The debate goes like this: On one side there are those who believe that Israel is a country entirely comfortable with the modern world, and that if you tell enough people that Israel contains (shock, horror) gays and lesbians, rich and poor, socialists and neocons, then criticism of the state will end, and support of Israel will return to post-Six-Day War levels. This is known in PR circles as the "scales argument," whereby the weight of good news must outweigh the weight of bad news at all costs.

The other side believes that policies are the silver bullet, that only political decisions and politicians can do anything to shift the public perception of Israel. Leading politicians have long held a belief that making use of good-news stories cheapens the impact of policy decisions and is a ridiculous use of resources. Sort out the politics they say, and the PR will take care of itself. They point to Oslo and say that Israel didn't have any PR problems explaining that to the world.

The real answer lies in that oh-so- difficult middle ground. Promoting the image of a country is different from promoting a product. It is much, much more complicated and much, much harder. There is no one strategy that produces all the desired results. Public relations works by appealing to specific stakeholder groups and giving them a cohesive narrative. Israel advocacy can only stand a chance of succeeding if it uses all the weapons in its armory. Of course, that doesn't mean that the weapons should be deployed come what may, without experts overseeing their use. It means that there is a time and a place for everything.

The Zionist Federation should be commended for attempting to promote Nathan Shaked as an advocate for Israel. But the response to the invitation (which could have and should have been predicted) has obscured the usefulness of the message. Instead of demonstrating that Israel is a modern member of the family of nations, who have within their ranks a Mr. Gay International who happens to be Israeli, the invitation has highlighted differences in opinion between religious streams. Any positive impressions of Israel that may have been created for the wider community have been lost in the ensuing fog.

The narrative on this occasion doesn't seem to have worked too well, but that doesn't mean we should abandon the use of individuals or organizations with interesting stories to tell. Those who beat the drum for using Dana International and Nathan Shaked as advocates for Israel understand that the world has changed; they understand the power of the Facebook generation and the power that its members have to influence public opinion.

Nathan Shaked was never going to be used as the official face of the Israeli government, something that comes, I suspect, as a relief to both him and the rabbinate. Whereas once celebrity endorsement was used to sell washing powder, now the power of celebrity is used to shine a spotlight and generate interest on issues such as global poverty and climate change. The old adage used to be that politics is show business for ugly people; now it seems that the beautiful people are realizing they also have a voice that commands attention and can make a difference. People are now highly skeptical of government, distrustful of traditional media and dubious of big business - which leaves individuals with stories to tell with a crucial role to play in public and political life.

However, we need to face facts, and the truth is that Israel needs decision-makers to support it, too. That is why professional lobbying groups perform such a key role. They bridge the gap between harnessing public opinion and helping to influence policy makers.

The battle for people's perception is a crucial and never-ending campaign. The mosaic that is Israel advocacy would have you believe that there is black and white, right and wrong. Instead, we need to reframe our views and accept that different groups of people react differently to different people. Hardly rocket science, but a crucial point nonetheless.

There are two answers to the question of what should be done to improve Israel's image: That is, first, to do everything, and secondly, to do more, but not randomly and not without a plan. This is the fundamental error: Issuing the invitation to Mr. Gay International in the first place was a gutsy move, but given the move's lack of context, and the sense that it was generated almost randomly, smacks of incoherence. If the people at the Zionist Federation are serious about outreach to the gay community, they should show their mettle and commit to a program of activity to take place over a specified period of time within a strategic framework. To do otherwise just makes it look as if they were after cheap headlines themselves.