Haifa University study indicates soldiers
leave Israel Defense Forces more dovish

HAIFA, Israel (Publicity Release)—Over the course of their military
service, combat soldiers become less right wing, adopt more dovish
political views and are more open to compromise on security issues – according to research completed in the School for Political Science at
the University of Haifa by IDF Reserve Colonel Dr. Zvika Barkai who served as Commander of the Haifa region and head of the Operations Branch of the Home Front Command.

Additional parameters that affect change in political views include the specific unit served in, gender and service as an officer."In the opposite
of what would be expected, military service does not cause adopting militaristic views," Dr Barkai said.

The research was conducted over three and a half years, under the
direction of Prof. Avraham Brichta, Dr. Daphna Canetti-Nisim and
Dr. Ami Pedahzur, surveyed 490 male and female soldiers of every
rank and in every branch of the IDF. Soldiers were asked to respond
to the same series of questions at three different times, before induction,
six months into their service and immediately following their release.

The goal of the research was to evaluate whether the army is in
actuality the politically neutral institution that it purports to be and
whether it has any effect on soldiers' political views. "It's a problem
when the public is convinced that soldiers are coerced into adapting
specific political views, sometimes against their will, and to act
accordingly. Such a public belief could limit the ability of the
government to use the army for nationalist missions," remarked
Dr. Barkai.

The research did indeed find that soldiers' political views change
over the course of their service, and that the type of service, length of service, rank, and gender influence the change. The initial interviews
found that a large percentage of the soldiers began their service with
clear right-wing views. Six months into their military service they were more right wing, but after completing their service they took on more dovish views and were more willing to compromise on security issues.
In addition, these soldiers adopted more conciliatory views towards minorities in general, and more specifically towards the Arab minority,
and experienced a greater change in their views about human rights
than soldiers who began their service with less extreme views. Overall, when political views did change during military service, they reverted
back to the original views after release, with the exception of combat soldiers who maintained more dovish views following their release.

Within the different types of army units, soldiers who served in field
units underwent the greatest change in their political views. The research reveals that no only combat soldiers in these units undergo a change; all
of the soldiers in field units undergo a change in their political views.
Those with hawkish views adopted more moderate views and a raised consciousness for minority rights.

Those who served as officers also underwent a substantial change in
their political views. Officers adopted much less right wing and more pragmatic views than enlisted soldiers. In addition, they underwent a
greater change in espousing strongly democratic values, adherence to
the rule of law and minority rights.

Women, on the other hand, underwent a change in political views – |
and became more rightwing and hawkish. At the same time, they
increased their support for regulation of non-conventional weapons
more than male soldiers did. Women soldiers experienced a greater
change in their support of democratic values while men underwent
a greater change in the attitude towards human rights and minority
relations.

"It is important | to note that although men underwent a greater change,
their values were almost identical to women's in terms of concern for human rights at the end of their service, as they began with more extreme views," explains Dr. Barkai.

While army service did not affect the level of religious observance
among the soldiers, it did improve understandings between religious
and non-religious soldiers and increase willingness to compromise on religious issues.

According to Dr. Barkai, the research findings demonstrate that
military service does influence political views; therefore civilian
authorities need to oversee the values and messages that the army
espouses to ascertain that the military works to assimilate only
universal, accepted values. Only then will the military be an effective
agent for the integration and assimilation of positive values and an
agent for bridging and narrowing existing conflicts.

The study results lead the researcher to recommend that minorities
and marginalized populations be encouraged to serve in the military.
He recommends a large-scale draft of Arabs, increased participation
of Druze and Bedouins, ultra-orthodox Jews and religious women and designing special programs for marginalized youth (who are often
excused from military service). "Even taking into account that expanding
the draft to include the abovementioned groups may have a marginal or even negative effect on the country's security, the latent national gains should be weighed against the security issues – not necessarily by the military," summarized Dr. Barkai.

The foregoing article was supplied by Haifa University.
(back to top) _______________

Was the western media duped in

its 2nd Lebanon War coverage?

By Bruce Kesler

SOLANA BEACH, Ca.—When a closed, media-restricting society like Lebanon's under Hezbollah fights a war against an open society like Israel's, which one is likely to get better play in the media? The answer may
surprise you.

Blog reports about Marvin Kalb’s Harvard Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy study, The Israel-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict, (40-page PDF) are quoting heavily from the report on the study at World Politics Watch, How the Media Partnered With Hezbollah: Harvard's Cautionary Report.

The World Politics Watch summary is accurate, and telling, of the biased impact of coverage provided by the Western and Arab media.

However, the World Politics Watch concluding paragraphs are stronger
than Kalb’s study. World Politics Watch calls for vigilance and responsibility by Western reporters, and even mores o by their editors
and the talking heads at home, not to be taken in, not to permit themselves to be part of propaganda exercises by our enemies, and to more clearly
label any such reports as such and say what’s missing.

In the actual study, Kalb’s conclusions bemoan the suspicions of MSM coverage roused by bloggers who exposed fake reporting and
photography. All that Kalb, weakly, says about the ethical and
professional irresponsibility of the major media is, “The challenge
for responsible journalists covering asymmetrical warfare, especially
in this age of the Internet, is new, awesome and frightening.”

Kalb doesn't mention that there is only one allowable prescription for
the major media, to stick by professional standards rather than
sensationalist irresponsibility. It also wouldn’t hurt if the MSM
displayed some ethical standards, recognizing the difference between
right and wrong, between friend and foe.

Excerpts from the World Politics Watch article are below. But, read the entire PDF of the actual study.

Marvin Kalb, of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, methodically traces the transformation of the media "from objective observer to fiery advocate." Kalb painstakingly details how Hezbollah exercised absolute control over how journalists portrayed its side of the conflict, while Israel became "victimized by its own openness."…
Journalists did Hezbollah's work, offering little resistance to the Islamic militia's effort to portray itself as an idealistic and heroic army of the people, facing an aggressive and ruthless enemy. With Hezbollah's unchallenged control of journalists' access within its territory, it managed to almost completely eliminate from the narrative crucial facts, such as the fact that it deliberately fired its weapons from deep within civilian population centers, counting on Israeli forces to have no choice but defend themselves by targeting rocket launchers where they stood. Hezbollah's strong support from Syria and Iran —including the provision of deadly weapons — faded in the coverage, as the conflict increasingly became portrayed as pitting one powerful army against a band of heroic defenders of a civilian population….

By contrast, armed Hezbollah fighters were all but invisible to the media. Also invisible were Hezbollah's thousands of rockets and rocket launchers strategically positioned near schools, hospitals and apartment buildings.

Within Hezbollah territory, journalists were led through scenes of the destruction caused by Israel. Journalists rarely complained about Hezbollah's restrictions, but they frequently complained about Israel's efforts to limit coverage deemed useful to the enemy. Still, circumventing Israeli restrictions proved easy in a country like Israel, while in Hezbollah-controlled areas it proved all but impossible. Cameras enjoyed full access to civilian victims of Israel's actions, but never to the perpetrators of violence against Israel….

Before long, Hezbollah had achieved a definitive propaganda victory. The media had not only acquiesced to tell Hezbollah's version of the war, they had started contributing to the creation of the narrative, with at least one Reuters photographer altering photographs to make Israeli attacks look more damaging. And many reporters simply failed to offer much context….

The Harvard paper shows the need for journalists to brace themselves and remain vigilant when they cover conflicts between open societies on one side, and media-controlling militias on the other. These conflicts, which we will undoubtedly continue to see, demand that journalists make a greater effort to provide context and to keep from become willing collaborators with one side. Islamic militant groups, such as al-Qaida and others, have openly described their strategy of manipulating the media and winning on the "information battlefield." Hezbollah, too, had a well crafted, and ultimately successful media plan.

The challenge to keep from being used will be greatest for journalists in the field, but editors back in the newsroom also must look closely at what their organizations produce. They must be aware that their reporters on the ground are the target of media campaigns by those they cover, and that reporters can become emotionally allied with one side, as we saw last summer in Lebanon.