It’s hard to avoid a jubilant tone in speaking about Israel
and innovation when the first lunar spacecraft, made in Israel, is making its
way to Earth’s natural satellite. In the last 20 years Israel has become a
world leader in new technologies and science and there is no better proof to
this claim that the flight of “Bereesheet” (“In the beginning” in Hebrew, the
first words in Genesis) that started on February 22 and made Israel the 4th
nation in the world, after USA, USSR and China, who sent a spacecraft to the
Moon.
Some experts argue that the turning point for Israel’s
innovation was in the beginning of the 1990s, thanks to a successful professional
integration of the highly educated immigrants from former Soviet Union and as a
result of a new form of collaboration between academia and industry encouraged
by government. But the truth is that already in the first years after its
establishment Israel embarked on innovative solutions to problems that faced
many developing countries after the WWII and laid the foundations of its
successful journey to innovation… and to the moon.
Instead of looking back, let’s get a glimpse at new innovative
trends and solutions being developed in Israel these days. “An Overview of Innovation
in Israel 2018-2019” that was recently published by Israel Innovation Authority
and which I came across recently, could serve as a perfect guide. Here are a
few examples that caught my eye in this document:
Brain Therapy
The Israeli consortium “Brain Stimulation and Monitoring
Toolbox”, funded over the course of the past five years by the Innovation
Authority, was established in order to develop technological and scientific
infrastructure combined with neurological stimulation and monitoring to enable
personalized and improved treatment of neurological and psychiatric disorders.
The
consortium has had several groundbreaking achievements, some of which have led
to technological maturity and clinical execution. HaGuide, for example,
software developed by Alpha Omega and researchers from the Hebrew University
and Hadassah Medical Center, is used in DBS procedures (Deep Brain Stimulation)
performed on patients suffering from Parkinson’s disease or other disorders.
Another
technological and commercial achievement is a digital platform, for functional
brain imaging for psychiatric patients. The integration of the platform in
therapy is slated to advance personalized medicine and to offer support for
doctors’ treatment modalities.
Broadcasting sport events
The Pixellot startup established in 2013 has developed an
innovative system that allows production and broadcasting of a variety of
sports events with almost no human intervention. The system it developed
includes cameras, tracking capabilities, content manipulation through the
cloud, broadcasting to different devices, and exclusively automatic live-streaming,
allowing spectators to perform simple move manipulation – all at a low
production cost. Since its establishment, the company has already sold roughly
2,500 systems producing 20 thousand broadcasting hours a month.
AI at the service of public health
The national Digital Health Plan is striving to make Israel
a key player in the field of digital healthcare. To this end, in 2018, the
Authority launched a program for supporting pilots in the field of digital
healthcare that are either performed in Israeli healthcare organizations, or
that are based on capabilities or the data at their disposal. The Digital
Robotics pilot, which stands out among the pilots approved, has developed a
computerized system based on AI – the first of its kind – aimed at cutting
healthcare costs and improving service. The system, which is designed to be
used by medical teams, includes a personalized recommendation engine for
patients based on a broad clinical picture. In the context of the pilot
program, the system will first be implemented in two healthcare organizations:
Meuhedet Health Fund (one of the four Health Funds operating in Israel) and at
the Soroka Medical Center’s emergency center in Be’er Sheva.
Remote monitoring of cardiovascular diseases
Vectorious Medical Technologies was conceived in 2011 in the
RAD BioMed technological incubator backed by the Innovation Authority. The
company offered a groundbreaking solution for remote, continuous, precise, and
safe monitoring of patients suffering from cardiovascular disease – one of the
leading causes of death worldwide.The inimitable technology enables the implantation of a
microcomputer for battery free communication. Thus far, the company has raised
over $10 million, including a $2.25 million grant from the European R&D
program Horizon 2020 and the Innovation Authority. The exclusive grant has
helped the company recruit additional investors and accelerate development and
clinical trials. The company is currently conducting trials on human subjects
in Germany, England, Italy and Israel, on its way to receiving the necessary
regulatory approvals and to market the product. The company projects that the
development will reach the European market within roughly six months.
Operation of smartphones and tablets with head movements
The Sesame Enable startup, established in 2013, has
developed an exclusive app that allows people with mobility disabilities to
operate smartphones and tablets using head movements alone, using the device’s
front-facing camera. The company was awarded a substantial grant by the
Innovation Authority in collaboration with the national Insurance Institute, to
encourage the development of assistive technologies for people with
disabilities.
Solutions offered by the company are already in wide use
throughout the US, where the company receives government subsidies. Their
technology serves an audience with a wide range of mobility disabilities such
as spinal cord injuries, neuromuscular diseases, MS, and cerebral palsy.
Recently, the municipality of New York chose the company’s product as a
preferred solution for children with disabilities in the city’s public
education system, and negotiations are taking place with other US
municipalities and states to expand this activity.
The Golan Heights Winery’s innovative wine water
Golan Heights Winery ventured to develop a completely new
product: Wine Water. The project led to the construction of a concept based on
innovative technology: extracting grape waste reduced in the wine manufacturing
process and diluting it with water, so that the nutrients in grape peels and
the unique aroma and smell of wine are absorbed by the water. The product made
its world debut in July 2018 at the Fancy Food Show in New York and gained
unprecedented success, with hundreds of distributors from across the globe
seeking marketing rights for the product. It is already being sold by leading
chains in the US.
I gave you only a glimpse of the report, and you are welcome
to learn much more here: https://innovationisrael.org.il/en/report/innovation-report-2018 . More than any particular piece of technology, it shows a
deep commitment in Israel to ”perception that innovation is a key engine for
economic growth and wellbeing.”
The word “upcoming” at the title of this post is quite
misleading. In the last 2 to 3 years the problems associated with the
functioning of the existing social networks turned into a real snowball, or
even snow avalanche. A fusion of important political events (US Presidential
elections 2016, to take the most conspicuous example), as well as decisions
taken by the management of social networks themselves, exacerbated situation
and created a crisis. As a result, governments of many countries have taken
actions against the social networks practices, ranging from demands to change
the privacy policies to restrictions on access or complete ban of networks. But
the apex of this crisis is ahead of us.
I will argue here that while governments will try to exert a
greater control over the contents published on social networks, and while
social networks will be willing (or forced) to adopt their policies to these
demands, this one-sided, restrictive and “correctional” approach, will not be
able to solve the problems we face today. Governments should consider more
complex solutions, because this crisis is not only about social networks, but
about our society in general and democratic nature of our institutions and
political life. I will suggest one such solution further. But, of course, there
are more than one to envisage.
In fact, the problems with social networks began before the attempts
of meddling in elections or the role of social networks in phenomenon of “fake
news” were exposed. It started about 6-7 years ago when teenagers and even
younger kids started to complain about digital harassment they’ve experienced
on Facebook from their peers. Today we call this phenomenon cyber-bullying, but
back then nobody spoke in these terms. Back then, it was a problem for kids,
for their parents, and for teachers, but not something that was considered a
national or global problem. The next surprise we became aware of was our (lost)
privacy on the networks. That was already a reason for grown-ups to be
seriously concerned, but things got only much worse since then. After a short
period of grace and photo-ops with world leaders who were courting them, CEOs
and senior managers of Facebook, Twitter, Google and other companies, are now
being called to testify to US Congress and conduct nasty negotiations with governments
unhappy with their policies. In some countries there were no negotiations: they
were plainly banned.
What are the main areas of concern with social networks?
Social networks today are platforms for circulation of
hatred, incitement to violence, racist, xenophobic and antisemitic posts and
other versions of bigotry. Of course, it is not deliberate. Of course, it is
not their goal and design. Do you know the expression “the road to hell
is paved with good intentions”? Against their will, social networks became
global vehicles of hatred.
Last 5 months I spent in France. I could see firsthand how
social movement of "Yellow vests", that had legitimate demands from the
government, received massive support of the public (70%), and which organized
itself through Facebook, was hijacked by extremists, professional rioters and
thugs, as well as by provocateurs, racist and anti-Semites of all kinds. This
crisis proved once again (as if after the "Arab spring" we needed more proofs) the
power of networks to facilitate grass-roots protest movement, but at the same
time it exposed the levels of hatred, misogyny and antisemitism you wouldn’t
like to believe exist in France. Social networks were helpless in face of the
extremely violent discourse taking place on them.
Let’s refresh our memory: two years ago, Facebook founderwas talking about the new ambition for the network: to build more communities,rather than just encouraging connections between family and friends. Algorithms
went through a change, and the new approach implemented. Result? The infamous
“echo chamber” effect, that was already taking place in the world of partisan
media, was now in a full swing. Of course, nothing wrong if you have a community
of astronomers or poetry fans. But what about a community of bigots or
anti-Semites? They probably will not report “abusive posts” with racist and antisemitic
content, will they? By the way, the situation with other networks is not
better. You can easily find racist posts on Twitter or VKontakte.
This uncontrolled circulation of hate speech, bigotry and
incitement on social networks provided food for thought for some bright, but
vicious about using those networks to meddle in national elections campaigns, to
make “fake news” and to manipulate public opinion. These and other versions of
special operations on internet and social networks represent a new, digital
form of information warfare and are used by states against other states. In an
attempt to defend themselves in this digital jungle, social networks are trying
to develop better prevention policies. Facebook opens centers of moderation,
outside United States (one such center works in Barcelona) with help of experts who know foreign languages and are aware of local cultural
specifics which enables them to decipher complex social and political realities. But in the world of 196 states (and counting), hundreds of languages, of
growing complexity and diversity, of conflicting interests and contradictory
definitions of freedom and rights, how many moderation centers will they need
to open? And even then – how to moderate two billion Facebook users?
“There is no great thing that
would not be surmounted by a still greater thing.”
One of my favorite Russian poets, Kozma Prutkov (who was, in fact, a
fictional author), known for his satiric aphorisms and nonsensical expressions,
said : “Nobody will embrace the unembraceable”.
Social networks should become more modest about their ability to serve as a global
platform for creating communities; and they should be more thoughtful about
their social responsibility, when they act de-facto as media channel. I
believe, If they won’t adapt themselves, they will be simply forced by governments to do so.
But governments, and states in general, should understand
that this coercion will not help fix the problems of social media. At the end
of the day, social networks are platforms where modern societies function.
Social life is happening today also on social networks, more and more each
day, and this is irreversible. Social networks of today will disappear in the
future, only letting way for new networks to take their place. Therefore,
coercion and restrictions won’t solve the problem of social media.
This will also not solve another crisis, which is even more
important: the crisis of democracy and government in the digital age, where
social media plays such a central role. The governments should reinvent themselves
in order to stay legitimate in the eyes of their citizens, which means they
should better serve them. The modern technologies, including social media
technologies, provide tools to increase efficiency of governments. I believe governments
should create national public social networks. They will allow citizens
interaction between themselves and their government, where they are not
manipulated by anonymous players and secret influence operations. This network
will not be for profit, but only for the benefit of its users. Information about them
will not be sold to other companies. Users will be protected against hatred and
violence. Governments will be able to address the needs and concerns of citizen
through interacting with them on this network; and governments will also be responsible
for protecting the freedom of expression and a proper functioning of the
network, through public institution and other instruments under public
supervision.
The model of this network should be elaborated in more
details, but it’s clear to me that this is the future of any government if it
is determined to solve a crisis of its legitimacy and governance. Recognition
of this reality is imminent, and, of course, better sooner than later. Social media
is a good idea, but with crisis of private social networks we should take this
idea to a completely new level. As Kozma Prutkov said, “There is no great thing
that would not be surmounted by a still greater thing.”
A few days ago I re-watched a video that I was using
extensively in my presentations 8-9 years ago to promote the concept of digital
diplomacy. The name of the video was “Is social media a fad?” Apparently, since
2009, when this video was produced for the first time, the updated versions of
it, under the same title, were produced almost every year. When you watch those
videos, the bottom line is obvious: social media is not a fad. It is a new way
of communication, much more now than in
2009 (even though some of the social networks have proven to be a fad).
But is digital diplomacy a fad? When I asked this same question on
this blog 8 years ago, rather rhetorically, I truly believed it was not. Today
I think I should correct my opinion, and here is why.
Diplomatic outreach on social networks: numbers that show
nothing?
Digital diplomacy came into existence about 10 years ago
with the invention of social networks and appearance of a small group of
diplomats that wanted to introduce them into diplomacy. This innovative effort
has got different fancy names, among them Diplomacy 2.0, ediplomacy, digital
diplomacy, and that all sounded like a promise of a better diplomacy, of a new
way of conducting international relations and reaching out to new audiences.
Back then, in 2008, I was one of those enthusiasts who tried to introduce this
concept and encourage diplomats to adapt to a new – digital - world. After
returning from a post in California where I had my first experiences with
Facebook and My Space, I believed that the social media will open new
opportunities for diplomats and at the same time will revolutionize diplomacy
itself. Well, whenever you try to revolutionize something, you shouldn’t be surprised
that the first reactions to your ideas will be somewhere in the range between skepticism
and mockery. Some of my colleagues-diplomats look at the digital diplomacy as a
kind of a game that has nothing to do with diplomacy. Since then many of them
have changed their view. What was even of greater significance, Ministries of
Foreign Affairs of so many countries embraced digital diplomacy in their work. And
yet, 10 years into digital diplomacy “revolution”, it’s my turn to express some
skepticism about Diplomacy 2.0 and its unfulfilled promise.
To be absolutely frank, my first self-reflection was that
this attitude of mine could be one of the first signs of my aging… But when I
started to make a research on current status of digital diplomacy, I realized I
was not alone in this growing skepticism and the understanding that something
went wrong between diplomacy and social media. In fact, this concern is shared
by many practitioners and researchers of digital diplomacy. Look, for just one
example, what wrote in February Ilan Manor, one of the more prominent
researchers of digital diplomacy:
“Last week, when participating in a digital diplomacy
conference, I felt as if I had encountered the Battered Bastards of social
media. The conference, which was organized by the Dutch Foreign Ministry,
brought together diplomats and academics from numerous countries. Over the
course of two days, the participating diplomats repeatedly expressed their
frustration and disillusionment with social media and its possible utilization
in diplomatic activities. Understaffed, ill-equipped and facing growing expectations,
these diplomats are still active on social media yet without any strategy in
mind. They are online simply because one has to be online, they post because
everyone else is posting and they are communicating with that familiar, yet
unknown entity called “the public”. - https://digdipblog.com/, February 8,
2018
From personal experience I know that
if feels really good to use statistics about Facebook page or Twitter handle,
especially when it comes to reporting to the headquarters. I know how exciting
it is to see one of your posts or tweets going viral. The networks themselves
are going out of their way to provide you with accessible statistics about the
“influence” of your accounts, how many likes, interactions, impressions you did
on this post and on that picture. All those impressions look indeed very impressive.
But after 10 years of tweeting, “facebooking” and “instagraming”, how much diplomatic
goals where really achieved thanks to digital diplomacy? What are the new
audiences that were successfully reached out through social networks and did
you succeed to change their attitudes towards the country you represent? Did you really improve international
reputation of your country or its perception in the world with the help of your
digital diplomacy projects? And you know what - what about the minimalistic
goal of all – were you better-equipped and successful at least in informing the
foreign public about your country’s policies using social media presence? On
all these accounts, digital diplomacy will get a “Fail” grade, with minor
exceptions here and there.
Beyond this shared feeling – which is
so different from the excitement and enthusiasm of the first years of digital
diplomacy – there are real concerns, behind the numbers and statistics.It is important to say that these concerns
are coming primarily from diplomats and ministries that were the first-comers
into the field and who, till today, uphold the leadership positions in the digital
diplomacy world: US, Canada, Australia, Britain, Holland, to name a few. While
they are happy to report about growing numbers of the social media accounts of
their embassies and consulates there is also an understanding that these
numbers are not representing much. (For more explanation on problems with
Facebook and Twitter metrics read here:https://www.americansecurityproject.org/ASP%20Reports/Ref%200112%20-%20Challenges%20of%20the%20Internet%20and%20Social%20Media%20in%20PD.pdf).The metrics can show you some general trend
about your audiences, but they don’t measure your real influence with them.
Why this does not work?
If you ask any diplomat today what
digital diplomacy means in practical terms he or she will tell you this: we should
have a Twitter account, a Facebook page and Instagram profile (and the more
advanced will add also LinkedIn), and we should post as much as we can and of
course keep in mind that we should “target” the right audiences. (It is
interesting to analyze why we are using a word from military jargon in this context,
but maybe in another article). To sum up this attitude – foreign ministries use
3 to 4 major social networks as a principal and, in most of the cases, the only
tool of their digital diplomacy. Is it the essence of the digital diplomacy,
really?
We tend to forget that private social
networks, such as Facebook, were created for social interaction between people,
not governments, some of them for more business-like communication, most of
them – for amusement. They suggested a new mode of communication, and gradually
started to replace traditional media as a source of information. But as private
enterprises they needed a successful business model that will allow them to
make money. So, they wanted everybody to enjoy free platform for communication,
amusement and information, while providing other businesses with information
about us as potential customers for businesses. Governments, that were not the
primary targets for the networks expansion, created their own profiles, both
institutional and individual, and discovered multiple advantages in their
presence on the networks.
With this understanding, suddenly,
foreign ministries have fallen in love with digital diplomacy. Opening account
on Facebook or Twitter is so easy and - free of charge! Every embassy,
consulate, ambassador, every diplomat and international agency should open it! And
of course, Instagram – the more the merrier! Some foreign ministries, like in
UK, even encouraged their ambassadors to write blogs, which is a much more
complex and sophisticated operation than managing FB or Twitter account. And
the fact is that this symbiosis between diplomacy and major social networks is
coming to its full realization. This is so much so that in the near future we
can envisage in some foreign ministries establishment of Facebook departments,
Twitter bureaus, or offices for Instagram affairs. After all, governments are
bureaucracies that need to institutionalize their own activities. As a result, digital
diplomacy is preoccupied today with expanding audience and influence on
existing networks, using tools provided by those networks and within the rules
set by the networks; therefore, the emphasis is on sustaining presence, on writing
more attractive posts or tweets, on streaming more live videos, and on trying
to decipher the ever-changing and elusive algorithms of the networks.
The current model of digital diplomacy,
namely using major social networks, isn’t working and here is why:
First, the factor of freshness and
innovation was important when all this started. Foreign ministries and
embassies who were the first to open its pages benefit today from greater
numbers of followers and general attention, more than those who joined the club
later. Today, the effect of opening new diplomatic page for consulate or
embassy will be relatively insignificant among millions of accounts and
billions of posts and tweets.
Second, and more important factor was
that over the years the governments and foreign ministries began to realize
that this new mode of communication was not only about strengthening
democratization, expanding transparency, improving public services, about
branding and reaching out to new audiences. It was also about hate language and
obscenity, about security concerns and threats, about social protests and
violence, about reputational blows on the international arena, and lately about
fake news and meddling in elections. The major social networks became platforms
for spreading false information and are struggling to find mechanisms to deal with
defamation, radicalization, hate language, Holocaust denial and recruitment of
terrorists. There is no doubt, the major networks’ image and reliability is
compromised on too many levels, and, according to my assessment, we are just in
the beginning of this process, not in its end.
Third point: social networks encourage
a simplistic, superficial and emotional engagement that is beneficial to celebrities,
provocateurs and politicians, but is detrimental to diplomats or any other kind
of expert community. Diplomats will never be able to outwit on social media
those people or groups whose language is not limited by norms and national
interests, unless diplomacy will compromise its own goals.
And last point: in the current model of
digital diplomacy there is a hidden assumption that the major social networks
of today are eternal entities. Do you really think they are here forever? If
so, see all those networks that have disappeared in the last ten years. Fashions
change, trends reverse: social media is here to stay, but social networks
will fade away and give way to new ones. Look for example for a generational
change that is taking place today:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/01/facebook-teens-leaving-instagram-snapchat-study-user-numbers.
Before we move to the next chapter, I want
to make it clear: I am not against the presence of foreign ministries on
Facebook or Twitter and I don’t even want
to say anything bad about social networks (I mean, I could, but not now), I
just want to say, very diplomatically, that governments in general, and
diplomacy in particular, simply cannot limit their embrace of the social media
to the major social networks. Their capability to have an impact there is
decreasing, and what is even more troublesome in my eyes - this pursuit after a better tweet and a “cooler”
post will have grave consequences and could compromise status of diplomacy as a
profession. If we agree about this common denominator between us, let’s have a
discussion about new models for digital diplomacy.
Looking through the "digital" glass ceiling
For the reasons stated above,
ministries of foreign affairs should carefully revisit their vision of digital
diplomacy and its implementation. They should keep their presence there, but
not dedicate its dwindling budgets and all of its digital work to the major
networks. They should rethink how goals of public diplomacy could be achieved
on the existing platforms, and at the same time to think how they could bypass
these platforms and bring the digital diplomacy to a broader digitalization, or
as Matthew Wallin hinted in his article:
What should be done to increase effectiveness
of digital diplomacy?
First, foreign ministries should not
use their accounts as bulletin boards while avoiding conversations with the
audiences they want to engage (“Australian digital diplomacy developments 2016”,
by Danielle Cave). When you look for new audiences you don’t bombard them with
your messages. Rather you start listening and respond to their concerns.
However, as I already explained, to do so on major social networks is becoming
more challenging.
Second, think outside the American networks.
Go to WeiBo or VKontakte, but don’t forget you have to be fluent in these
languages. Also, search for niche social networks, less-commercialized, more
community-oriented. Heard about Diaspora or Letterboxd? Check them out. As
PCMag puts it, “The future is in drilling down into niche social networks…
Instead of sites that are all things for all people, these networks are happily
staying small and serving only the folks who want to be there.” (https://www.pcmag.com/feature/353300/9-niche-social-networks-to-use-instead-of-facebook)
And finally, here is my central
suggestion: Ministries of foreign affairs should create their own social
networks - platforms for supporters of
their countries around the world. I think all of us will be surprised how much
support countries can get from the international audience. Many countries have big
diasporas worldwide and this phenomenon keeps growing. This is but one major
group of potential supporters for your country, many others you will be able to
discover when engaging them through social network dedicated to your country.
Today, all countries are competing for
better reputation internationally to attract investments and tourism, but also
to explain their policies and positions. Private social networks are not making it easier to implement these goals, quite the opposite. So, instead of working
only on major networks that became too monstrously big, attract both supporters
and detractors, and above all, set their rules, countries can establish virtual
platforms on the international scale, on its own terms, allowing engagement and
raising support for their policies.
The advantages of these networks are
obvious, but the opposition to this idea, of course, will be enormous. Some
people will say that the governments cannot allow a free dialogue about their
own policies, without being suspected of greater surveillance. I beg to differ.
The networks of today are already a kind of a Big Brother.Setting up some norms and rules will not
damage but rather help prevent inappropriate behavior that became so common on
existing networks. How can you trust the information on the networks that became
the very tools of “fake news” and manipulation? On the other hand, democratic
governments should put to test their ability to engage public in a transparent
and democratic way if we want to preserve the principles of democracy in the
age of social media.
By the way, there is nothing new about
niche social networks developed for or by public sector. Ten years ago, Govloop
and Ozloop were the first great examples of how public employees can engage
socially and professionally through the social media platform. Inspired by them
I tried to create the social network of the Israeli public sector (what was
good 10 years ago still makes sense - Workplace social network platform, that
was developed by Facebook, by the way, is now being used by the ministry of
social welfare in Israel). Back in 2010 I even had an idea of creating a social
network “My Israel” in several foreign languages, having the same model in
mind, but I just did not have time to dedicate myself to this project on my own.
This post is already too long, so let
me conclude it: I don’t think every ministry of foreign affairs would or could
launch international social network, even though technologies are already at
hand and the time is ripe. Why? Because such a move will entail a deeper institutional
reorganization, which of course will require courage and vision. However, given
a slippery road towards superficiality paved by social networks, more courageous
and sophisticated digitalization of the foreign ministries could be one of the
ways to overcome the ongoing crisis of modern diplomacy.
All predictions about the "end of history" or a gradual withering away of the state so far proved to be wrong. International affairs are there to stay in a foreseeable future. The relations between the states are still crucial for the future of each one of us and all of humankind.
But the ways the states interact have changed. Classic diplomacy is no longer able to satisfy the needs of the states and promote their interests. The impact of international organizations, sub-state players, corporations and even individuals is growing and challenging the whole system of international relations. One of the major reasons behind this change is a mix of technology and a new form of mass media which we call social media.
The last 19 years I was a practitioner of international relations, being a member of the Israel's foreign service and working in Moscow, Los Angeles, Paris and Washington. From the beginning of my diplomtic career I paid a special attention to Internet. At my first assignment in Moscow, between 2000-2003, as a spokesperson I was working not only with traditional media, but dedicated a lot of time to internet news sites and participated at the internet press-conferences. One of my best interviews (from my point view) I gave to the website jewish.ru: unlike newspaper, on the website the physical place is not limited and I could answer all the questions without any concern for space (http://jewish.ru/ru/events/israel/181311/).
But invention of social networks was even bigger game changer, even though at that time it was not so obvious. I consider myself an early adapter and enthusiast of Diplomacy 2.0: I initiated a training program on digital diplomacy that became mandatory for all diplomats within the Israeli Foreign Service, was strongly involved in international initiatives promoting Digital Government like Govloop.com, and was invited to speak at the O’Reilly GOV 2.0 online conference.
In this blog, that I originally created at 2009, I continue to analyze and discuss international relations, central topics of the global diplomatic agenda and the impact of social media on it.
Last week I had an
opportunity to learn about the Quasi-periodic crystals. I am sure that like
most of you, these words do not mean much, even if you check its definition on
Wikipedia. It was the same for me, till last Friday. On that day I was at the
Maison de la Chimie in Paris, where I heard the explanation by a person who
discovered quasi-crystals – Professor Dan Shechtman from Technion. Even this
complicated question could be explained I very simple terms, even I could
understand it (Ihope!) But it took to professor Shectman about 10 years to convince
the academic community that his discovery was real. And 20 more years to get
the Nobel Prize in November 2011…
Professor Shechtman at the Maison de la Chimie
What he discovered in
1982 was that the not all crystals are periodic, meaning that their atoms are
ordered in a periodic structure. The community of crystallographers refused to
accept his finding that would hatter the scientific “truth” that was hold for
70 years. The explanations of Prof. Shectman were crystal clear, not
quasi-clear. However, the most prominent experts preferred for many years to
reject his discovery, blaming him for quasi-science. While he was trying for
years explain that his discovery was made possible thanks to the new tool he
used in his work: electro-magnetic microscope instead of X-rays.
At the end of his
lecture at Maison de la Chimie, he shared his own conclusion about the 5 most
important things that made possible his discovery: electro-magnetic microscope,
professionalism, tenacity, self-confidence and courage.
And I just thought to
myself that with the exception of microscope, the four other elements are
required in any endeavor…
Needless to say, I was proud to have this picture...
And one last word
about Technion, who celebrates 100 years since its establishment in 1912 –
Shectman’s Nobel Prize was third for Technion, in the last 7 year. In Technion,
they definitely may have something to teach us about tenacity, professionalism
and self-confidence!
Bernard Valero, Spokesperson
French Foreign Ministry
Last week the embassy of Israel in Paris, France, hosted an
international workshop on the digital diplomacy. It was first such experience
for us in the Israeli embassy, but what I learnt from our guests during the
workshop was that it was also the case for many of them. While diplomats
discuss this topic with their counterparts occasionally, the idea of workshop
was to create the platform of professional discussion and exchange between
diplomats, web-specialists, journalists and bloggers.
Richard Volodarski web-agency Linkeo
Since I came to Paris year and half ago, I contacted many of my
counterparts, spokespeople from different embassies to learn how they use
social media in their communication work in France. I discovered that while a
few embassies are quite active in this field, like the US and Estonian
embassies, others were hesitant, either on the personal level, or because of
their headquarters’ lack of encouragement. At the same time, many diplomats
expressed their interest to learn from the experience of others.
That’s how I realized there’s a potential for this workshop. My Estonian
and US colleagues supported the idea and became partners in this project.
Paul Patin, Spokesperson
US embassy in France
So what did we have on February 8 in our embassy? It was an honor for to
host our first speaker, Bernard Valero, the Head of the Communications’
Department and Spokesperson of the French Ministry of Foreign and European
Affairs. The Quai d’Orsay is one of the most advanced ministries of Foreign
Affaires in the digital diplomacy, I know this firsthand: more than 100.000
twitter followers, internet-conferences for journalists every two days, state
of the art website of the Ministry…
Sigrid Kristenprun
Spokesperson, embassy of Estonia
Our second speaker was Richard Volodarski of the Linkeo web-agency.
Richard shared with some insights about the social media in France and in
general. How many people use social media in France? How we look after target
audiences? What is the importance of digital presence for embassies? How make
it successful? All these questions were discussed, and even if not answered,
the participants were intrigued by some of the dilemmas and perspectives he
introduced.
And this is me
After it three presentations were done by the Estonian, US and Israel
embassies. We’ve learnt that the Estonian embassy is exploring Facebook, the US
embassy is working also on Twitter and is especially pro-active in Youtube, and
we are making inroads into the blogosphere. While we could see differences in our
approaches, it was clearly the conclusion of all the speakers: we need more
independence from HQ and more immediate responses if we want our embassies’
digital presence to be efficient and significant.
I believe it was first, but not the last workshop on digital diplomacy:
the best way to learn is by sharing practices and methods.
On Friday I was interviewed to the Radio France International about Digital Diplomacy. The interview is in English.Thank you to my host, Vladimir Smekhov
Instead of looking back, let’s get a glimpse at new innovative
trends and solutions being developed in Israel these days. “An Overview of Innovation
in Israel 2018-2019” that was recently published by Israel Innovation Authority
and which I came across recently, could serve as a perfect guide. Here are a
few examples that caught my eye in this document:
The
consortium has had several groundbreaking achievements, some of which have led
to technological maturity and clinical execution. HaGuide, for example,
software developed by Alpha Omega and researchers from the Hebrew University
and Hadassah Medical Center, is used in DBS procedures (Deep Brain Stimulation)
performed on patients suffering from Parkinson’s disease or other disorders. 
