BIBI: BACK-BURNER ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE MOVED UP FRONT

By Schmoel Yitzhak

If -- and I emphasize IF -- Israel trails in the propaganda game with the Arabs, there's still time for a comeback.

For that to happen, it's necessary to pinpoint flaws in Jerusalem's strategy.

Since the "settlement" issue is at the forefront of diplomatic discussion -- thanks to the perverted Obama thinking -- we must zero in on that subject.

To begin with Israel propagandists -- call them what you will if that term is disturbing -- must go on the offensive.

And what better issue than a demand that if talks are to begin, the Arabs MUST accept Israel's existence. Period. That is an imperative.

The fact that the so-called "moderate" countries such as Saudi Arabia have endlessly refused to acknowledge the only democracy in the Middle East should be a starting point with American peacemakers.

But most of all with Israeli's opinion-makers.

"Okay," Benjamin Netanyahu, "should tell the American president, "if you want us to negotiate in good faith, then we MUST have good faith returned from the other side. And our definition of "good faith" begins with the Palestinians first delivering a forthright declaration of the reality of Israel. If they cannot do that, what's the point of talking?"

Bibi's propaganda machine should finger-point at a major discrepancy in previous talks focusing on who can live where. Assuming -- and only ASSUMING -- that a two-state solution is even possible, it would be a one-sided deal. That is, Arabs will still be allowed to live in Israel but Jews will not be permitted in a Palestinian state.

Thus, the Prime Minister should fiercely attack that issue by simply stating, "What's fair about that?"

if the Palestinians truly want a two-state solution then it must be along equitable lines. If Arabs remain in Israel, Jews must be allowed to stay in a Palestinian state. Call it tit for tat; call it even-Steven. I call it what's right is right.

So far, Israel has fallen behind in the public relations (same as propaganda) game because it has not played verbal hardball when such a move was necessary.

Exhibit A: Israel withdrew from twenty-five settlements in Gaza and Samaria in 2005 on the assumption that there would be a reciprocal gesture of goodwill from the other side.

Alas, that "goodwill" came in the form of thousands of rocket attacks including the Hamas annexation of Gaza.

This is an issue which has not nearly been sufficiently dramatized by the Netanyahu government.

It falls under the category of endless Arab duplicity. That brand of lying has been evident for decades and was most evident when Yasir Arafat -- as McGill University historian Gil Troy points out -- "led his people away from the Oslo negotiations back toward terror in 2000."

Much, much more emphasis should be placed by Israeli propagandists on the obvious facts that support their case.

Exhibits B,C,D, and E start with the Arabs rejecting the UN partition compromise in November l947; the all-out-Arab (six armies) attack against the new state in May 1948; creation of a hostile PLO in 1964 and the 1967 attempt at Israel's annihilation launched by Egypt's Nasser before all the cats joined in.

The "settlement" issue propagated by Obama and his sidekick, Hilary (Rotten) Clinton is small potatoes compared with the major points of contention mentioned above. However, the Arab propaganda machine has employed it to great advantage.

"Emphasizing the 'settlements' circumvents negotiation," adds Troy. "It's caving in to Palestinian land claims and mindlessly embracing their one-sided narrative."

Thus, it must be changed by the Israelis to a two-sided narrative and there's plenty of historic ammunition on Bibi's side.

Ah, but if only he would use it forcefully -- and often!