In this, Israel is not unique; any American (even the ones that voted for Barack Obama) will tell you that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. But Israel’s government inefficiency hasn’t just been a drag on economy; over the past several weeks, the government’s difficulties in explaining its case on the Gaza flotilla has cost us big-time.

Note that I said “difficulty,” not “failure,” as many others have claimed. There are those who just hate Israel (and Jews; Helen Thomas proves they go together), and nothing we can say will make them unhate us. But there are many people who are willing to give us a fair hearing – and unfortunately, these are the people we failed in the first days after the incident. It took at least 24 hours for word to get out about the violent attack on Israeli soldiers by the “terror activists,” and only three days later did Israel’s story get mainstream publicity.

Of course, hasbara has to take a back seat to real security, and sometimes you have few options; like with the Gaza flotilla’s Mavi Marmara – where IDF soldiers had no choice but to use real bullets to save the lives of their comrades, who were savagely attacked by knife and club wielding “peace activists” – you’re damned if you do or don’t. But if we know our story is right, and we’re convinced of it, why do we seem to have such trouble selling it properly – and convincingly?

Maybe what we need is a little private-sector ingenuity for our hasbara efforts. Look at the saga of the “We Con the World” video; as you’ve probably heard by now, the video, produced by Latma, which is edited by our own Caroline Glick, was pulled from Youtube, most likely because of complaints by anti-Israel viewers who were appalled that their story – of how big bad Israel attacked the innocent “activists” – was hijacked, with the world seeing the truth of the intentions of the passengers on the Marmara, because of a parody, of all things!

Of course, Youtube claimed that the reason for the video’s ban was that it was in violation of “a copyright claim by Warner/ Chappell Music, Inc.” the owners of the rights to the original USA for Africa “We Are the World” song and video, produced in the 1980s to raise money for hunger in Africa. But that can’t be right, because U.S. copyright law provides for “fair use,” meaning that existing works of art can be freely used for parody or education purposes. Just ask Lenny Solomon and “Weird Al” Yankovic, who for decades have been rewriting top pop songs for education (Solomon) and parody (Al) purposes!

The point of the story, though, is why Youtube was moved to remove the video – because it was making an impact, thanks to the 3 million plus hits it generated in barely a week. Now the genie is out of the bottle; “We Con the World” has spread too far and too wide, and is now available on all sorts of sites. In fact, doing a search for “We Con the World” at Youtube yields dozens of copies, now dubbed in all sorts of languages!

As many have said, “We Con the World” was one of the best pro-Israel hasbara pieces to emerge in a long time – and the government had nothing to do with it! The truth is, though, the marketing people at many  Israeli companies – startups and veterans – are just as talented as the people at Latma. Why not come out with a parody a week – or some other effective video, audio, or web campaign, that can tell Israel’s side of the story in a surprising, interesting – and successful – manner?

That’s exactly the question that came up when I recently interviewed an Israeli “captain of industry” (he remains anonymous for this story, in order not to mix politics and business). We met just a day after the flotilla story took over the media. By that time, the headlines worldwide castigated the IDF for boarding the Marmara and five other ships, with the resulting nine deaths. Meanwhile, nearly no one was paying attention to Israel’s side of the story.

Commenting on the seeming lack of ability of Israel to get its point across, I told this executive that it appeared that the tepid efforts by hasbara officials to explain Israel’s position was possibly the result of the game of “musical chairs” played by politicians in this country. You have the same people running different ministries and departments in various governments, while the actual day to day work is done by the bureaucrats who remain on the job, no matter who the boss is. “The minister spends years just learning the issues, while the bureaucrats have no incentive to change their ways. While that system may be acceptable for deciding on where to build a sewage treatment plant, it just doesn’t work in day to day hasbara,” we both agreed.

Then we brainstormed an idea; why not “outsource” hasbara? I don’t mean officially; no bureaucrats will be hurt in the execution of this plan. But if every successful hi-tech company, if every successful PR firm, non-profit marketing department, university information bureau, were to donate, say, an hour a week to a specific hasbara project, imagine how well Israel’s story would be told! The executive agreed; working on such projects, utilizing the amazing talent we have in this country, could be the solution we have long sought to the problem of getting the world’s attention. If “We Con the World” proves anything, it’s that good people around the world are indeed willing to give us a fair hearing. We just need to come up with something good for them to hear! The executive’s on board; how about you?

Related articles by Zemanta

• ‘We Con the World’ video kerfuffle: When Middle East politics meets the parody/satire divide (copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com)
• Inevitable: YouTube pulls “We Con the World” video (hotair.com)
• The Flotilla Choir Presents: We Con the World (newsbusters.org)

That’s not to put down Facebook users, of course – I’m on there too, as I’m sure many of you are. But let’s face it: It’s nice that there are dozens of pro-Israel support groups on FB, but they basically “preach to the converted.” Of course, we need to encourage “our own” to stand up and be counted, but there’s little value-added in the effort; those who are anti-Israel will remain so, while the vast majority who are on the fence or have never thought about the issue are not using FB for their political information. Lest we forget, FB’s real purpose is to encourage internet social corrections.

Unlike Digg.com, or the dozens of other social bookmarking sites (http://xrl.us/beczuc) – where people go to actually find out new information, to educate themselves on topics they may have heard about in the news that they want to know more about, or just to “browse” and increase their knowledge of the world around them. Digg and its relatives are more “viral,” as well – meaning they have a much greater chance of getting “pushed” to more people. A “good Digg” could get your site or blog hundreds, or thousands of hits, spreading the word on the network of social bookmarking sites – and coming back for more. All you need is a good come-on (ie article or post title) and some interesting information – and, of course, a someone to submit your site to the Digg list (usually accomplished by the clicking of a Digg button on your site, which submits it to the Digg.com site – and the more people who click on it, the better).

And based on my perusal of Digg and similar sites in recent weeks, we need more pro-Israel articles to appear on the front page. The anti- crowd has long used social bookmarking to promote its agenda (many of them using shady tactics such as establishing “Digg clubs,” where members surf the net promoting each others postings), with the result that if you surf to Digg.com or Reddit.com, search terms like “Israel,” “Gaza,” “Zionism,” etc., to get an idea of what I’m talking about. If there’s one thing Digg users are looking for, it’s both sides of the story – and right now, only one side is on display.

Fortunately, there is a large body of information on the internet describing how to promote sites and links in Digg and Digg-like sites. Most of the information relates to promoting commercial sites or business ideas – but if you can use business tactics to promote moneymaking ideas, why not use them to promote pro-Israel ideas? It’s actually good practice, too – when you perfect your skills at promoting Israel’s story, you can use your newfound expertise to promote your own site, too!

Because there’s money at stake (in the form of user clicks, Google rankings, etc.), there are lots of advice sites out there. Some of them have good advice – like the ideas at http://xrl.us/beczts. This site recommends a “twelve step program,” that essentially promotes networking with others at blogs and sites to promote your cause, along with informal mutual cooperation to convince others to promote your link. Titles are important, according to http://xrl.us/beczt8 – which helpfully suggests that “Catchy titles and descriptions usually do better then dull titles and descriptions.” This site (http://xrl.us/beczue) tells you how to get to the top of the Reddit page (and make money from it!). And http://xrl.us/beczun tells you how Digg and other social bookmarking sites work – their underlying philosophy, and what the front pages of the sites are looking for in posts and submissions.

There are other ways to promote sites on Digg – but I wouldn’t recommend using them. There are “pay to Digg” sites, for example, which claims to pay out (a half a buck!) for Diggs by users (if you want to get Dugg, it will cost you $20!). Users who want to get paid get a list of five articles to Digg, and when they are verified, they get a credit in their account; after you “earn” $20, they’ll forward the money to your Paypal account (you have to Digg 200 stories to make that kind of money!). There are also “Digg clubs” or “buzz clubs” out there (http://xrl.us/beczuz), where you agree with others in your club to Digg or otherwise promote each other’s stories. The Digg people are wise to this, though, and if they get wise to you, you could get banned (http://xrl.us/beczu7).

While most of the concern over phony Diggs and Digging revolve around misuse of the system to make money, you wouldn’t want similar charges to hamper your efforts to promote Israel in the social bookmarking world. So efforts to get users get together specifically to click on links are out. But there’s nothing wrong with urging members of your own interest group to check out your own links – and to Digg them as well. This is where your membership in Facebook Israel groups can come in handy – since the people in those groups are already predisposed to checking out positive news about Israel, anyway. If you’re on Facebook, check out http://xrl.us/beczvf, where you can install the Facebook/Digg app in your account. The app shows people who log onto your page the last five stories you Dugg – giving them some material to check out and promote, in the effort to promote Israel’s story online.

And unfortunately, that goes double for Wikipedia’s Arabic language version. What an opportunity to break down stereotypes and promote understanding between strangers, even enemies – and they’re blowing it!

Unfortunately, if we are counting on the “brand name” of Wikipedia to help break down barriers and stereotypes, the site has a lot of work to do, it seems. Wikipedia, with its over 10 million articles (there are only 500,000 in the Encyclopedia Brittanica), is quickly becoming the de facto place to look for information, almost anywhere there is an internet; increasingly, the Wikipedia entry comes up first when you Google for information about almost anything these days.

How does Wikipedia make sure it stays more or less accurate? Through “peer-editing”; it is assumed that when inaccurate information is listed in an article, someone will come in and correct it, or at least present an opposing point of view (http://tinyurl.com/fccjr). According to the site, thousands of articles have been amended or rewritten since Wikipedia came into being on 2001, thus proving the validity of the system.

But what happens when you have a society that has a very definite set of “everybody knows” beliefs – where inaccuracies and outright lies plague Wikipedia articles, but no one does anything about it, because everyone believes them? If somebody writes that the earth is flat in an article, and all the peers believe that the earth is flat, then readers who are counting on the information in Wikipedia are going to read that the earth is flat, and that’s all they’re going to hear. So the system isn’t foolproof.

Unfortunately, this “what if” scenario is not theoretical, but what actually happens on pages I checked out in the Arabic language version of Wikipedia (http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki). Many Westerners get nervous when they see Arabic writing, like there must be some terrorist-oriented message embedded in the text; but thanks to the miracle of Google Translations (http://translate.google.com/translate_t#), Arabic, along with dozens of other languages, no longer need be a mystery. While clearly not professional translations, Google returns a good enough rendering of a page that (usually) gives you a pretty clear picture of what the site in question is trying to say.

I don’t read or speak Arabic, but thanks to Google Translations, I’m able to get a much better insight into the point of view of Arabic speakers online. My method: Type in a search term at the translation site, then copy the resulting Arabic characters and do a Google search for them, then click on the “translate this page” link on results.

Using this method to Google for “hot-button” items like Israel, Jew, Zionism, etc., returns results like you would unfortunately expect, in many cases. Which is what led me to Wikipedia. Interestingly, in Arabic language Google searches, Wikipedia entries were usually at the top of the list, too. That’s good, I thought – wouldn’t Arabic language Wikipedia pages be translations of English language pages on the same subject? Not that I’m such a fan of Wikipedia’s point of view on Israel and Jewish-oriented issues, but it’s a lot more palatable than what many of the “native” Arabic sites present.

But it turns out that Arabic Wikipedia (AW) is not necessarily a translation of English language Wikipedia (EW). While as I mentioned, the Google Translation rendering of these pages is clearly not totally accurate, the discrepancies between AW and EW were so great that you quickly realize that the two versions have very little to do with each other, at least on the hot-button issues. Which to me is a major problem; Wikipedia is such an authority today that if a Wikipedia page says, for example, that the Haganah’s fighting against Arab villages in Palestine before the establishment of Israel is a “genocide,” akin to the Holocaust or the genocide in Rwanda, how can we be surprised when kids in Ramallah, Jenin or Gaza rally behind suicide bombers who wantonly kill Israeli women and children? Wouldn’t we have been happy if Polish Jews conducted an “intifada” against the Nazis? (Note that there is a separate AW page titled “Gaza Holocaust,” referring to a battle in Gaza in March of this year, in which Hamas said 116 Gaza residents were killed).

Of course, you won’t find a hint on AW of what was well documented by the Haganah during the War of Liberation – how residents of these Arab villages actively took part in the war, giving themselves the status of combatants, or how the vast majority ran away when told to do so by the Arab armies invading the newly established state of Israel, the better to clear out and give the Arab Legion a clear field to perpetrate a genocide of their own, against the Jews. Of course, one man’s terror attack is another’s “freedom fight,” as the old saying goes, but you have to really be out there in anti-Israel land to claim that the Haganah conducted a near-genocide against anyone, especially given the well-known and time-and-again proven historical facts.

Among the historic genocides listed on the AW page are the Cambodian genocide, the Rwanda genocide, “French massacres in Algeria from 1830 to 1962” (more about that later), the “Armenian genocide,” (ditto), and others. The next paragraph on this page reads: “Human history has witnessed several cases of mass murder, but the debate is the use of the term genocide by around the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, because this group is the core purpose of genocide, but difficult to demonstrate.” Listed here is “Mongol invasion of Baghdad,” “Annihilation of Native Americans (Indians),” and – “Massacres against the Palestinians by gangs Haganah Jewish at the beginning of the Zionist occupation of Palestine.”

Politics, of course, plays heavily on anything having to do with Jerusalem, and the AW page on the city makes for interesting reading. Prominent on the AW page, for example, are references to “the Judaization of Jerusalem.” The introductory line says “Jerusalem is the largest city of historic Palestine under Israeli control today,” and the city’s status “as the capital of a  Palestinian state within a Palestinian declaration of independence,” is the second sentence, while Security Council 476 and 478 are the context for the mention of the city as Israel’s capital (the resolutions condemned Israel’s unification of the city). Interestingly, the history of Jerusalem on the AW and EW pages are quite different, with Canaanites and Egyptians stressed far more strongly on the AW page (the “debate” link on this page makes clear why).

As far as the entry for Jews goes, the article seemed pretty balanced, except for a comparison of Purim to Halloween (wearing costumes and getting drunk), and of Chanukah to Christmas (gift giving) – false stereotypes Western Jews worked hard to debunk. That, and a discussion as to how the Jews and the Children of Israel are not the same entity (not very clear, but appears to be not very complimentary). Plus, a reference to “Aerosmith: Crazy,” which I always thought was a song by that rock group, but turns out to be, when you click on the link, a discussion of a heavy Quranic concept! The entry on Israel recited the country’s familiar history, but key elements (“In 1947, the world witnessed the partition of Palestine, which gave the Jews living in Palestine 55% of the land, when they accounted for 30% of the population”) are just plain wrong.

Besides issues that concern us, Wikipedia gives us an insight into how Arabs see their own history. There is no reference to a century of French genocide in Algeria in EW, but there is a page dedicated to the Sétif massacre, in which French troops shot and killed Algerian rioters (as few as 1,100, or as many as 45,000, depending on who you believe). Most interesting was the AW entry on the Armenian genocide, compared to the EW entry. On the AW page, it appears as if the Armenians were in league with the Russians to fight the Ottoman Turks, and the Armenians died in the general starvation of World War I, like everyone else (ie, there was no “genocide,” and even if there was, the Armenians had it coming, because they acted like “a fifth column” in Turkey, armed by the Russians). The EW page on this subject has the more familiar version of an organized extermination of the Armenians.

The disparity between the two versions is really wide – which means that one of the Wikipedias isn’t getting the story right. I could go on, but you get the idea. Like a Tower of Babel, Wikipedia aims to build a body of knowledge that all humanity can benefit from. But if we’re not speaking the same language – figuratively and intellectually, not just literally – what chance do we have of making that happen? And should Wikipedia be lending its authoritative name to the process?

A picture is worth 1,000 words, but unfortunately, you’d need 10,000 to explain those Gaza photos – especially the part about Hamas’ wanting to wipe Israel off the map (http://tinyurl.com/36yv6c), or their unending hate-mongering against Jews (http://tinyurl.com/2j45mr, http://tinyurl.com/3yhvtu, many others). It’s interesting how the anti-Israel crowd never puts this stuff into context, while they can easily find justification for, say, the attack at Mercaz Harav – the “seminary” trains soldiers and settlers, “as long as there is occupation, there will be terrorism,” etc. (no link, as I don’t want to drive up these morons’ page rankings!)

And then there’s Facebook (http://www.facebook.com), the latest tool being used to delegitimize Israel. Facebook, as you (or your kids) know, is a worldwide community of mostly young people who get together to party online. You invite your friends, chat and message, join groups, post photos – it’s sort of like an online pajama party. Personally, I don’t see the point – it’s not like you can make money off of Facebook. Or can you (http://tinyurl.com/3daohc)? Maybe – but probably not too much.

But maybe there are better ways to make money – or spend your leisure time, unless you want to support an organization that is apparently going out of its way to take sides in the Israel-Arab conflict, creating political “facts on the Web.” The Jpost reported last week (http://tinyurl.com/3df835) that residents of Jewish towns over the green line – Maale Adumim, Efrat, Ariel, etc. – are now located in “Palestine,” instead of Israel or even just “West Bank” (the designation other sites sometimes use). Not too long ago, FB was indeed using “West Bank and Gaza” to designate those areas, but at some point added the name Palestine, responding to user complaints (http://tinyurl.com/2vj9hy). While there hasn’t been any comment forthcoming yet from FB on why they’ve decided to resolve the Road Map while negotiations are still ongoing, it stands to reason the site has been responding to public pressure this time as well.

Unfortunately, a look at the Facebook groups (some of which act as sort of Political Action Groups in the FB world) shows more groups favoring “them” than “us.” There were nine pro-Israel groups I could find with over 1,000 members, but more than 20 supporting the Palestinian view of events, including one called “ Every Body who hates ISRAEL JION NOW,” with 988 members, and “Tell Google Earth Jerusalem is Not the Capital of Israel,” with nearly 10,000.

While I think it’s clear where I personally stand on these issues, I can’t begrudge Facebook users their right to express a political opinion. However, I think it’s very unfair of FB to take sides in an ongoing dispute by making official (the creation of a state called Palestine) something that the United Nations has not even decided on yet (http://tinyurl.com/muuqq)! Regardless of what Facebook may want you to believe, there is currently no country (“occupied” or otherwise) called Palestine; the only legal entity at this time representing residents of the designated areas is the “Palestinian Authority” – and Maale Adumim, Ariel, and the others, are clearly not part of the PA, or Palestine. This is not about politics – it’s about historical accuracy, and not submitting to the rule of the mob, dammit – the main reason Facebook apparently made this policy decision too (and there’s a new FB group dedicated to making sure that the boss, Mark Zuckerberg, doesn’t change his mind, called (”Palestine is a Country”). Even if you believe Israel should withdraw to the 1967 lines, there is no call for Facebook – or any other Web site – to be hijacked by propagandists.

Apparently over the weekend, Facebook got the message that they had gone too far, and restored the choice to those living in communities over the green line to list themselves as part of Israel, if they so wish. But Palestine is still listed as a country, which makes me think that more dirty tricks are in the offing. If I were a Facebook member, I’d find a different service to spend (waste?) my leisure time on. And to make it easier for you and FB to part ways, here are some other scandals/problems/issues the site has been involved in recently:

1) Facebook allows spam – lots of it: According to a report by HP Labs (http://tinyurl.com/37w4xy) 43% of messages received on average by Facebook users is spam. Where does the spam come from, since you only communicate with people you want to? Some of it is from groups you join, but another apparently major source is “friend spam” – where people send you applications to try out (http://tinyurl.com/2astou). Of course, you have to become their “friend” – and maybe recruit others, too – in order to get the application. Then, of course, your new “pal” can send you and your contacts anything they want, since you’re all buddies now. FB has promised to do something about it (http://tinyurl.com/2dt4sf), but according to this guy (http://tinyurl.com/3568eb), spam is how FB got to be so big.

2) Facebook could come back to haunt you: “With so much personal information posted online… students could become the victims of pimps or pedophiles, or denied jobs when a prospective employer discovers embarrassing postings during a background check.” (http://tinyurl.com/36zvch). And until very recently (like last month), getting your information off FB when you opted out was near impossible (http://tinyurl.com/yofclu).

3) Facebook Ignores Complaints about Sexual Predators: From a press release by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo that “his office is investigating Facebook over representations the company makes about safety measures” (http://tinyurl.com/ywkxct). Apparently the case was resolved with a promise by FB to investigate predator-related complaints within 24 hours.

And so on – there are plenty of other complaints floating around out there. I know this looks like a “hatchet job,” but it really isn’t – FB has acknowledged and (at least somewhat) acted on each of these issues. But given these issues – and its shabby treatment of Israel – I wouldn’t trust it.