy land that the IDF is the most moral army in all of the history of the universe, and that it’s showing so much “constraint” that it hurts”
I happen to have been a combat soldier in IDF. I have also served in the territories. I also have too many friends who have died so that Palestinian civilians would not have to - it would have been cheaper and infinitely easier to, say, remove a block of buildings from the air than to send teams of soldiers to extract some mass-murdering psychopath from Hebron. Do you have an idea how many Israelis died just because IDF would not fire a missile at a known terrorist when he’s surrounded by his meatshields?
“It’s funny that you should ascribe a victim’s mentality to an occupying army.”
What’s victim mentality got to do with it? IDF is unfortunately obsessed with not killing civilians. If anything, it’s a victim of its own morality.
I presume you have no intention of substantiating your “crimes against humanity” slander?
And for dessert, let me present you with a question:
If right now, all the Israeli Jews would suddenly become complete and total pacifists - to the point of not doing anything to defend themselves - what would happen?
If right now, all the Palestinian Arabs would suddenly become complete and total pacifists - to the point of not doing anything to defend themselves - what would happen?
Please be honest.
BTW, sorry if I seem a bit aggressive. People who baselessly slander my state and disrespect friends who died so that I and enemy civilians could live on make me strangely belligerent.
By dawud on Jan 28, 2007
Racoon, you refer to human beings, women and children, as ‘meatshields’ - shall we speak to you as a human being, or think of you just as ‘meat’ which needs to be persuaded?
Do you have an idea how many Israelis died just because IDF would not fire a missile at a known terrorist when he’s surrounded by his meatshields?
Seems like you learned something from the Nazis, and not just their ‘blood/soil/Homeland’ rhethoric….
By The Raccoon on Jan 30, 2007
Dawud -
Your pathetic mewlings have been answered on my blog.
In vain, of course, but one must try.
By yaman on Feb 2, 2007
Raccoon, I have not had time to respond. I still don’t have time to respond to everything you have said–much of which is simply a denial of verifiable fact. Please see B’tselem. All of the “points” you raised have been refuted by others, and I don’t care to commit the time to doing it again.
By mofish on Jun 20, 2007
Yaman, I have read the entire article and comments. I feel like you are being quite cowardly but not responding to Raccoon on his points, by merely brushing them off. It seems to me his first hand exp. with the subject would carry more weight than those of people who get thier information from publications and websites. If you have been to these areas and have seen what is happening with your own eyes, then well, what you say will carry more force.
I am very interested in your reply to him, FROM YOU, not filtered down 3rd hand opinions of others who have not been there / through it either.
By mofish on Jun 20, 2007
I must say there are two sides to every story. I am not claiming he is correct and you are wrong, or you are right and he is wrong. I just want honest, open answers to these questions.