A Knife To A Gunfight

It comes as a physical relief to read someone agreeing with me about The Propaganda War that Israel (and the Jews) is losing so badly.  That Edgar Davidson comes at the argument from a different angle, and does it brilliantly, makes it just that much better.

I make a simple, technical argument, informed by Edward Littwak's theory of strategy,
Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace
which goes something like this.  If you just got your clock cleaned, and survived, learn from your enemy.  What did he do?  How did he do it?  And can you do it back to him?  The rest is footnotes.

It's obvious why we are losing The Propaganda War:  we are not doing anything of the sort.  Instead of fighting fire with fire, we are failing exactly as Sean Connery describes his enemy in his 1987 movie,

The Untouchables
"Just like a WOP to bring a knife to a gunfight"

Here is how Edgar Davidson puts it,

On the appropriate response to antisemitic lies

I will attempt to make this very simple using the following hypothetical analogy:

Jackie White looks after her 80 year old mother Iris who has been house bound in London with dementia for 10 years. One day a man Patrick Bates with a history of psychopathic violence and delusions, tells the local media that Iris has been murdering street children in Brazil every day for the last 10 years and that he plans to kill her to stop this.

What should Jackie's reaction be? Should she:

a) Attempt to counter the accusations of Patrick Bates by providing proof of Iris's long-term disabilities and explaining what a caring woman she has always been.

or

b) Expose Patrick Bates as the liar and dangerously insane psychopath that he clearly is.

If she chooses a) she has already entered into a narrative in which 'both sides' are talking about whether or not Iris is a child killer. A reasonable 'headline' for the media would be:

"Jackie White denies her mother is a child killer"

If she chooses b) she has put the focus solely on the dangerous Patrick Bates. A reasonable headline would be:

"Lying madman threatens to kill 80-year-old housebound woman with dementia"

Given the obvious preference for b) can anybody explain to me why, in response to the obvious lies and blood libels about Israel originating from psychopathic killers like Hamas, Israel supporters choose the equivalent of option a) above and hence ensure that:
The lies and blood libels ("Israel massacres children", "Israel is an Apartheid state" etc) become the focus of the discussion
The lies and blood libels get repeated ad nausea and hence become intrinsically associated with Israel
The systematic lying and psychopathic behaviour of the Palestinians and their supporters is totally ignored.

What he said.