Sad News for a Friend in Israel

Ned Barnett
(c) 2006


On the day that Israel accepted the UN-brokerd "cease-fire," I sent this (below) to a friend and professional colleague, "David," who owns a PR firm in Israel. Like me, he's a strong advocate of a strong Israel. I think this assessment of what this so-called cease fire really means, to Israel, to America, to the Middle East (and, though they don't give a damn, the world) is on-target, and worth sharing more broadly.


David -

You need to know how this so-called "cease fire" is playing in the US. I mean this as no attack on you - it was your country's elected government that struck this shameful surrender to terror, not you - but a "shameful surrender" and "defeat" is just how the US (and the world) now sees Israel's retreat from confronting terror.

This does not bode well for Israel.

For instance, it will be much harder for America to support Israel in the future, especially if we have to take the heat for that support. After all, if your government won't take the heat, the reasoning will go, why should we? As bad - or perhaps even worse - this does not bode well for US activities targeting terrorists throughout the middle east. We will now be seen as the ally of a paper tiger, one on the losing side. It's tragic - and I've got to wonder what in hell your government leaders were thinking in "making peace" with terrorists who think nothing of strapping bombs on children to blow up Israelis, let alone pumping hundreds of high-explosive war rockets into civilian neighborhhoods. To my mind, the only peace you make with terrorists like that is the peace of the grave - their grave. Israel used to know this.

As I said, this is not going to play well in the US - at least not from the perspective of those who support Israel and who believe that there can be no quarter asked or given when fighting terrorists. Here's how I see the "take" on the cease fire, here in the US.

1. Expert "pundits" are already all over the Sunday TV talk shows and on cable news (not to mention in the New York Times), proclaiming that Hezbollah won their war with Israel. This now-legitimized terrorist organization has defeated the once-feared IDF, and in doing so, they have forced the Israeli government into a shameful negotiated armistice. This, they say, is a virtual surrender, and they're right. This cease fire leaves Hezbollah strong and in place, while it has shattered what's left of Israel's "moral high ground" (that which came because Hezbollah started the war). Israel is no longer seen as formidable, nor is it seen as standing on the high ground, nor even seen as willing to defend itself. That's today's news, the media's spin, on this cease fire.

2. If they haven't already done so, American friends of Israel are now on the verge of giving up. They are wondering - perhaps rightly - why they should speak out, or take the heat, when Israel's own elected government clearly doesn't have the spinal fortitude (i.e., the backbone) to stand up to terror. When Israel would rather cut-and-run, taking the first easy out and leaving their friends hanging, twisting slowly in the wind, why should their friends in America stand strong for them?

3. This defeat of Israel (for that is how it is perceived by enemies of Israel - and, sadly, by her friends as well) undermines the entire US position in the Middle East - and in the process, it makes those on the American Left who demand a quick withdrawal of US forces from the region feel far more powerful. How can we, they reason, stand up to terror when our strongest (perhaps our only real) ally in the Middle East would rather give in to terror than to fight it? More important, they ask, WHY - why should we bother to fight terrorists, and take casualties, when Israel would rather surrender to Hezbollah as soon as the blood-price started to hurt, just a bit?

4. Terrorists everywhere now know that democracies cannot stand the heat - we cannot stay the course and stand up to terror. Worse, they now know that all they have to do to win is to survive, to wait out the freedom-loving democracies, who cannot stand against terror (or the casualties inflicted by terrorists). Israel has shown that their long-suffering democracy - one that was once ready to pay any price for freedom - cannot now stand even moderate casualties inflicted in a short-term, "sanitized" war, no matter how many rockets hit the homeland, no matter how many innocent civilians back home pay the ultimate blood-price for your government's unwillingness to fight evil. That is a terrible message to send to terrorists, yet what else should they deduce from this surrender to Hezbollah?

Bottom line: Israel's friends feel that they were sold down the river by your elected government - and they will wonder why they should ever again stand up for Israel, when clearly Israel won't stand up for herself - while Israel's enemies have been emboldened as never before.

This has got to be a bitter pill for you, David, but if I'm right (I hope I'm not, but I fear I am) things will only get worse for you and your country. Terrorists - Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the other crazies - they'll all now see you as a toothless old tiger. Eager for blood and victory, they will pounce on your still-breathing carcass, slavering for their own piece of still-warm flesh. These terrorists will be emboldened, and the blood-price your country has paid so far will prove to be a small down-payment on the ultimate price.

The worst thing you can do is surrender to terrorists, and that is exactly what it seems your government has done.

I wish it were otherwise, and I hope I am wrong. You, and your brave country, are in our prayers, but as an old American saying goes, "God helps those who help themselves ..."

All the best

Ned

CNN Broadcasts Primer for Terrorists

Ned Barnett
(c) 2006

Christiane Amanpour, CNN's chief International correspondent, hosted a program on August 14 that, in it's own way, was more subversive and dangerous than the recent actions by the New York Times to expose perfectly legal anti-terrorist surveillance operations. Oddly, there has been no strong public outcry - perhaps that's because so few people watch CNN - but because CNN reaches an international audience, the subversion is no less dangerous for having gone unremarked-upon.

This special program focused on American sites that were particularly vulnerable to terror attacks. These were major sites - a port that brings in 20% of US oil and 35% of US natural gas - which had (as CNN showed) vastly insufficient security. That these sites are vulnerable is probably without question; the problem, as I see it, is that CNN not only cited the areas that were not secured, but offered terrorists a primer on how to find the vulnerabilities, and where (at a given site) they could strike to do maximum damage.

I was stunned at the detail involved - anybody watching the program could easily go out and wreak havoc on any one of those sites, using information provided to avoid security sweeps and reach the most vulnerable targets - and appalled that this program was broadcast not only domestically but internationally. They made that point several times during the program.

Some who are perhaps more skeptical than I could point out that Ms. Amanpour is, by her own description, half-Persian - Persia being the ancient name for Iran - or that she had named her son Darius, after the Persian emperor who so nearly succeeded in conquering the western world. That might be a bit of a stretch, but it is no stretch to be concerned that her most recent international broadcast focused on how terrorists could do the most material harm while attacking America with relative impunity. Clearly, Ms. Amanpour has a greater interest in winning yet one more prestigious journalism award than she is in considering the potentially deadly implications of her actions. In that, she should feel right at home at CNN - the same network that admitted flakking for Saddam in order to ensure that they continued to have access to that blood-soaked dictator.

This is the price America pays for free speech and free press, but if CNN has it's way, that price could be very high indeed.

How Israel COULD HAVE Won the PR War Against Hezbollah in Summer 2006

How Israel Could Have Won The PR War Against Hezbollah in Summer 2006
Ned Barnett (c) 2006
Updated from Article Published 7/26/06 in "American Thinker"

Author’s note: The war is now over – for the time being – but few optimists expect the cease-fire to hold. The most logical assumption is that the now-emboldened terrorists will strike again, and when they do, it will be vital to Israel to secure world support – and especially US support. The following, originally published on July 26, 2006 (and updated with a few more recent stats) charts one PR path Israel could take to secure that US support.

If Israel wants to sustain US support for its efforts to defend its homeland from terrorists (which is what this recent battle in the Middle East was all about), it needs to paint a word-picture that will cut through left/right politics and reach individual Americans. As a public relations professional and military historian, I have a few simple suggestions.

Find a spokesman (as Israel did more than a decade ago, with the cultured, American English-inflected Benjamin Netanyahu) who looks as if he could easily be American. In PR, you want your target audience to identify with you – and if you want Americans to identify with you, you must put an “American-looking” face on the story.

In framing the debate, use words that do not beat around the bush. For example, these are “vicious terrorists” firing “high-explosive war rockets” into “peaceful, innocent neighborhoods.” Calling them anything but vicious terrorists gives them a measure of credibility they don’t deserve. However, refrain from calling them “Muslim” terrorists, as this reframes the issue – and the issue isn’t that they’re Muslims, but that they’re vicious terrorists who are murdering civilians by raining thousands of deadly war rockets on peaceful neighborhoods.

Another example: calling the high-explosive war rockets fired by Hezbollah “Katyusha” rockets hides their real meaning and awful destructive use. Ask yourself: how many Americans really know what Katyusha rockets are? The answer: not many. However, anybody can visualize “high-explosive war rockets,” and only a dullard could fail to grasp the horrific impact of 3,500 such war rockets on a peaceful neighborhood.

Put the debate in terms Americans can viscerally understand. Ask them, “How would America react if cross-border terrorists had fired more than 3,500 high-explosive war rockets into Atlanta, or Kansas City?” Make it personal – make it American (we are, if nothing else, a fairly self-centered nation – even while showering the world with unprecedented charity, we still see things through our own perspective, and expect others to do the same).

Tell the story as it happened (from Israel’s perspective) – cutting through the media clutter that has so far succeeded in painting Hezbollah as victimized freedom fighters instead of vicious terrorists attacking civilian targets in Israel. Define the terms of the debate, rather than letting others (the New York Times, Time Magazine and MSNBC, among others) define the debate for them. President Reagan was successful in large part because he “went over the heads” of the media and talked directly to the American people. Israel needs to do this as well.

Begin reshaping the debate with a statement something like this:

“As of August 13th, Hezbollah has fired more than 3,500 high-explosive war rockets at peaceful, innocent civilian neighborhoods in Israel. How would America feel – how would America respond – if cross-border terrorists (hiding among civilians in a neighboring country) had fired 3,500 deadly high-explosive war rockets into San Diego, or El Paso? How would America react if Atlanta or Kansas City or Denver came under such a sustained, murderous attack? In the face of such horrific provocation – a cycle that was started when Hezbollah terrorists crossed the border and kidnapped two soldiers – would America be exercising near-miraculous self-restraint? Or would America seek out these terrorists – giving them no safe haven – if only to make sure that no more high-explosive war rockets were fired into the neighborhoods of peaceful American cities? The answer is clear – Americans would fight to defend their homeland and destroy the terrorists, the terrorists’ bases of operations, and those who support or shelter those terrorists.”

Following this approach, Israel will have at least a fighting chance of winning the next PR war. As it stands now, by playing word-games with the anti-Israeli, left-leaning mainstream media, and by putting what seems to be a very foreign face on the news by using heavily-accented spokesmen who just don’t “look” American, Israel may have technically won the war against Hezbollah, but from a PR perspective they lost the war for American support – and unless they change their approach, they’ll lose the next PR war as well. The major US media are no friends of Israel. If that plucky country is to overcome this built-in deficit, they’ve got to fight back using tools and techniques that work, even in the face of opposition by the American media.

Ned Barnett has been a public relations specialist for 35 years, and has published nine books on the subject. He has also appeared on the History Channel seven times as a military historian.

Photo Fakery at the New York Times? (originally published 1/16/06)

Photo Fakery at the New York Times?
Originally Published January 16, 2006
Excerpted and Published by "American Thinker"
Ned Barnett (c) 2006

Is a fake staged photo fit to print? What if it staged in a way that makes the US forces fighting the War on Terror look cruel and ineffective? The evidence argues yes, at least in the case of the New York Times website.

It appears that Times, once upon a time regarded as the last word in reliability when it comes to checking items before publishing (which makes them so much better than blogs, of course) has run a fake photo on the home page of its website. The photo has since been removed from the home page, but still can be seen here. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/01/14/international/worldspecial/14cnd-afghan.ready.html

The picture shows a sad little boy, with a turbaned man in the background, amid the ruins of a house, and is captioned

"Pakistani men with the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border."

The story it accompanies is about the apparently failed attempt to take out al Zawahiri with an attack from a Predator drone.

“How sad!” readers are encouraged to think. These poor people are on the receiving end of awful weapons used by clumsy minions of Bush. And all to no avail.

The only problem is that the long cylindrical item with a conical end pictured with the boy and the man is not a missile at all. It is an old artillery shell. Not something that would have been fired from a Predator. Indeed, something that would have been found elsewhere and posed with the ruins and the little boy as a means at pulling of the heartstrings of the gullible blue state readers of the New York Times.

Ned Barnett is an expert on military technology, and frequently serves as a contributor to The History Channel on mil-tech issues. He has plenty of experience researching military ordnance, and writes:

“Based on my extensive experience in researching military technology, I can verify that this is a 152mm or 155mm artillery shell - unfired - and by the looks of it, fairly old. It also looks like it has a fuse in it, suggesting that the guys in the photo are either ditch-water dumb or have a death-wish.

“At a glance, it's hard to tell the exact caliber - 152mm or 155mm (they're so close) but the Soviets tended to favor 152 (going back to WW-II) while we and the Brits, the French and most of the rest of the non-Soviet world (including, oddly, the PRC) preferred the 155. For all intents and purposes, they were functionally identical (but were not interchangeable). In caliber, this is also virtually identical to Naval 6" rounds (routinely used by the Brits, the Imperial Japanese Navy and the USN), but of course, it's unlikely that the Pakistanis would unearth a Naval round not widely used since Vietnam (much more common in WW-I and WW-II) hundreds of miles from the nearest salt water.

“These shells could fire high explosive (HP), chemical white smoke (white phosphorous - aka "Willie Pete" - a smoke-producing shell that's also hideous if you get the WP on you, as it burns on contact with air and nothing much will put it out), armor-piercing and semi-armor piercing - even poison gas (there's much evidence that Saddam used French 155 shells for poison gas purposes against the Kurds, and possibly the Iranians). They are very common, and have been so since WW-I. They remain common throughout the world as one of the "standard" artillery sizes. To me, this looks like a HP shell, but the proof would come in interpreting the markings (that yellow band, plus stenciling).

“Small-caliber artillery comes in a casing with the propellant and shell in the same package - like a very large rifle bullet - but larger artillery has the shell (seen in the photo) packed separately from the propellant charge (which is generally in silk bags or other combustible containers). Rockets of all calibers also have integral propellant. The pictured shell does not have integral propellant, so it couldn't possibly be a rocket (by the wayy, the standard ex-Soviet rocket caliber was 122mm - noticeably smaller than this puppy).

“A decent basic primer on artillery shells can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(projectile)

“Just as this one does, all artillery shells have markings (usually colored bands) which show the cannon-cockers at a glance what kind of shell they're loading (blue for practice, other colors for different types of "live" shells). Somewhere I have an old standard reference on Soviet markings (and another on standard US markings), but they're buried in my library, so I can't immediately ID who made this shell.

“The make, however, is immaterial. The 152/155mm artillery shell has been in common, world-wide distribution since at least 1918. While it doesn't look old enough to be of even WW-II vintage, that's no guarantee. When it comes to artillery shells, most countries are pack-rats. At the time of their fall, the Soviets still had stockpiles of WW-II era shells, and they worked. (In Vietnam, most of the bombs we dropped from airplanes had been manufactured in '41-'45.) They don't wear out, and as long as the fuses are live, most of the shells will be, too.

“Bottom line: the "provenance" of this shell, given it's location in the world, could be Soviet (or ex-Soviet), PRC Chinese, British, French, American, NATO, Yugoslavian, Warsaw Pact (Czech, most likely, if WarPac), or as a long shot, potentially (though unlikely) even Imperial Japanese. In short, absent a manual on color-bands and a close look at stenciling, there's no way to tell who made the damned thing. Nor is it important.

“The New York Times claim that it was the remains of a rocket is nonsense. Rockets are frail, light-weight, flimsy things (for obvious reasons). Artillery shells are robust, mostly cast steel (the explosive weight is really rather small considering the overall weight of the shell), again for obvious reasons. Take a look yourself. In addition, artillery shells have bands that grab onto the rifling of the cannon barrel - this is obvious (the lower segmented brass-over-white-paint band) on the shell in this photo. Rockets do NOT have this, as they use fins or directional exhaust nozzles to spin-stabilize themselves.”

So the formerly authoritative New York Times has published a picture distributed around the world on the home page of its website, using a prop which must have been artfully placed to create a false dramatic impression of cruel incompetence on the part of US forces. Not only did the editors lack the basic knowledge necessary to detect the fake, they didn’t bother to run the photo past anyone with such knowledge before exposing the world to it.

There is an old saying in journalism, “Too good to check” about stories which editors really want to run. It is plainly clear that the New York Times thought this story was too good to check. It speaks volumes about their biases.

DNC Changes the Rules Again - Reprinted from "American Thinker"

DNC Changes the Rules Again
August 23rd, 2006
Ned Barnett - (c) 2006

Over the past week, the Democratic National Committee drastically changed the rules for nominating a Presidential candidate. In doing so, they junked the long-standing tradition of having the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary launch the vote-gathering primary season.

In the name of empowering blacks and Hispanics, they have inserted two new states into the Primary Season launch cycle: Nevada, which has a large Hispanic population, and South Carolina, which has a strong black population. The largely unspoken motive in moving Nevada up in prominence is to empower labor unions, which have organized large numbers of culinary and hotel workers in Las Vegas, and which are organizationaly able to mobilize turnout for caucuses.

Their stated goal is laudable in terms of values embraced by Democrats. They say they want to be inclusive, and that they want to ensure that America’s two largest ethnic minorities have a strong voice in nominating their party’s ultimate candidate. However, their way of going about this is almost certain to backfire in ways that they – blindered by an acute attack of Political Correctness – may not be able to see

The implicit message to New Hampshire and Iowa is one of rebuke for being “too white.” Both states have greatly enjoyed their decades in the national media and political spotlight. Local media figures appreciate the national exposure their opinions garner, and ordinary folks enjoy being catered to by national political figures, who scour diners, VFW halls, pancake breakfasts, and other venues in search of hands to shake. There may well be a backlash for the Democrats in these two small states.

But worse damage is likely from the proposed serious penalties for candidates who buck the system – penalties such as denying them delegates they’ve earned in primaries or caucuses. If nothing else, this is an interesting way of treating men and women they hope might become President. As a long-time political consultant who began his career in South Carolina, and who’s lived and worked in Nevada for 15 years now, I hope that my perspective on what they’re doing – and what they may be doing wrong – will prove informative and enlightening. Based on that, I offer the following:

1. Some have questioned the legality of the penalties the DNC is proposing for candidates who buck the system. Based on my understanding of the way political parties work, the move is legal. Parties have wide latitude in seating delegates at conventions, and it would be well within the law for the party national convention credentialing committee to refuse to seat New Hampshire delegates pledged to candidates who broke the party rules. However, that same credentialing committee could, at the 2008 national convention, over-rule this new ruling … as I said, they have wide latitude, and their decisions are governed by politics.

2. However, no matter how legal this move might be, it’s my view that this move is extraordinarily bad for the Democratic Party, for a variety of reasons, including:

a. The McGovern Factor: You’d think the party would have learned from their disastrous 1972 election cycle. Under the direction of George McGovern and his supporters, they re-wrote their rules to set quotas for delegates (so many blacks, so many women, etc.) and wound up nominating an unelectable candidate (McGovern). It took them years to overcome the problems those rule-changes made. However, setting aside this painful lesson, they acted to ignore it. This new ruling was made to give a much greater voice (presumably) to Hispanics (Nevada) and blacks (South Carolina). The result may be, as happened in 1972, the nomination of a candidate who appeals to (or panders effectively to) a couple of minorities, but who is unelectable to the wider national electorate. Stacking the deck in the name of political correctness is not a sound strategy for winning a national election, and the Democrats are repeating their 1972 mistake.

b. Reality vs. Perception: Candidates may be tempted to buck the system – after all, the benefits might well outweigh the cost. The reality of a win in New Hampshire will be far more powerful than will the perception of harm that will come from having the party saying “you can’t have the delegates you won.” The first two events are both caucuses – in Iowa and Nevada – and neither the media nor the national electorate really understand (nor give as much credence to) caucuses. Popular vote elections have more impact, and if New Hampshire decides to jump to the head of the queue as its law currently requires – and if a smart candidate decides to push hard to win in New Hampshire (for the media awareness and credibility) and not sweat the very few delegates New Hampshire actually delivers, that candidate could not only win in New Hampshire but make a shambles of this “reform” the Democrats have instituted. The reality of a big win in New Hampshire could have far more impact than the perception of having “cheated” the system.

c. Distraction Factor: Once again, the Democratic Party has shifted the news story focus away from nominating a candidate who might be able to beat the Republicans and take back the White House. Instead, they have created a new news story, one about party control vs. the needs and plans of the candidates (who want to win in New Hampshire, no matter what the rules are). So the new nominating process will be their story, not their candidate’s story. Even more important, if the Party pushes hard for candidates to follow the rules, the Democrats might actually damage the chances of their own candidate – at least the one with the best chance of winning in November. For example, if Hillary runs, and if she decides (based on Bill’s 1992 experience) that she needs to win in New Hampshire, she might be ostracized or condemned by the Party for violating the rules and campaigning in New Hampshire. However, if she wins the nomination in spite of that, she’ll be seen (at least by Republicans and Independents) as a “cheater” who’ll “do anything to win” – in other words, she might need to buck the Party to win the nomination, but in doing so, she might make herself unelectable. This could apply to anybody – I just used Hillary as an example because she’s on the cover of Time this week. Again. For the 10th time.

Bottom line: this could well prove to be a really counter-productive decision on the part of the Democratic Party – a Party that frequently so fervently embraces political correctness that it loses sight of the real mission: to win the election and re-direct the country. As a conservative, I can be thankful that they remain “the gang who couldn’t shoot straight,” but as a political observer and consultant, I’ve got to wonder what they were thinking of … or if they were thinking at all.

Ned Barnett has been a political consultant since 1976, and has worked on campaigns for governors, senators congressmen and local officials – and, at the state level, on three Presidential campaigns. He operates a PR and Marketing Communications consulting business with offices in Las Vegas, Atlanta and Arizona.

Winning the Public Relations War for Israel - Reprint from "American Thinker"

Winning the Public Relations War for Israel
July 26th, 2006
Ned Barnett - (c) 2006

If Israel wants to sustain US support for its efforts to defend its homeland from terrorists (which is what this current battle in the Middle East is all about), it needs to paint a word-picture that will cut through left/right politics and reach individual Americans. As a public relations professional and military historian, I have a few simple suggestions.

Find a spokesman (as Israel did more than a decade ago, with the cultured, American English-inflected Benjamin Netanyahu) who looks as if he could easily be American. In PR, you want your target audience to identify with you – and if you want Americans to identify with you, you must put an “American-looking” face on the story.

In framing the debate, use words that do not beat around the bush. For example, these are “vicious terrorists” firing “high-explosive war rockets” into “peaceful, innocent neighborhoods.” Calling them anything but vicious terrorists gives them a measure of credibility they don’t deserve. However, refrain from calling them “Muslim” terrorists, as this reframes the issue – and the issue isn’t that they’re Muslims, but that they’re vicious terrorists who are murdering civilians by raining thousands of deadly war rockets on peaceful neighborhoods.

Another example: calling the high-explosive war rockets fired by Hezbollah “Katyusha” rockets hides their real meaning and awful destructive use. Ask yourself: how many Americans really know what Katyusha rockets are? The answer: not many. However, anybody can visualize “high-explosive war rockets,” and only a dullard could fail to grasp the horrific impact of 2,000 such war rockets on a peaceful neighborhood.

Put the debate in terms Americans can viscerally understand. Ask them, “How would America react if cross-border terrorists had fired more than 2,000 high-explosive war rockets into Atlanta, or Kansas City?” Make it personal – make it American (we are, if nothing else, a fairly self-centered nation – even while showering the world with unprecedented charity, we still see things through our own perspective, and expect others to do the same).

Tell the story as it happened (from Israel’s perspective) – cutting through the media clutter that has so far succeeded in painting Hezbollah as victimized freedom fighters instead of vicious terrorists attacking civilian targets in Israel. Define the terms of the debate, rather than letting others (the New York Times, Time Magazine and MSNBC, among others) define the debate for them. President Reagan was successful in large part because he “went over the heads” of the media and talked directly to the American people. Israel needs to do this as well.

Begin reshaping the debate with a statement something like this:

“As of July 23rd, Hezbollah has fired more than 2,000 high-explosive war rockets at peaceful, innocent civilian neighborhoods in Israel. How would America feel – how would America respond – if cross-border terrorists (hiding among civilians in a neighboring country) had fired 2,000 high-explosive war rockets into San Diego, or El Paso? How would America react if Atlanta or Kansas City or Denver came under such a sustained, murderous attack? In the face of such horrific provocation – a cycle that was started when Hezbollah terrorists crossed the border and kidnapped two soldiers – would America be exercising near-miraculous self-restraint? Or would America seek out these terrorists – giving them no safe haven – if only to make sure that no more high-explosive war rockets were fired into the neighborhoods of peaceful American cities? The answer is clear – Americans would fight to defend their homeland and destroy the terrorists, the terrorists’ bases of operations, and those who support or shelter those terrorists.”

Following this approach, Israel would have at least a fighting chance of winning the PR war. As it stands now, by playing word-games with the anti-Israeli, left-leaning mainstream media, and by putting what seems to be a very foreign face on the news by using heavily-accented spokesmen who just don’t “look” American, Israel may be winning the war against Hezbollah, but they are increasingly losing the war for American support. The major US media are no friends of Israel. If that plucky country is to overcome this built-in deficit, they’ve got to fight back using tools and techniques that work, even in the face of opposition by the American media.

Ned Barnett has been a public relations specialist for 35 years, and has published nine books on the subject. He has also appeared on the History Channel seven times as a military historian.