(3) To study the effects of President Zelensky’s historical analogies, we simultaneously fielded survey experiments in four countries – the US, the UK, Germany, and Israel. In all four, those exposed to the analogy had an emotional reaction consistent with the content of the speech.

(2) Leaders often use historical analogies to mobilize public opinion around foreign policy events. Most memorable are Zelensky’s speeches, comparing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 (in the US), World War II (in the UK), and the Holocaust (in Germany and Israel).

(1) Are historical analogies effective as a persuasion tactic during foreign policy crises? Our new article in Security Studies finds that while exposure to analogies elicits an emotional reaction, it does not always translate into a shift in policy attitudes. 🧵: doi.org/10.1080/0963...

(6) In terms of human rights, consistent with past work, we find a backlash effect. Compared to respondents who were not exposed to criticism, Israelis became less supportive of improving existing practices. This was only true when the criticism was made by non-Israeli critics.

(5) Jewish-American critics, however, have a slight advantage compared to Americans regarding their intentions: Israelis evaluate Jewish-American critics as more well-intentioned than non-Jewish Americans.

(4) Our findings indicate that Israeli critics have a clear advantage: respondents evaluate Israeli critics as more well-intentioned and knowledgeable than non-Israeli critics (Jewish-Americans and Americans).

(2) To study this, we ran a survey experiment on ~2,100 Israelis. Those in the treatment groups were exposed to the same critical message coming from different critics (Israeli, Jewish-American, or American) and delivered on different channels (Israeli or international media).