start out by asking a few questions: How big is the State of Israel? To which country may it best be compared: the United States, France? What is its population? After a brief discussion, they decide that Israel is similar in physical size to France - a mid-sized country. Its population: 30 or maybe 40 million people. Actually it's probably closer to 50 million if you include the major immigration from Russia in recent years.

I hand out maps of the Middle East and ask the audience to find Israel. After a minute of confusion, one of them admits: "I can't find it." I take out a magnifying glass and reassure them: it is hard to find the State of Israel without optical aids. The boundaries are not wide enough to include all six slender letters of the country's name in English. I distribute a chart that compares Israel with other countries in the region, at which point the gargantuan Goliath is reduced to the scope of a diminutive David.

Before the American school system can be accused of abject failure in its administration of geography studies, one should recall that this is an audience of educated individuals, people who read the newspaper every day, who hear Israeli speakers interviewed in the media.

In this context, two questions arise. Why has the State of Israel failed so miserably in explaining its case, and is this really so important? I will first answer the second question: Israel's natural friends are the democratic countries of the West. In democratic countries, the various government authorities and the private businesses take public opinion into account. A negative image leads to a reduction in political and business contacts.

Let us not fool ourselves: the pressure now being exerted on Israel is the direct repercussion of global opinion. Israel's foreign policy and defense policy, and its ability to take action, are hostages to its failure to mount a persuasive information effort.

Why doesn't Israel succeed in its information efforts? This may be attributed to several factors:

l Lack of understanding of cultural differences. When an American reads the word "settler," he sees in his mind's eye a robust, armed individual looking for adventures in the Wild West. But what if we are actually referring to children of settlers being blown up on their way to school? Say "school bus," and the whole picture changes.

l Inability to express oneself in a foreign language. More than a few Israeli spokesmen would get a failing grade if given a pop quiz in English. They would be better off if they sent a professional interpreter, someone with a pleasant appearance and voice.

l Israeli leaders make do with contacts with government representatives of foreign states. There is an assumption that it is not important what the man in the street says about us, that it only matters what governments decide. But there is not, nor can there be, a long-term disconnection between government policy and public opinion in a democratic state. The consistent disregard of public opinion is a risky game.

l The sense that it is impossible to alter an image without altering policy. Anyone who understands advertising knows that this belief is incorrect. For proof, see the successes of the Palestinians in this realm. Without abandoning the course of terror, they are able to convince the world that they are humane and that we are Nazis.

l Erroneous assumptions about the general knowledge of the public in Western countries. My information evening at the church is only one example among many of this phenomenon: they don't know anything about us.

Israeli leaders prepare for elections in Israel though their media appearances abroad. Representatives of the right and of the left come to argue in front of CNN and BBC cameras. Not a single Palestinian spokesman plays this game. All of them stress simple messages, and repeat their mantra: occupation, occupation, occupation. We have mantras of our own. Let's use them.