On the appropriate response to antisemitic lies and blood-libels directed at Israel

Following my report on  Sunday's counter-demo against an antisemitic 'pro-Palestinian' attempt to spew lies and hatred in London and close down a Jewish-Israeli store a commentator expressed concern at the (well-meaning) banner here held up by one of the pro-Israel demonstrators, feeling it was far too defensive.

Indeed this is a subject I've addressed before - notably here - but it seems few people understand it so 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:

1. The lies and blood libels ("Israel massacres children", "Israel is an Apartheid state" etc) become the focus of the discussion
2. The lies and blood libels get repeated ad nausea and hence become intrinsically associated with Israel
3. The systematic lying and psychopathic behaviour of the Palestinians and their supporters is totally ignored.

So, in future, Israel supporters must avoid saying what Israel 'is not' and focus on exposing the lies and psychopathic behaviour of the Palestinians and their supporters. Since almost all of the lies against Israel are simply a reflection of what her accusers really do, the accusations should be turned back against them; for example, here are the kind of things that the banners should say:

"There are 58 apartheid countries in the world: they are the 58 Islamic countries."
"Palestinians glory in the murder of Jewish children"
"The greatest honour in Palestinian society is to kill a Jew in cold blood"
"Believing Palestinian lies inhibits peace"
"Accepting Palestinian lies encourages them to kill"
"Arabs ethnically cleansed Jews from every one of their countries"
etc

We should also be telling the stories and showing the faces of the many Israelis murdered by Palestinians including the hundreds of children.

See also:

• Responding to the Israel is Apartheid State lie 
• The day the Jews of London fought back

All these progressive thinkers, intellectuals and peacemakers cannot be wrong