PDA

View Full Version : Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land


MBX
Dec 31, 2008, 07:43 PM
The Media & the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Great documentary film showing you what mainstream media wont: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6604775898578139565&ei

Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land provides a striking comparison of U.S. and international media coverage of the crisis in the Middle East, zeroing in on how structural distortions in U.S. coverage have reinforced false perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This pivotal documentary exposes how the foreign policy interests of American political elites--oil, and a need to have a secure military base in the region, among others--work in combination with Israeli public relations strategies to exercise a powerful influence over how news from the region is reported.

skunk
Dec 31, 2008, 07:54 PM
Everybody who blithely defends Israel should be forced to watch this film. How could a people who experienced the Holocaust impose this kind of regime on another people?

Edit: it's a no-holds-barred description of the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, the unbelievable conditions the Palestinians are forced to live under, the indescribable behaviour of the IDF and the craven and criminal connivance of the US media and the culpable collaboration by the US government. You MUST watch it.

Peterkro
Dec 31, 2008, 07:55 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_Propaganda_&_the_Promised_Land

There is a download link on the Google video page linked by OP.

PcBgone
Dec 31, 2008, 11:24 PM
Everybody who blithely defends Israel should be forced to watch this film. How could a people who experienced the Holocaust impose this kind of regime on another people?

Edit: it's a no-holds-barred description of the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, the unbelievable conditions the Palestinians are forced to live under, the indescribable behaviour of the IDF and the craven and criminal connivance of the US media and the culpable collaboration by the US government. You MUST watch it.

Whats amazing to me is that People who support the Palestinians have utter hatred for the US and her allies. Hamas is a terrorist organization who openly kills innocent civilians, and yet people like to defend the poor Palestinians. If you help the Palestinians come to power and take control, whos to say they wont become more ambitious and attack just Al Qaeda attacked the US?

.Andy
Dec 31, 2008, 11:28 PM
Whats amazing to me is that People who support the Palestinians have utter hatred for the US and her allies.
Perhaps it's amazing to you because you made it up. Those two things aren't by any means mutually inclusive.

Desertrat
Jan 1, 2009, 12:25 AM
I don't know why the whole Israeli deal caught my attention, back in 1948. Heck, I was just 14. But, I'd seen the newsreels of the Nazi death camps and heard my father's comments about the Dortmund work camp. I sorta grew up, then, on the Life magazine photo-journalism of the refugee camps, formed when the surrounding Arab countries wouldn't allow assimilation. We funneled many $$$ worth of food through the UN into those camps.

One of my more favorite memories is from the aftermath of the 1967 overweening optimism of the Arabs. In the UN, Abba Eban drew himself up to his full 5'-6" and declaimed, "There are three million Jews. There are 200 million Arabs. Is the distinguished delegate from Egypt trying to say we surrounded them?"

Simplest put, the Israelis are flat fed up with being the unending targets of genocide. I guess the most apt description of the deal comes from Netanyahu, to the effect that, "If the Arabs put down their guns, there will be no more fighting. If the Jews put down their guns, there will be no more Israel." That's true, for sure...

'Rat

yg17
Jan 1, 2009, 12:31 AM
My opinion on this is ****** both of them. Neither side is right in this matter and frankly, if they both blew the crap out of each other I wouldn't care. And I say this as a Jew. Hamas shouldn't be launching bottle rockets or whatever weak piles of junk they're launching into Israel, and Israel shouldn't be responding by dropping bombs all over the place. It's like 2 little kids fighting. You can't take sides, neither of them is right, you just want it to stop.

I hate to be so apathetic about an issue like this, but I just am.

aethelbert
Jan 1, 2009, 12:36 AM
My opinion on this is ****** both of them. Neither side is right in this matter and frankly, if they both blew the crap out of each other I wouldn't care.
Yep, that pretty much sums it up. But we've been waiting for about 1300 years with no significant results so far. 2009!

skunk
Jan 1, 2009, 05:43 AM
Perhaps it's amazing to you because you made it up. Those two things aren't by any means mutually inclusive.Of course it could be true... ;)

Peterkro
Jan 1, 2009, 05:56 AM
I don't know why the whole Israeli deal caught my attention, back in 1948. Heck, I was just 14. But, I'd seen the newsreels of the Nazi death camps and heard my father's comments about the Dortmund work camp. I sorta grew up, then, on the Life magazine photo-journalism of the refugee camps, formed when the surrounding Arab countries wouldn't allow assimilation. We funneled many $$$ worth of food through the UN into those camps.

One of my more favorite memories is from the aftermath of the 1967 overweening optimism of the Arabs. In the UN, Abba Eban drew himself up to his full 5'-6" and declaimed, "There are three million Jews. There are 200 million Arabs. Is the distinguished delegate from Egypt trying to say we surrounded them?"

Simplest put, the Israelis are flat fed up with being the unending targets of genocide. I guess the most apt description of the deal comes from Netanyahu, to the effect that, "If the Arabs put down their guns, there will be no more fighting. If the Jews put down their guns, there will be no more Israel." That's true, for sure...

'Rat

When you started taking interest at age fourteen did you by chance come across this letter by Einstein amongst others to the NY Times, December 4th 1948?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/Einstein_NYTimes_Israel.html

The suffering of European Jews, extreme though it was does not give Israel the right to act in this horrific manner to the Palestinians. I for one and I'm sure others posters would be amongst the first to condemn the Palestinians if they were to act in the way Israel is. If you were to watch the documentary and come up with criticism I'll be here to answer.

skunk
Jan 1, 2009, 06:01 AM
I guess the most apt description of the deal comes from Netanyahu, to the effect that, "If the Arabs put down their guns, there will be no more fighting. If the Jews put down their guns, there will be no more Israel." What the dear old right winger is omitting to say is that the world and the Jewish people got on just fine without an Israel for almost two thousand years.

Whats amazing to me is that People who support the Palestinians have utter hatred for the US and her allies. Hamas is a terrorist organization who openly kills innocent civilians, and yet people like to defend the poor Palestinians.The Israeli military is a terrorist organisation which openly kills innocent civilians. The Palestinians living under the yoke of Israeli occupation elected Hamas to represent them in their captivity and desperation.

You can't take sides, neither of them is right, you just want it to stop.Perhaps applying a little more analysis and understanding to the ongoing, non-stop, daily brutality of life under forty years of military occupation would make you see that if the violence "just stops" without addressing its root cause, it is equivalent to abject surrender for the Palestinians and outright victory for the Israelis. The playing field is not level.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. But we've been waiting for about 1300 years with no significant results so far. 2009!Absolutely untrue. Those intervening 1300 years have been filled with European brutality and discrimination towards Jews, while one of the bright spots has been the welcome afforded them by the Ottoman Empire at the height of their historical persecution.

skunk
Jan 1, 2009, 06:06 AM
When you started taking interest at age fourteen did you by chance come across this letter by Einstein amongst others to the NY Times, December 4th 1948?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/Einstein_NYTimes_Israel.htmlThanks for posting that brilliantly perceptive and prophetic letter.

mkrishnan
Jan 1, 2009, 06:19 AM
What the dear old right winger is omitting to say is that the world and the Jewish people got on just fine without an Israel for almost two thousand years.

I will say that in the U.S., even amongst liberals, opposing human rights violations and war crimes committed by the Israeli government is essentially viewed as antisemitism, which is absurdist.

Even NPR, which tends to be slightly more balanced on the topic, is very careful. They even more or less accept statements by people like Bush that essentially place all responsibility on Hamas to create peace, ignoring the ridiculous counterpoint this makes from our own perspective on any other similar issue. If we had said that all onus for peace in Afghanistan was on the Taliban, and that our plan was to bomb the civilians year on year until the Taliban came up with a compelling peace plan and presented it to us, that would be viewed as insane. If we said that we would keep killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan until Al Qaeda provided a detailed peace plan, that would be equally ridiculous. And yet we on the one hand say that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and on the other hand obviate Israel from any responsibility for its counterterrorism or for solving a specific problem that it, in no uncertain terms, created 50 years ago.

It's not so much that no one in the US feels this way. But even in the company of other liberals, this is viewed as a very radical position, if not an openly racist one.

Desertrat
Jan 1, 2009, 09:25 AM
Peterkro, where did I say there was a causal relationship between the Holocaust and the perceived-evil of Israel's actions? The treatment of the Jews in the 1930s/early1940s is what got my attention--wherein is the causal relationship as to my interest.

hulugu, Israel has been in existence now for sixty years. Get used to it.

mkrishnan, was there not a truce in place when the Palestinians once again began rocket attacks?

Palestinians and other Arabs have unendingly yapped and yowled about driving all the Jews into the sea, yet the propaganda has people sympathizing with the would-be genocidists. Truly rational, competent, adult thought, that--not.

skunk, when you have no rational argument, isn't it wonderful fun to resort to name-calling? "...dear old right winger..." indeed. You carefully ignore that what he said was fact.

'Rat

mkrishnan
Jan 1, 2009, 09:38 AM
mkrishnan, was there not a truce in place when the Palestinians once again began rocket attacks?

I don't generally deny that the Palestinians are attacking the Israelis and killing innocents. However, they are fighting a guerrilla war against an occupation. I don't think anything different could be expected of them, in the absence of a real attempt to procure longstanding peace by the people occupying them. The Israelis, who have a government, instead engage in pretty continuous counterterrorism. The Palestinians don't have a real government because they don't have a real state. In their state of disenfranchisement, there can be no expectation that they would lead the peace process.

Give them a government, let them raise a standing army, and give them the armaments with which to defend themselves from the Israelis and create a credible deterrent from future incursions. Then, they can and should be expected to behave like a civilized, sovereign nation.

skunk
Jan 1, 2009, 09:40 AM
Peterkro, where did I say there was a causal relationship between the Holocaust and the perceived-evil of Israel's actions?Addressing what PK said rather than an entirely different one would be more apropos, I feel.
hulugu, Israel has been in existence now for sixty years. Get used to it.You're losing it, I fear: Hulugu has not posted in this thread. :confused:
mkrishnan, was there not a truce in place when the Palestinians once again began rocket attacks?Actually, no. Hamas had asked to improve the terms of the expiring truce, Israel had refused. The truce expired, rocket attacks began a few days later.
Palestinians and other Arabs have unendingly yapped and yowled about driving all the Jews into the sea, yet the propaganda has people sympathizing with the would-be genocidists. Truly rational, competent, adult thought, that--not.More utter rubbish. Even if Israel as a state were to be driven out, that would not be genocide. The state of Israel is the party in illegal military occupation of other people's lands, but please don't let a little factoid get in the way of your ranting.

skunk, when you have no rational argument, isn't it wonderful fun to resort to name-calling? "...dear old right winger..." indeed. You carefully ignore that what he said was fact.My epithet for Netanyahu is merely descriptive. Is he not old? Is he not a right-winger? I grant you his dearness might not be universally appreciated, but I expect his mother loves him. What he said was complete nonsense, as I have already pointed out in the post you are apparently responding to (though it's a little hard to tell...).

Have you watched the film or read the letter? Go on, treat yourself to a little reality.

aethelbert
Jan 1, 2009, 11:11 AM
while one of the bright spots has been the welcome afforded them by the Ottoman Empire at the height of their historical persecution.
By "welcome," do you mean the fact that they allowed the non-Muslims to exist while essentially enslaving some of them as a tax?

skunk
Jan 1, 2009, 11:23 AM
By "welcome," do you mean the fact that they allowed the non-Muslims to exist while essentially enslaving some of them as a tax?At a time when Jews (and Muslims) were being expelled and even put to death or forcibly converted by their godly Christian rulers in Europe, much of the Muslim world received them on the whole with notable civility.
Jews have lived in the geographic area of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) for more than 2,400 years. There were jews called as Romaniote at the beginning. Eventually, most of the Romaniote communitites were assimilated by the more numerous Sephardim. In the later Middle Ages, Ashkenazi Jews migrating to the Byzantine Empire and Ottoman Empire supplemented the original Jewish population of Asia Minor. At the end of the 15th century, a large number of Sephardic Jews fleeing persecution in Spain and Portugal settled in Asia Minor on the invitation of the Ottoman Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Turkey

Desertrat
Jan 1, 2009, 12:37 PM
"Even if Israel as a state were to be driven out, that would not be genocide."

Sheesh! The stated intent for sixty years has been to end Israel by killing all the Jews. The whole Arab world--with a very few exceptions--has been hollering about that for sixty years. That paragraph in the PLO charter didn't mean ending Israel's right to exist as a state; it meant the eradication of all those who lived there.

You gonna try to make me believe that the Arab invasions of 1967 and 1973 were to spread sweetness and light onto the downtrodden Jews of Israel? That the Arabs tried their luck merely from the goodness of their hearts? That they so loved their fellow man that they would have made strong efforts at improving liberty and economic well-being for all Jews?

I don't think so...

'Rat

it5five
Jan 1, 2009, 01:09 PM
mkrishnan, was there not a truce in place when the Palestinians once again began rocket attacks?


I saw this in the other thread, and you should read it. Israel broke the truce on Nov. 4th (I wonder why they picked that day to break it :rolleyes: ). Hamas then launched rockets in retaliation for Israel breaking the truce. Of course, there was little to no media coverage of Israels actions since the entire world was watching the US election, but there was plenty of coverage of Hamas' response days later.

Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians)

Macky-Mac
Jan 1, 2009, 01:47 PM
...Actually, no. Hamas had asked to improve the terms of the expiring truce, Israel had refused. The truce expired, rocket attacks began a few days later......

Actually, no......Hamas threatened to end the ceasefire if the terms weren't expanded and when Israel refused, then as promised Hamas refused to extend the ceasefire leading to the current mess

... The truce expired, rocket attacks began a few days later......

see it5five's post below which points out that rocket attacks had started before the end of the ceasefire....your claim that they didn't start until after the ceasefire ended is simply untrue

I saw this in the other thread, and you should read it. Israel broke the truce on Nov. 4th (I wonder why they picked that day to break it :rolleyes: ). Hamas then launched rockets in retaliation for Israel breaking the truce. Of course, there was little to no media coverage of Israels actions since the entire world was watching the US election, but there was plenty of coverage of Hamas' response days later.

Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians)


something's wrong with the claim that the israelis tried somehow to conceal their nov. 4 action......they've always been very aggressive and in-your-face
with their military actions as they obviously feel it sends a message to any and all

toontra
Jan 1, 2009, 01:56 PM
something's wrong with the claim that the israelis tried somehow to conceal their nov. 4 action......they've always been very aggressive and in-your-face
with their military actions as they obviously feel it sends a message to any and all


Selectively, yes. Speaking as a UK news reader, I was totally unaware of their breaking of the truce on 4th November - it received hardly any press coverage, and was certainly not a big deal in terms of breaking the truce. I expect the same was true in the US.

Contrast this with their Christmas campaign of "retaliation", in which the military action has been matched by their PR campaign.

If you don't appreciate the difference then, with all respect, you are not looking.

it5five
Jan 1, 2009, 02:01 PM
something's wrong with the claim that the israelis tried somehow to conceal their nov. 4 action......they've always been very aggressive and in-your-face
with their military actions as they obviously feel it sends a message to any and all

Like toontra said, they are very open about their "retaliation". But by hiding the fact that they broke the truce, Israel was hoping that the world would assume that the Hamas actually broke the truce with their retaliation. And it looks like it worked.

Macky-Mac
Jan 1, 2009, 02:05 PM
Selectively, yes. Speaking as a UK news reader, I was totally unaware of their breaking of the truce on 4th November - it received hardly any press coverage, and was certainly not a big deal in terms of breaking the truce. I expect the same was true in the US.

Contrast this with their Christmas campaign of "retaliation", in which the military action has been matched by their PR campaign.

If you don't appreciate the difference then, with all respect, you are not looking.

of course there's a difference......back in november both sides were at least pretending to be following to the ceasefire. Since the ceasefire has ended, both sides have cranked up their posturing and PR.......and of course their violence.

Macky-Mac
Jan 1, 2009, 02:11 PM
Like toontra said, they are very open about their "retaliation". But by hiding the fact that they broke the truce, Israel was hoping that the world would assume that the Hamas actually broke the truce with their retaliation. And it looks like it worked.

it's far more likely that people were distracted by the election rather then some deliberate scheme to "hide" a violation. Right from the start both sides spent the entire ceasefire taking some action and then denying that they were the ones breaking the ceasefire......it was always a case of saying they responding to some infraction on the part of the other side

However, while both sides played that game, there actually was a reduction in the overall amount of violence during the ceasefire so it's sad that it's ended

floyde
Jan 1, 2009, 02:48 PM
it's far more likely that people were distracted by the election rather then some deliberate scheme to "hide" a violation.

Ok, not to be pedantic or anything (at least not intentionally :p), but if you guys are not going to watch the video, this thread will most likely become a continuation of the previous one. So you might as well continue the discussion there (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=623248). I think it'd be better if you watched the video and commented on why you think it is wrong, or something like that. ;)

Anyway, it is rather "convenient" that this happened during the election, don't you think?

aethelbert
Jan 1, 2009, 04:46 PM
At a time when Jews (and Muslims) were being expelled and even put to death or forcibly converted by their godly Christian rulers in Europe, much of the Muslim world received them on the whole with notable civility.
This isn't about Isabella, Ferdinand, and their inquisition. Of course the Ottomans wanted them to settle there... They became a powerhouse through expansion as their military was fueled by children taken out of Christian and Jewish towns (see Janissary forces). Without continuous expansion, they suffered, which was what eventually brought them to their downfall. Even when the Jews moved there, their positions in society were significantly lower than those that they held in Iberia.

iShater
Jan 1, 2009, 05:00 PM
Thanks for posting the video. It is amazing how many people simply refuse to believe that Israel could be doing ANYTHING wrong. :(

skunk
Jan 1, 2009, 05:22 PM
This isn't about Isabella, Ferdinand, and their inquisition. Of course the Ottomans wanted them to settle there... They became a powerhouse through expansion as their military was fueled by children taken out of Christian and Jewish towns (see Janissary forces). Without continuous expansion, they suffered, which was what eventually brought them to their downfall.No it is not specifically about Ferdinand and Isabella. Practically every country and state in Europe mistreated the Jews. Perhaps you hadn't heard of the Pogroms, the Ghettos in Rome and Venice, the massacres in Yorkshire, France and elsewhere. You also seem to have an extremely selective and creative reading of Ottoman history. There is precious little record, if any, of Jewish janissaries, and it was certainly not the expelled Jews who fuelled the expansion of Ottoman armies. The remark about continual expansion applies to almost every empire, of course.

skunk
Jan 1, 2009, 05:25 PM
The stated intent for sixty years has been to end Israel by killing all the Jews. The whole Arab world--with a very few exceptions--has been hollering about that for sixty years. That paragraph in the PLO charter didn't mean ending Israel's right to exist as a state; it meant the eradication of all those who lived there.I suppose a meaningful link in support of your position would be out of the question?

mkrishnan
Jan 1, 2009, 06:13 PM
Ok, not to be pedantic or anything

You opened the door to the question of the extent to which Israel's behavior was well known in the United States, whether it received coverage in our media, and whether Americans could publicly hold opinions contrary to the will of the Israeli government. We walked through the door.

MBX
Jan 1, 2009, 07:10 PM
Here's another related documentary and very good too.

"Palestine is Still the Issue": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1259454859593416473&hl=en

mysterytramp
Jan 2, 2009, 07:39 PM
What the dear old right winger is omitting to say is that the world and the Jewish people got on just fine without an Israel for almost two thousand years.

This is, at best, the statement of an inattentive student of world history or at worst, the statement of a bigot. Even if it's a misfired attempt at humor, it diminishes everything you've said on this thread.

mt

skunk
Jan 3, 2009, 04:26 AM
This is, at best, the statement of an inattentive student of world history or at worst, the statement of a bigot.I am merely pointing out that there is a difference between the State of Israel and the Jewish People. The latter can survive without the former.

mysterytramp
Jan 3, 2009, 07:17 AM
I am merely pointing out that there is a difference between the State of Israel and the Jewish People. The latter can survive without the former.

Which means that you believe if a Jewish state existed in the early 1940s, the Allies wouldn't have felt pressure to take the reports of the concentration camps more seriously?

mt

skunk
Jan 3, 2009, 07:19 AM
Which means that you believe if a Jewish state existed in the early 1940s, the Allies wouldn't have felt pressure to take the reports of the concentration camps more seriously?It means nothing of the sort.

mysterytramp
Jan 3, 2009, 07:28 AM
It means nothing of the sort.

Then you're going to have to hit the reset switch and explain how "the Jewish people got on just fine without an Israel for almost two thousand years." The last 2000 years have been anything but fine for the Jews and, pardon my bald speculation but, their own nation-state probably would have prevented a lot of it.

mt

skunk
Jan 3, 2009, 07:42 AM
Then you're going to have to hit the reset switch and explain how "the Jewish people got on just fine without an Israel for almost two thousand years." The last 2000 years have been anything but fine for the Jews and, pardon my bald speculation but, their own nation-state probably would have prevented a lot of it.Perhaps the "got on just fine" bit was rather blithely overstating the case, I grant you. "Survived" would have been more appropriate. To equate a nation state with a religious persuasion is still a skewed equivalence.

mysterytramp
Jan 3, 2009, 08:02 AM
Perhaps the "got on just fine" bit was rather blithely overstating the case, I grant you. "Survived" would have been more appropriate.

Six million corpses might consider "survived" a blithe overstatement as well.

To equate a nation state with a religious persuasion is still a skewed equivalence.

Why? You'd prefer they were assimilated in your enlightened European nations where the persecution never ends? Israel, the political entity, is the result of self-determination. Israel, the piece of real estate, thank the Brits.

mt

skunk
Jan 3, 2009, 08:10 AM
Israel, the political entity, is the result of self-determination.Only in the sense that Northern Ireland, the political entity, is the result of self-determination.