Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MBX, Dec 31, 2008.

  1. MBX
    macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #1
    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.
     
  2. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    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.
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #3
  4. macrumors 6502

    PcBgone

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    #4
    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?
     
  5. macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #5
    Perhaps it's amazing to you because you made it up. Those two things aren't by any means mutually inclusive.
     
  6. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #6
    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
     
  7. macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #7
    My opinion on this is f**k 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.
     
  8. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #8
    Yep, that pretty much sums it up. But we've been waiting for about 1300 years with no significant results so far. 2009!
     
  9. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #9
    Of course it could be true... ;)
     
  10. macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #10
    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.
     
  11. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #11
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  12. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
  13. Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #14
    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
     
  15. Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #15
    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.
     
  16. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    Addressing what PK said rather than an entirely different one would be more apropos, I feel.
    You're losing it, I fear: Hulugu has not posted in this thread. :confused:
    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.
    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.

    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.
     
  17. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #17
    By "welcome," do you mean the fact that they allowed the non-Muslims to exist while essentially enslaving some of them as a tax?
     
  18. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    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.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Turkey
     
  19. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #19
    "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
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #20
    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
     
  21. macrumors 68020

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #21
    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

    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


    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
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #22

    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.
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 68020

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors 68020

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #25
    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
     

Share This Page