Examining Israel's digital diplomacy discourse towards Iran on Facebook.

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia

Abstract

Israeli digital diplomacy aims to address the Iranian Republic through social media platforms, to present a positive image of "Israel" and to transform the rejection of its existence into acceptance as a tangible reality and a positive entity that can be coexisted with. It seeks to distort the image of its enemies in the mindset of the Iranian public by demonizing the ruling Iranian Islamic regime and the forces of Palestinian, Arab, and Islamic resistance. Therefore, the study aims to uncover the arguments and most frequently repeated terms in Israeli discourse, and the connotations associated with these words, in addition to reviewing public engineering methods, and identifying persuasive methods in constructing media evidence and the quality of the audience targeted by this discourse. This study belongs to descriptive studies relying on discourse analysis methodology and discourse analysis tools with the assistance of MAXQDA software for analyzing qualitative and quantitative data, and the non-standardized interview tool, based on media framing theory and audience engineering theory. The study chose the social media community as the environment for conducting its study by sampling from the "Israel in Persian" page on Facebook, for a period of six months starting from January 1, 2022. The study reached several results discussed based on previous studies, expert interviews, and the researcher's opinion. The study concluded that the media discourse of Israeli digital diplomacy towards the Iranian Republic is a deliberate and systematic discourse through which it seeks to build bridges of communication and rapprochement with the Iranian public in order to incite against the Iranian regime and demonize its image and its arms in the Middle East, and attempt to shape a negative stance in the minds of the Iranian people towards the Iranian Republic and its ruling regime, through a set of strategies based on the notion that Iranian internal crises and economic deterioration are caused by hostility to "Israel" and support for resistance movements in the Middle East. Secondly, the Iranian Republic's hostility to "Israel" is futile and a war without result, in an attempt to influence Iranian public opinion and convey a message that the end of crises is to end the confrontation with "Israel" in all its forms

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

- Nofal, A. (2010)."dur 'iisrayiyl fi taftit alwatan alearabii". Beirut: markaz Alzaytunati.
-Abdel-Al, W. (2018). "aldiblumasiat alraqamiat wamakanatuha fi alsiyasat alkharijiat alfilastiniati". markaz tatwir al'iielami, jamieat Birzeit.
-Hajjaj, R. (2022). "altatbie wahandasat aljumhur.. tahlil alkhitab al'iisrayiylii biallughat alearabiat ealaa mawqie fisbuk", risalat majistir, Gaza: aljamieat Al'iislamiati.
-Asida,  M. (2021). "madamin aldiblumasiat alraqmiat al'iisrayiyliat alrasmiat biallughat alearabiat eabr mawqie Facebook khilal aihtifalat aldhukrii al 47 linasr 6 'aktubar 1973", almajalat almisriat libuhuth al'iielama, 77(2) 193-268.
[1] Humaid, Maram. (2021). Israeli Arabic-language digital diplomacy: An analysis of the ‘Israel speaks in Arabic’ Facebook page.
-Saied, S. (2020). "'asalib aldieayat fi alkhitab al'iisrayiylii almuajah lilshaeb alfilastinii eabr al'iielam altafaeuli", waraqat bahthiata, maehad Aljazirat lilaelam.
[1] Themedialine, " 800 Channels: Israel’s Secret Diplomatic Weapon", https://themedialine.org/top-stories/800-channels-israels-secret-diplomatic-weapon/
-Al-Kharabsha, M. (2018). "al'iitar al'iielamii lildieayat al'iisrayiyliat ealaa alfisbuku". jamieat alsharq al'awsati.
[1] TASSILOVA, Aigerim, et al. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON DIGITAL DIPLOMACY IN KAZAKHSTAN, UZBEKISTAN AND KYRGYZSTAN. Astra Salvensis, 2018, 11.‏
[1] Hossein Nassaji "Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis" Language Teaching Research, Vol. 19, 2015, p129.
-Hussein. S. (2009), "buhuth al'iielama- dirasat fi manahij albahth aleilmii", t 6, (Alqahirati, ealim alkutub).
-'Ibrahim, I. (2018). manahij albuhuth ali'iielamia (altabeat al'uwlaa). Alqahiratu: dar Alfajr lilnashri.
- Almushaqibat, B. (2014). " manahij albahth al'iielamii watahlil alkhatabi" dar 'usamat lilnashr waltawzie - Al'urdun.
- Husain, S. (2006). buhuth al'iielam al'usus walmabadi, ta2, Alqahira, ealam alkatab,
[1] BARSTON, H. Public Diplomacy: Lessons from the Past. CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, 2014, 2.19.‏
[1] BJOLA, Corneliu; JIANG, Lu. Social media and public diplomacy: A comparative analysis of the digital diplomatic strategies of the EU, US and Japan in China. In: Digital diplomacy. Routledge, 2015. p. 71-88.‏
[1] HARRIS, Britney. Diplomacy 2.0: The future of social media in nation branding. Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy, 2013, 4.1: 3.‏
[1]MANOR, Ilan. The digitalization of diplomacy: Toward clarification of a fractured terminology. Oxford Digital Diplomacy Research Group, 2018.‏
[1] https://www.hootsuite.com/ 2022.
[1] https://2u.pw/EF1hw
- Aleamudi, M. (2018). "aldiblumasiat alraqamiat watathiruha fi alsiyasat alkharijiati". 2018ma, majalat ruyat alturkiati, 7(4), 125-149.
[1] MANOR, Ilan. The digitalization of diplomacy: Toward clarification of a fractured terminology. Oxford Digital Diplomacy Research Group, 2018.‏
[1] https://www.gov.il/ar
[1] DEOS, Anthony. Digital Diplomacy & Social Capital: Analysing Relational Components of Trust in US & Israeli Online Social Networks. 2015. PhD Thesis. University of Otago.‏
[1] " https://www.facebook.com/IsraelPersian
[1] DEOS, Anthony. Digital Diplomacy & Social Capital: Analysing Relational Components of Trust in US & Israeli Online Social Networks. 2015. PhD Thesis. University of Otago.‏
[1] GAMSON, William A. News as framing: Comments on Graber. American behavioral scientist, 1989, 33.2: 157-161.‏
[1] BERNAYS, Edward L. The engineering of consent. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1947, 250.1: 113-120.‏
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics