JNS.org – The pro-Israel community was completely and inexcusably unprepared for the public-relations nightmare following the events of Oct. 7. It took two months for major organizations to create the “10/7 Project” to push “for accurate and complete coverage of the Israel-Hamas war.” Does anyone know anything the project has done in the last 10 months? If it did anything at all, it was a total failure. War with Hezbollah and Iran was as predictable as a confrontation with Hamas, and yet the community seems equally inept, so let me lay out what we know will happen:

The media will:

Ignore Israeli casualties and focus on Arab victims.
Accept fabricated Arab statistics.
Interview unreliable Arab sources.
Air stories without researching their accuracy.
Focus on dramatic photos and stories without context.
Fail to explain Hezbollah dictates what can be reported.

Israel’s accidental bombing of civilians in the Arab town of Kfar Kana in the Galilee shifted opinion against Israel in the last war with Hezbollah. This was not a case of media bias—it reported what happened accurately—but an example of Israel being unable to offer explanations in a timely and persuasive way to mitigate the impact of the stories. This is also an example of a predictable event that PR war planners should have anticipated. On July 18, 2006, an Israeli pilot told a reporter: “One mistake can jeopardize the whole war, like Kfar Kana, in one of the last operations in Lebanon, where artillery bombarded a refugee camp, killing over 100 people, which resulted in international pressure that halted the operation.”

Israeli statesman Shimon Peres argued that good policy results in good PR, but sometimes, Israel’s policy options are limited or poor, as is the case of needing to destroy buildings above tunnels and attack schools, mosques, hospitals and U.N. facilities where terrorists are hiding. Hezbollah uses the same tactics as Hamas, and Israel will need to have explanations for its actions.

We know Israel will be accused of disproportionality, provoking a refugee and humanitarian crisis, denying health care, and committing “massacres” and “genocide.” Israelis will be charged with being aggressors and compared to Nazis. The usual epithets unrelated to the war will be tossed around, such as comparing Israel to South Africa and accusing it of “settler-colonialism.”

It’s always better to get in the first blow and try to set the media’s agenda. Israel’s enemies have mastered this tactic. It’s vital to offer context and facts in those instances immediately; errors should be identified, and corrections demanded. Unfortunately, it’s often too late to change perceptions once a narrative takes root, as in the report falsely blaming Israel for bombing a Gaza hospital early in the war.

The conflict must be explained in simple terms without trying to give a history lesson. Israel is fighting for its existence. The people of Israel want peace. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It shares American values and interests. The war is not with the people but with the leaders whose radical Islamic views threaten America, as we’ve seen from Iranian plots to kill Americans and Iranian proxy attacks on U.S. forces. Publicize what the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran say.

It is always better to strike first and try to set the media’s agenda. Israel’s enemies have mastered this tactic, frequently putting the pro-Israel community immediately on the defensive. If it is possible to find out about a forthcoming negative story; it is vital to immediately offer context and facts. Once a negative report appears, errors should be identified and corrections demanded.

Advocacy must start with the best information, and then the material should be packaged most engagingly to suit the medium or audience. For example, elites and academics may want to read articles with references; Internet surfers may want short tidbits or humorous videos; print reporters may want personal stories; and broadcast journalists will want powerful images. Divisions must be created to attend to the various media and target audiences (blogs, print/broadcast journalists, politicians, academics and students).

Focusing on peace is perhaps the most compelling argument in our arsenal. One reason Israel is losing the PR battle is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to offer any hope or timeline for an end to the conflict.

It is also essential to empathize rather than demonize all Palestinians. Their suffering in Gaza is undeniable. Context does matter, and their anguish is a result of the actions of Hamas. The Lebanese are also victims of Hezbollah, and the inevitable death and destruction from a war should be anticipated. Little to nothing has been done to educate the public about how Hezbollah has insinuated itself into the civilian population and the tunnel network it has built. We know Hezbollah will control the narrative by limiting journalists’ access and freedom to report accurately.

On Oct. 7, Israel had emotion on its side but lost momentum as the months passed. It is vital to keep the stories of the hostages and victims at the forefront. There has been no honest discussion of the hardships of the citizens of the north, the victims of the Hezbollah strikes, or the damage to property, agriculture and the environment.

One of the most important but challenging tools to employ is rhetorical questions. Advocates are accused of “whataboutism,” but the critics must be challenged to answer what they would do if they were in Israelis’ shoes. What would the United States do if terror forced thousands of citizens to leave their homes or if rockets bombarded American cities? What would you do if your family was murdered in front of you, your daughters and wife raped and mutilated, and your house burned down with your grandparents inside?

Israel is always put on the defensive, but you are usually losing the argument if you’re explaining, justifying or rationalizing. Israel should eschew self-flagellation over every mistake. Sometimes, explaining why Israel has taken a particular action will be necessary. Still, advocates should not fall into the trap of the spouse explaining why they don’t beat their partner.

Israel is often put in an impossible position when the other side charges that an atrocity has occurred, without caring whether the allegation is true, and Israel must take time to investigate the incident. Meanwhile, the allegation is virally circulated, and it is too late to undo the damage when the Israeli analysis is complete.

The Israel Defense Forces has improved at providing daily briefings with documentation, photos, maps and videos to influence the narrative. It needs a disciplined campaign that deploys articulate, photogenic and informed spokespeople globally. Israel needs ambassadors who can fluently make Israel’s case. The pro-Israel community needs to marshal spokespeople who are academics and former officials from the government and military to counter the anti-Israel Arabists who are given prominence in the media.

The media’s bias will not change. We must operate with that as a given rather than expect to change it. Another reality is that many enemies among us undermine our case with their “As a Jew” claims. Divisions are inevitable even among friends, as we see in Israel and the American Jewish community. Like the media, we won’t change the culture of “two Jews, three opinions.”

That said, the criticism of Israel in the coming battles is predictable, and there is no excuse to be caught unprepared again.

The post Preparing for the Coming PR War first appeared on Algemeiner.com.