By Schmoel Yitzhak
From a purely public relations viewpoint, the odds against Mitt Romney's visit to Israel getting a rave review were stiff at best.
There were two very good reasons:
REASON ONE; America's media -- print and electronic -- is not fair; never is, never was.
These decades it has moved away from what is euphemistically called "fair play" to agenda-journalism.
And since about 90 percent of the media are to the left of center or to the left of left of center, personalities such as Romney, Benjamin Netanyahu and institutions such as the Republican Party, Likud and the State of Israel don't stand a chance of receiving anything close to fair treatment.
To his credit, Bibi articulated this point by simply refusing outright a New York Times request to write an op-ed piece. Israel's Prime Minister categorically refused on the grounds that the once-hailed "newspaper of record" -- now broad-sheet of disrepute -- has endlessly given his country unfair, imbalanced treatment.
REASON TWO: The Democrats deliberately intruded on Romney's expedition with a collection of "dirty-tricks" cleverly disguised as strategic visits.
Thus, one after another, Barack Obama dispatched his pinch-hitters to Israel to disrupt any form of positive publicity that the Republican nominee might obtain.
The heavy-hitters in the president's batting order started with Hilary Clinton and most recently concluded with Leon Panetta, Uncle Sam's Secretary of Defense who -- fortunately for him -- doesn't have a lie detector attached when he speaks.
Their torrent of talk -- as it had to -- centered on the Iranian threat and the promise that America will support Israel; well, sort of, if you know what I mean.
Sanctions against Iran will be ratcheted up so that the mullahs will cease their nuclear ambitions, they insisted. But to Bibi's credit he no longer falls for such ridiculous rhetoric. Netanyahu replied in kind that -- to paraphrase in my own way -- the sanctions had all the usefulness of last weeks garbage.
While Clinton exited Stage Left, Panetta -- notoriously not a friend of Israel -- did likewise. By contrast, Romney came to Israel and talked turkey.
Mitt took off his mitts and declared what the Democrats refuse to do: 1. He called Jerusalem the capital of Israel; 2. He noted that Israeli and Palestinian culture might have something to do with the respective state of their economies. 3. He took a much more realistic stance on the Iranian threat than Obama ever did -- or would.
At least one newspaper -- The Wall Street Journal -- which has been even-handed in its treatment of Israel viewed Romney's speeches in Israel with an endorsement.
"Romney showed that he understood that Tehran is a dedicated and fanatical enemy of Israel and the U.S." asserted WSJ, "not a misunderstood nation seeking a better bargain from the West. Too bad Obama didn't demonstrate the same realism about the mullahs four years ago."
Needless to say, White House propagandists -- thinly disguised as newspaper columnists and editorial writers just had to find a reason to rip Romney. Not surprisingly, The Times led the way with this headline over its recent lead editorial: MR. ROMNEY STUMPS IN ISRAEL -- A LOT OF BELLICOSE RHETORIC TO PLEASE RIGHT-WING ISRAELIS AND THE DONORS TRAVELING WITH HIM.
Naturally, the Arabs were up in arms over Mitt's putdown of the Palestinian culture and -- no surprise either -- many in the media called it a gaffe by Romney.
Gaffe my foot. Here's why, as articulated in ten little words by the Wall Street Journal's editorial page:
"One definition of gaffe," says the WSJ, "is to tell the truth."
If you want the truth, you don't go to The Times or Obama's other p.r. sheets. All you need are the facts:
* Syria's regime murders its own citizens.
* Hezbollah, a terrorist group, commands Lebanon.
* Gaza is dominated by Hamas, terrorist all the way. It hasn't had elections in years.
* The West Bank, as the Committee For Accuracy In Middle East Reporting In America (CAMERA) reports, "is run by a corrupt kleptocracy that is way overdue for elections."
And need I point out that The Times never got around to run an editorial about the massacre of Israeli tourists by a suicide bomber in Burgas, Bulgaria.
Now you have a better idea why Mitt Romney got media-slammed for his Israeli visit.
The truth hurts whether the media cloaks it in pro-Obama propaganda or not!