{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01776461880088823, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005921539600296077, 'mean_word_length': 5.407582938388626, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Accounts and impression management in public diplomacy: Israeli justification of force during the 2006 Lebanon war

Public diplomacy has become a critical component in grand strategy, particularly where the use of force by a state engages the attention of foreign audiences. ‘Propaganda wars’ now accompany, if not dominate, military moves on the battlefield, as rival states – and non-state actors – compete for the support of world public opinion. But whereas the military aspects of armed conflicts have been closely studied, their rhetorical side is only now beginning to attract the attention it deserves. This article seeks to advance the study of public diplomacy and propaganda wars by proposing a perspective that is based on the sociological and social-psychological theories of self-presentation and impression management. The assumption of a social and normative context renders meaningful the public accounts of conduct that states offer, while conceptualizing states as engaged in competitive self-presentation acknowledges the role of strategic considerations in shaping the message. The theoretical discussion develops the connection between rhetorical strategies and image-related predicaments in foreign public opinion. This is then applied to the analysis of a notable recent case – Israeli public diplomacy in the 2006 Lebanon war.