Everyone in America needs to watch this

Originally posted by rich23
This video documents the oppression and violence of the occupation

Occupations are supposed to be violent and oppresseive. Just look at iraq, the US wasn't nearly oppressive enough, and its turned into genocide beween iraqis.

The arabs attacked israel, thats called 'war'. They lost the war. That means, whatever the yehudis can take, they get.

It's funny how willing people are to excuse ethnic cleansing, war crimes and the systematic distortion of media reporting with reference to irrelevancies

There is no ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories. The yehudis have had complete dominance of that territory for decades now. The only people calling for ethnic cleansing are the radical arabs demanding that israel be destroyed.


The video is absurd, it goes so far as to say that 'the palestinians and isareli people are daily plagued with violence'.
.....

Thats because the palestinians keep attacking isreal. If they wanted peace, they'd merely have to ask for it.

They don't.

They want war, they want to fight the israelis, force them out of the middle east, and destroy their state.

THe film itself is a propaganda peice.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by Nygdan]

Nygdan, i agree with your point that this is a piece of propaganda

but there is a serious problem in palestine

for some reason, israel feels it has the right to oppress the palestinian territories, and are not being held accountable

This whole post is an object lesson in how well the propaganda machine works in the US media.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Occupations are supposed to be violent and oppresseive. Just look at iraq, the US wasn't nearly oppressive enough, and its turned into genocide beween iraqis.

Right. That's why the Nazis did so well, then. They held on to Europe for quite some time... on the other hand, the Russians occupied much of Eastern Europe with comparatively very little bloodshed.

I think there's no rule that occupations must necessarily be bloody. And I think that the US and UK had a big role in causing the civil war in Iraq by covert actions, including bombing mosques and using unwitting pawns as suicide bombers. Remember the British soldiers who were arrested, disguised as Arabs? With a car with explosives in? There's also the matter of the US backed death squads, which have sectarian motivations.

The arabs attacked israel, thats called 'war'. They lost the war. That means, whatever the yehudis can take, they get.

Obviously not a believer in international law, then. So why believe in laws within your own country, if, in the wider world, you believe in "might makes right"? If someone tries to rob you, you can invade their home and take their stuff, is that it?

There is no ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories. The yehudis have had complete dominance of that territory for decades now. The only people calling for ethnic cleansing are the radical arabs demanding that israel be destroyed.

First, it's a matter of simple logic to see that your second sentence is not an explanation of the first. Just because they dominate the territory does not mean that ethnic cleansing is not taking place. Ethnic cleansing took place when the state of Israel was first set up, and it continues at a slower pace. Why do you think Arabs aren't allowed to build houses in their own land? Why are they not allowed to marry Israelis?

The video is absurd, it goes so far as to say that 'the palestinians and isareli people are daily plagued with violence'.

Thats because the palestinians keep attacking isreal. If they wanted peace, they'd merely have to ask for it... They don't.

Actually, a more neutral viewpoint would demonstrate that it's the Israelis who consistently break the terms of successive cease fire agreements. Again, I'll quote from the Gideon Levy (Haaretz) article I referenced earlier in this thread:

In the first week after the cease-fire, Israel had already killed five more in the West Bank. The last child to die? No again. This past Sunday, soldiers killed 15-year-old Mahmoud al-Jabji in the Askar refugee camp in Nablus. The last casualty in Gaza? That, too, is hard to believe. The last only until this cease-fire goes up in flames, like all its predecessors.

Points to note:

• this is from Haarez, an Israeli newspaper
  
• reading the piece further details corroborative evidence of how deeply vicious the Occupation is
  
• unlike US reports, we actually get to know something about the casualties
  
• it's a sympathetic piece from an Israeli source. Is this propaganda too?
  

It might be worth reading the whole thing. I don't know how capable you are of sympathy for other human beings, but if you are, it might make you stop and think, even for a moment.

They want war, they want to fight the israelis, force them out of the middle east, and destroy their state.

Presently, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are experiencing what United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) John Ging calls, “the countdown to a humanitarian crisis”. In a wanton act of collective punishment, Palestinians are being deprived of food, money and access to the outside world. As Jimmy Carter says in his article, “Punishing the Innocent is a Crime” “Overwhelmingly (the victims) are school teachers, nurses, social workers, police officers, farm families, who are just hoping for a better life”.

Their crime?

They voted for the wrong party; the party that will not fulfill its primary obligation to act as Israel’s security apparatus in the territories.

Americans won’t believe this, but the vote for Hamas was actually a vote for peace. Palestinians were sick of the ineffectiveness and corruption of the PA and wanted a change. That certainly doesn’t imply they were offering their support for terrorism; quite the contrary. As Carter notes, “Public opinion polls conducted after the January parliamentary election shows that 80% of Palestinians still want a peace agreement with Israel based on the international road map premises.”

This is statistical evidence that the vast majority of Palestinians voted for the party that they believed would produce a negotiated settlement with Israel and resolve the conflict according to international agreements and UN resolutions.

Simply put, they want peace.

source

Simply because the film presents another side of the argument, you dismiss it as propaganda. I'm not sure whether you really understand what propaganda actually is. If you think it's something that only the enemy (however defined) does, then you definitely don't.



[edit on 13-12-2006 by rich23]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
but there is a serious problem in palestine
for some reason, israel feels it has the right to oppress the palestinian territories, and are not being held accountable

Your name is very appropriate for this quote. When have the Palestinians been held accountable for their actions? If you feel it is their right to oppose Israel's military occupation then you must feel it is within Israel's right to occupy until a peace acceptable to Israel allows them to relinquish control of the West Bank and Gaza. You are correct in that Israel does have the right to militarily occupy the West Bank and Gaza and "oppress" them till Israel receives a peace offer acceptable to them. That's the right of the victor, to decide the terms for peace. Until then, Israel is the one in charge of those areas.

Do Recall the history of 1967. Make no mistake that Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq were going to attack Israel proper, Israel just didn't wait for the sucker punch. Those nations in fact, started the occupation of the West Bank, Golan and Gaza by their attempt to attack Israel. Just because you lost don't expect the victors to treat you well, especially when you still try to kill them.

Resolution 242 calls for Israeli withdrawal AND

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

en.wikipedia.org... ecurity_Council_Resolution_242#Text_of_Resolution

It's not a Israel withdraws, then recognition and peace. They are to be simultaneous. Mutual recognition and the right of all to live in peace , free from threats or acts of force must happen at the same time as Israel withdraws. If not the status quo continues, as it is preferable to Israel and it's security.

I'm watching it now so I can understand what you guys are talking about. But one thing I do know is that God promised this land to the Israelites, and by God they will get it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
for some reason, israel feels it has the right to oppress the palestinian territories

Of course they have that right. The palestinians went to war with the israelis, and the israelis occupy them because of it. The occupation has been so long, because the palestinians refuse to declare peace. They continue to want to fight. So long as they want to keep fighting, they shouldn't get an end to the occupation.

rich23
That's why the Nazis did so well, then

The only fanatics who blame their problems on the jews and want to destroy them that we're talking about here are the palestinians. The 'nazi analogy' doesn't really work to well when its defening jew-hating murderers.

I think there's no rule that occupations must necessarily be bloody.

Rule? No, its a matter of policy. Occcupations are supposed to be horrible, thats the whole point to make people see that it wasn't worth it.

And I think that the US and UK had a big role in causing the civil war in Iraq by covert actions

And when the US and UK leave, and there are campaigns of ethnic cleansing, exterminating sunnis in the south, and shia around bagdhad, that'll be 'covert anglo-american operations' too I suppose.

Obviously not a believer in international law, then.

International law specifically recognizes the right of the occupier to occupy.

If someone tries to rob you, you can invade their home and take their stuff, is that it?

Why invade their home when you can just outright kill them??

it's a matter of simple logic to see that your second sentence is not an explanation of the first

I hadn't intended in it being. My apologies for being unclear. I was saying, if the jews wanted to 'ethnically cleanse' the occupied territories of the palestinians, they've had decades, and yet, the palestinian population is still going strong.
If they were wanton genocidal maniacs, there wouldn't be any palestinians today.

Why are they not allowed to marry Israelis?

Even samaritan jews are not allowed to marry orthodox jews, without converting. Its wrong, but its irrelevant. What are the rights of a jewish person under palestinian law? Or jordanian or saudi law?

it's the Israelis who consistently break the terms of successive cease fire agreements

Again, if the palestinians want peace, then all they have to do is request it. They do not. They attack, get demolished, request a 'time out', recoup, rebuild, and attempt to attack again. The cease fires are meaningless and irrelevant.

I don't know how capable you are of sympathy for other human beings,

Sympathy is irrelevant. These two people's are at war. If the weaker side wants the war to end, then they have to ask for peace and stop fighting the stronger side.

Simply because the film presents another side of the argument, you dismiss it as propaganda

This is incorrect. I dismiss it as propaganda because it is propaganda. It is propaganda to pretend that these fights continue because the israelis aren't being properly restrained. Its propaganda to say 'look at these poor people, they suffer, they shouldn't have to suffer', when its the palestinians that are continuing the war. If they want peace, then they need to ask for it. They don't want peace, they want to win the war against isreal.
So let them have war.

evilsanta
But one thing I do know is that God promised this land to the Israelites

Its rather meaningless that a book by the jews tells the jews that a peice of land belongs to them.

Originally posted by EviLSanta
I'm watching it now so I can understand what you guys are talking about. But one thing I do know is that God promised this land to the Israelites, and by God they will get it.

God said HE would give it to them, not the UN or mere mortals like Theodore Herzl. If God intended for them to have it , don't you think he would have made it a lot easier then having Children die for a piece of land?

Originally posted by Nygdan
The palestinians went to war with the israelis, and the israelis occupy them because of it.

Really? I thought the Palestinians had their land stolen in 1947.

Occcupations are supposed to be horrible, thats the whole point to make people see that it wasn't worth it.

So all the stuff about "winning hearts and minds" is just PR then? And the analogy with the Nazis was just to illustrate that if you're prepared to make the occupation "horrible", you're probably not the good guys.

And when the US and UK leave, and there are campaigns of ethnic cleansing, exterminating sunnis in the south, and shia around bagdhad, that'll be 'covert anglo-american operations' too I suppose.

The seeds of discord have been thoroughly sown. But it is worth mentioning that Sunni and Shia have been living side by side in the region for a few hundred years without the kind of conflict we see now.

International law specifically recognizes the right of the occupier to occupy.

But not, oddly enough, to make the occupation "horrible".

Why invade their home when you can just outright kill them??

Well, I did my law degree in the UK about 25 years ago, and I'm quite sure that if you killed someone while they were robbing you, you'd be guilty of at lrast manslaughter, if not murder. Things may be different in the states...

... if the jews wanted to 'ethnically cleanse' the occupied territories of the palestinians, they've had decades, and yet, the palestinian population is still going strong. If they were wanton genocidal maniacs, there wouldn't be any palestinians today.

The pace of ethnic cleansing may have slowed, but the intent is clear enough.

...the palestinians ... attack, get demolished, request a 'time out', recoup, rebuild, and attempt to attack again. The cease fires are meaningless and irrelevant.

Israeli assassinations and provocations have been edird out of this account. This is the essence of propaganda.

I dismiss it [the film] as propaganda because it is propaganda.

Then please point to a specific distortion within the film. It's making the point that US coverage is exceptionally partial. Being used to BBC coverage, which shows Palestinian grief as well as Israeli while condoning the violence of neither side, I would agree.

It is propaganda to pretend that these fights continue because the israelis aren't being properly restrained. Its propaganda to say 'look at these poor people, they suffer, they shouldn't have to suffer', when its the palestinians that are continuing the war. If they want peace, then they need to ask for it. They don't want peace, they want to win the war against isreal.
So let them have war.

If all efforts by the Palestinians to live peacefully are edited from the record, and all provocations and killings by Israelis are presented as "defensive" when they are nothing of the kind, then this kind of attitude will seem reasonable. The propaganda machine is working well.

But thanks for the comment about "God promising the land to the Jews". It was such a dumb point I couldn't think how to engage with it, and you had a good answer for it.

You have voted rich23 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Never have trouble finding a thread of yours to award. You bring a lot to a conversation.

Thank you, PieMan. I just try to be logical and fair.

And yes, this probably was a one line post.

Originally posted by rich23
Then please point to a specific distortion within the film.

I did this already in a previous post in this thread. The film refers to 242 and mentions Israel's withdrawal from occupied lands but never mentions the second part of 242 which has to occur as well. Telling half the story is blatent enough for me. Is that enough distortion for you? Don't reverse the argument, refer to the film please.

It is not a balanced account of either side in this affair. Neither side is an angel, nor is either side a devil in this. Both have innocent blood on their hands. The film portreys the realities of the condition with a bias, just as they state other media outlets have a bias. So, does not a bias invite distortion and propaganda?

242 was forty years ago. I'm not saying it's completely and utterly irrelevant, just that things have moved on since then. There have been forty years of bloody occupation and Israel has, during that time, consistently moved to scupper any peace talks.

International law is very clear on two basic principles: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the prohibition of the transfer of civilians of the occupying Power to the occupied territory. Both are intended to prevent expansionism and the colonisation of occupied territories. Both complement another explicit principle of international law, namely the right of peoples to self-determination, a right that a colonial or occupying Power is obliged to respect.

The Israeli occupation has clearly violated all three of these principles of international law. In fact, throughout its prolonged occupation, Israel has persistently and aggressively breached international law.

Thus, what makes the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land illegal is not the fact that it occurred during the war of 1967 (regardless of the narrative concerning the causes of the war). What makes the Israeli occupation illegal is that it has existed for 35 years, during which time it transformed into a form of colonialism and suppressed and oppressed an entire people for decades, preventing them from the exercise of their right to self-determination and the establishment of their State, Palestine.

source

The main thrust of the film is that Israel has an extensive structure in place to make sure it gets the news coverage it wants in the US. I don't think that the point you raise vitiates that argument in the slightest. The continued oppression of the Palestinians in the Occupied territories is still a fact, as is the kill ratio, heavily in favour of the Israelis. So Israel hasn't left the occupied territories, and they haven't been recognised by their neighbour nations... Israel has more than enough military might, including nuclear weapons (gosh, thank heavens they didn't sign the NPT, or that would be yet another illegal thing!) to ensure their continued survival. They're powerful enough to do what they want. And what they want is to hang on to the territory, especially the bits with the water, and make life miserable for the Palestinians.

Ok, the film didn't mention both aspects of 242. I don't think it's terribly relevant any more, and I don't think it's a massive distortion. I'm sure you disagree, so do you have anything else? I notice that was within the first few seconds of the film.


[edit on 14-12-2006 by rich23]

Originally posted by rich23
Really? I thought the Palestinians had their land stolen in 1947.

It doesn't matter what happened before the war. Even if the UN and international community hadn't decided to give the administration of that land to the jews, and they, say, came in with a military and forced the arabs out and taken the land, once the palestinians started the war, they left it up to war. They lost, therefore, they loose their land.

So all the stuff about "winning hearts and minds" is just PR then?

Duh.

And the analogy with the Nazis was just to illustrate that if you're prepared to make the occupation "horrible", you're probably not the good guys.

And the people that are targeting civilians and blowing up buses are the good guys? Who even cares about who is the 'good guy'. We're not living in a western, this is the real world. And in the real world, if you fight, you run the risk of loosing. Its a good reason to not fight. IF the palestinians want their land back through legalisms, then they shouldn't have gone to war. MOre to the point, they shouldn't've lost the war.
And if they want the israelis to end the occupation, then they're lucky, because the israelis, not being monsters, are more than willing to work out a peace. Peace means 'stoping the fighting', which the palestinians don't want to do. They want war. Which is pretty stupid, since they suck at it.

The seeds of discord have been thoroughly sown.

Ok, so lets blame it on Imam Ali and the Prophet Mohammed. Since its sectarian strife, the responsibility belongs to the sects, not to some players that come in over a millenium later.

But it is worth mentioning that Sunni and Shia have been living side by side in the region for a few hundred years without the kind of conflict we see now.

Yes, sometimes, they're not trying to exterminate each other.

But not, oddly enough, to make the occupation "horrible".

Of course it does. Occupation is de facto horrible. Its men with guns and bombs ordering you what to do and where to go, and using them on you if you resist. Thats what is sanctions by international law in the right of the occupier to occupy.

Well, I did my law degree in the UK about 25 years ago, and I'm quite sure that if you killed someone while they were robbing you, you'd be guilty of at lrast manslaughter, if not murder. Things may be different in the states...

Indeed they are. If someone is using deadly force against you, only a lunatic would say that you can't use deadly force to defend yourself.

The pace of ethnic cleansing may have slowed, but the intent is clear enough.

Slowed?
Doode, when its 40 years on, and they're still alive, there's no 'ethnic cleansing'. Hell, what kind of 'ethnic cleansing' and genocidal campaign ends with more of them than you started with? Is that what happened in bosnia? THe serbs made mass graves, and there were more muslims in serbia afterwards????

Israeli assassinations and provocations have been edird out of this account. This is the essence of propaganda.

Absurd. You are saying that israel secretly wants to occupy the palestinian territories, because...they like having their cities bombed. So every time the palestinains just try to lay down their weapons and sue for peace, the israels say 'no so fast' and ruthlessly attack them.

Your suggestion is the essence of propaganda.

Then please point to a specific distortion within the film. It's making the point that US coverage is exceptionally partial.

Boo hoo.

If all efforts by the Palestinians to live peacefully are edited from the record,

Name a single time when a palestinain power said 'we give up the war, we only want peace with israel'. Said it, that is, without lying. BEcause they've said it a lot, and then kept up their weapons, their plots, and their militias.

and all provocations and killings by Israelis are presented as "defensive

When you bomb a group that is plotting attacks on you, thats defense.

But thanks for the comment about "God promising the land to the Jews". It was such a dumb point

Indeed the suggestion that its the holy land and belongs to them is silly. God has nothing to do with whats going on in the levant right now. Its pure power politics.

[edit on 15-12-2006 by Nygdan]

The same type of media control that video talks about is also found here on ATS. Anyone seen the "Shop Israel" flag in certain members signatures here?

The Jews believe that after 6 million Jews are killed their Messiah will come.
3 times in history have the Jews claimed that 6 million Jews were killed.
Once in 1909 (I think, this one is hard to find) after some civil war.
Once after WWI.
And the most popular claim is the Holocaust in Germany in the 1940's.

Are they trying to con their Messiah into making an appearance???
To my knowledge he hasn't shown up yet...

...but the current population in Israel is, yep, just over 6 million!

I can't help but wonder if their manipulative ways are geared towards setting the stage for another Jewish holocaust. Calculating acceptable losses, claim once again that 6 million Jews died, hope the Messiah reads the news rather than really sees what is going on and finally have the power to set the whole world against the Muslims.

I have never witnessed a hate more zealous than the hate that the Israeli Jews have towards the Palestinians, and Muslims in general.

Originally posted by Nygdan
...once the palestinians started the war, they left it up to war. They lost, therefore, they loose their land.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think the Palestinians started any war. Syria and Egypt, but not the Palestinians. The Palestinians simply had their land taken from them, and it's still going on, backed by the largest military economy in the world.

And the people that are targeting civilians and blowing up buses are the good guys? Who even cares about who is the 'good guy'.

Let's remember. This film is about propaganda. Propaganda exists to create and reinforce a sense of who the good and the bad guys are. So, in a sense, the general public does care about the good guys. And for myself, one of the things that I find most offensive about the war in Iraq is that my tax monies are going to support a war in which we are definitely NOT the good guys. I would think that the average American, if they knew fully about how much of their taxes goes to support Israel, and how appallingly they behave, would feel pretty much the same. You're obviously temperamentally quite bellicose and comfortable with your taxes going to support a repressive regime: I'm not.

...in the real world, if you fight, you run the risk of loosing. Its a good reason to not fight.

If you couldn't go from one place to another without passing through checkpoints at which you were often turned back; if your child were shot in the head just sitting at her desk in school; if someone you knew was wounded and the Israelis wouldn't let the ambulance through to pick him up; if you came home one day to find bulldozers flattening your house that you'd built with your own hands... wouldn't you be tempted to pick up a gun, or even, if everything had been taken from you, perform a suicide bombing?

Or would you, as your post suggests, just knuckle under?

IF the palestinians want their land back through legalisms, then they shouldn't have gone to war.

Please show me where the Palestinians went to war against Israel. I must have skipped that part.

Peace means 'stoping the fighting', which the palestinians don't want to do. They want war.

I have already posted something that refutes this argument. To say that "Palestinians want war" is obviously a pretty sweeping statement, especially when the available evidence suggests that, like anyone else, they just want to be able to live and work without death raining on them from the skies and without their houses being demolished.

Ok, so lets blame it on Imam Ali and the Prophet Mohammed. Since its sectarian strife, the responsibility belongs to the sects, not to some players that come in over a millenium later.

You know what? Let's don't. If they can live for a millenium in peace, but then the US comes in, starts false flag bombings and funding death squads, let's try suggesting that the more recent cause might be crucial. It's not just "sometimes they're not trying to exterminate each other" it's, "why has this all really kicked off now"? Could the campaigns of terror by the US and UK have anything to do with it?

But not, oddly enough, to make the occupation "horrible".

Of course it does. Occupation is de facto horrible. Its men with guns and bombs ordering you what to do and where to go, and using them on you if you resist. Thats what is sanctions by international law in the right of the occupier to occupy.

Utter, utter nonsense. Occasionally you say something intelligent, but it's buried in muck like this. For which, I might add, you never come up with any sources. Perhaps you just make international law up off the top of your head. Why bother, when you can look it up?

Indeed they are. If someone is using deadly force against you, only a lunatic would say that you can't use deadly force to defend yourself.

Well, firstly, you're shifting the goalposts. The original exchange was,

If someone tries to rob you, you can invade their home and take their stuff, is that it?

Why invade their home when you can just outright kill them??

Robbing someone doesn't necessarily involve deadly force. But if only a lunatic would say that you can't use deadly force in a robbery, then the UK government qualifies:

Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

Householders and the use of force against intruders

So you're allowed to use "reasonable force", not "deadly force" if someone's robbing you.

Doode, when its 40 years on, and they're still alive, there's no 'ethnic cleansing'. Hell, what kind of 'ethnic cleansing' and genocidal campaign ends with more of them than you started with? Is that what happened in bosnia? THe serbs made mass graves, and there were more muslims in serbia afterwards????

DOOOOODE... you're in denial.

In Israel itself, however, the idea of "transfer" – the common euphemism for ethnic cleansing or mass deportation – is discussed openly. Several political parties support it; one of them is in Sharon’s cabinet. They may speak of "voluntary transfer", but Minister Benny Elon has been quite explicit about what they mean by "voluntary": It’s like a man who refuses to give his wife a divorce, he said. According to Jewish law, the defiant husband can be jailed and slashed until he – "voluntarily" – complies...

Gamla, a group founded by former Israeli military officers and settlers, offers a detailed plan for forcibly expelling all Palestinians, both from the occupied territories and the Palestinian citizens of Israel, within a 3-5 year period. ...Sharon has recently rejected an official Jordanian request that Israel issue a public declaration opposing the "Transfer" of Palestinians (Ha’aretz, 29.11.02).

As recent Jewish history shows, the way from mass-deportation to mass-murder is a dangerously short one. Recall that Hitler’s death camps were his second-best "solution" for the Jewish "problem": at first, the Third Reich intended "just" to deport (or "re-settle") the Jews to wherever possible – Palestine, Eastern Europe, Madagascar.

How come – in a poll conducted last April – 44% of Jewish Israelis, a people that suffered both deportation and extermination, support similar measures against the Palestinians? One possible answer is that people do not learn from History, or learn the wrong lessons. I don’t think it is the answer in this case. The fact is that Israelis and Israel-supporters do not refuse to learn from History: they deny History. The denied historical pattern keeps duplicating itself, and won’t stop until its denial is stopped.

You might care to note that the source was written by an Israeli, who I think knows what he's talking about.

Israel is close to implementing a long-term plan to transform the demographic structure of annexed East Jerusalem. Policies to revoke the residency permits of Palestinian Jerusalemites and to Judaise the city have been described as ethnic cleansing.

'Quiet transfer' in East Jerusalem nears completion

Absurd. You are saying that israel secretly wants to occupy the palestinian territories, because...they like having their cities bombed.
Your suggestion is the essence of propaganda.

No. I'm saying that Israel wants the land and wants to get rid of the Palestinians through 'transfer' or, as the more honest among us would express it, 'ethnic cleansing'. As referenced above.

Then please point to a specific distortion within the film. It's making the point that US coverage is exceptionally partial.

Boo hoo.

That's it? That's your argument? That's your reply to the question I've raised. Ok. I'll bite. How old are you?

And here's an example of how, typically, Israel treats ceasefires...

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas today urged restraint and a continuation of a week-long ceasefire in the Gaza Strip between Israeli forces and the Palestinian resistance, and called for an expansion of the ceasefire to the West Bank. Israeli security officials, however, have advised the Israeli cabinet to break the truce and continue their daily attacks in the West Bank.

Abbas stated that the ceasefire, which he claimed to be successful despite Israeli forces killing at least four Palestinians in the West Bank since the ceasefire began last Sunday, paves the way for a return to negotiations and to the peace process with Israel.

Palestinian leaders call for extension of ceasefire, Israeli officials want to break it

So Israel can kill at least four people without breaking the ceasefire? Sounds like a very one-sided ceasefire to me.

and all provocations and killings by Israelis are presented as "defensive

When you bomb a group that is plotting attacks on you, thats defense.

And killing innocent civilians, little kids... that's just "collateral damage", I know. And killing 45 Palestinians for every Israeli... that's just a lot of collateral damage? Boy, are you ever in denial on this.




[edit on 15-12-2006 by rich23]

Originally posted by rich23
242 was forty years ago. I'm not saying it's completely and utterly irrelevant, just that things have moved on since then. There have been forty years of bloody occupation and Israel has, during that time, consistently moved to scupper any peace talks.

.......Ok, the film didn't mention both aspects of 242. I don't think it's terribly relevant any more, and I don't think it's a massive distortion. I'm sure you disagree, so do you have anything else? I notice that was within the first few seconds of the film.

Both sides manipulate the media to their own ends. Spare me the "bloody occupation" talk. It's been a bloody resistance to it as well. Both sides are guilty as far as I am concerned about keeping this conflict going. Just blame both sides.

As to your claim that Israel tries to project it's own version of "the truth" ? Are you telling me the Palestinians do not do the same thing? Everybody tries to spin things to their advantage, would you expect them to do otherwise. Israel sometimes admits it does wrong with an attack, have the Palestinians ever admit wrongdoing in a suicide attack? I've never heard a "Sorry we meant to target the bus not the restaurant with the Suicide bomber". Of course the reason I've never heard that is Israel's iron grip on the media right?

While you may think 242 is not relevant anymore don't you think the "land for peace" premise of it should be a cornerstone of any lasting agreement between Arab nations in general and the Israel and Palestine specifically. I mean if I am going to give up land, I would want rocksolid assurances that they would never be used to attack me again. Why is that such a hard to grasp concept. As far as scuttling peace talks, both sides manage to do that quite well, don't just blame Israel as you seem to imply.

You asked for a single distortion, I showed you one as you said in the first few minutes of the film. Must I show you more to prove something you have already conceded is a blatant distortion? How is that statement in the film not a major distortion of the fact that there is two major parts to that resolution, both of which are relevant to the ultimate solution of the conflict? I notice you are back peddling from "show me a distortion" to "it's not a major distortion". Going down a slippery slope there if you ask me. Especially with this subject and the characters involved on both sides.

[edit on 15-12-2006 by pavil]

Originally posted by Nemithesis
Anyone seen the "Shop Israel" flag in certain members signatures here?

I've certainly seen more 'boycott isreal' flags than 'shop israel'.

The Jews believe that after 6 million Jews are killed their Messiah will come.

Please provide a citation for this.

And the most popular claim is the Holocaust in Germany in the 1940's.

Its a pretty common claim since....the nazis killed 6 million jews during the holocaust.

To my knowledge he hasn't shown up yet...

And jesus told his disciples that he's make his second comming before their generation was dead. That was 2 thousand years ago.

I can't help but wonder if their manipulative ways are geared towards setting the stage for another Jewish holocaust. Calculating acceptable losses, claim once again that 6 million Jews died, hope the Messiah reads the news rather than really sees what is going on and finally have the power to set the whole world against the Muslims.

Thats absolutely laughable.

The jews are evil and want to kill 6 million jews, or at least make it seem like that happened, in order to trick god into sending a messiah?

I have never witnessed a hate more zealous than the hate that the Israeli Jews have towards the Palestinians, and Muslims in general.

So they hate the muslims, but they allow muslims to live in israel, and give them more civic rights than muslims have even in some muslim countries?
They hate the palestinians so much, and yet they haven't destroyed them yet, even though they could??? Interesting. Wonder who hates who here.

rich23
but I didn't think the Palestinians started any war. Syria and Egypt, but not the Palestinians.

The land that the isral occupies now was taken during the wars with the arabs of the region.

You're obviously temperamentally quite bellicose and comfortable with your taxes going to support a repressive regime: I'm not.

Of course i'd rather have to spend the tax money to support israel, rather than to have a state of palestine over there, being used to launch attacks on us.

If you couldn't go from one place to another without passing through checkpoints at which you were often turned back; if your child were shot in the head just sitting at her desk in school;

Its all irrelevant. They have their justifications for choosing war instead of peace. And so long as they want war, they isrealis are perfectly right to continue to occupation and launch raids against them.

Or would you, as your post suggests, just knuckle under?

The situations are quite different. IN order to put me in the position of hte palestinians, i have to first, be run by a foreign empire, like the turkish ottomans. Then that empire has to be destroyed and the administration of my country passes to a moderate liberal colonial power, and then that power, in conjunction with a league of the nations of the world, decides that administration is going to be given to people from my area, BUT, its going to, say, the native amerindians. Now I am in a position similar to that of the palestinians. I can't honestly claim that the land was stolen, if it was, certainly not from me.
And did the israelis force the palestinians out?
NO. There are palestinians living in israel to this very day, they weren't forced out.
GRANTED things were chaotic and violent and people went both ways.
But if I was part of a group that was bombing this interationall approved amerindian government, I'd be completely dishonest to say 'its not fair' when they come to fight me, and i run way rather than fight.
And then, years later, from my refugee camps, I and other americans from abroad try to invade and destroy the amerindian government, but get our asses handed to us, can you really sympathize with me for having them occupy my refugee camps, rather than let us build more bombs to kill their civilians with?
And when they say 'you can have peace, but, sorry, you left, you're not allowed back in, at least not right now', and i say 'screw you, I am going to kill some of your civilians to teach you a lesson', are you honestly saying that I deserve public sympathy? Hell no, I'd be a complete jerk if that were the case.

So no, I simply don't care that the palestinians have a hard lot. They want war.

If they marched right up to the border of israel and said 'we demand peace and independence, no other conditions, we give up our struggle' and actually were serious, they'd get it.
But they won't do that, because they don't want peace.
Just like hte iraqis don't want democracy, or to have a stable society, or to build a better life for their children.
They want violence, they want to attack and kill, and they want war.

So war is what they get.

To say that "Palestinians want war" is obviously a pretty sweeping statement, especially when the available evidence suggests that, like anyone else, they just want to be able to live and work without death raining on them from the skies and without their houses being demolished.

I don't beleive that for a split second.

If they want peace, they can have it. Its been offered to them, they've rejected it.

They want war. OR, they want a peace in which isreal surrenders and dissolves itself.

If they can live for a millenium in peace

A millenium?
They've had sporadic outbreaks of relative peace that last a decade or so. Longer if there is a maniacal dictator ready to kill anyone that causes civil problems.

but then the US comes in

This is just plain wrong. The United States, at most, is reponsible for the violence because it removed the astroundingly brutal violence suppression regime of hussein.
The US did not create deep, long standing, culturally ingrained and tribally reinforced animosity between the shias, sunnis, and kurds. They hate each other, they have almost allways sought to destroy each other in the past, and the basic history of the region has been a story of 'who's got the upper hand today'.

The US did not go into iraq, and then wreck any chances of making real money, and having real stability, by blowing up mosques while disguised as arabs to be able to say 'gosh them muslims are bad people'. The US is facing perhaps its single greatest forein policy disaster in its history, all because of sectarian violence and civil unrest, it did not specifically and actively work to create that unrest. It did not invent the idea of sunnis and shia hating each other. It made the "mistake' of removing the one thing that had been preventing that sectarian violence, which is the overwhelming secular violence of the Baathist state.

Perhaps you just make international law up off the top of your head. Why bother, when you can look it up?

ALright, so pleace cite the line from international law that says 'war is illegal, you cannot defend yourself, and you cannot occupy another state'.
International law doesn't try to create some fairytale land where everyone is nice to each other and resolves their disputes over potluck dinners.
It recognizes that there is violence and destruction. It doesn't naively outlaw it and then wash its hands of the responsibility. It tries to temper that violence, by recognizing conduct during war, and how to operate an occupation. An occupying power cannot have summary executions, for example.These kinds of restrictions and caveats and standards of conduct RECOGNIZE that the victor in war can occupy the land and people that had gone to war with them.

When the US defeated the nazis, it occupied germany. That was legal. The UN and international community recognized that it was legal. The germans went through a massive, nationwide 're-education' programme, a brainwashing scheme, in which they rejected nazism, embraced democracy, and if they didn't, they were kept in the camps until they relented. If there had been widespread violence, you can bet that there'd've been more fighitng and more raids. That would've been legal. Similarly, the territory that the israelis call 'the west bank' and its population was part of the wider war agianst israel. They occupied it, the gaza strip, the sinai, parts of lebanon, and the golan heights. And so long as the people in those occupied terrirories continue to struggle against the israelis, they are entitled to crack down on them. The fact that its not nice to be on the receiving end of an occupation hardly means that occupations isn't permissible.

Robbing someone doesn't necessarily involve deadly force

Fair enough, but we're not talking about people merely taking movable objects.

So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence

That means you are permited to kill someone that breaks into your house and threatens your life. Indeed, the very act of robbery is a threat to someone's life. You wouldn't give a mugger your wallet, or a burglar your stuff, or let them take it, if there wasn't an implicit threat that, yes, they will kill you if you don't let them.

In Israel itself, however, the idea of "transfer" – the common euphemism for ethnic cleansing or mass deportation – is discussed openly

Wow, its 'discussed openly' that the peopel makign war on israel should be thrown out. How terrible.

When they start pushing palestinians in the occupied terrirotires into ovens to destroy them en mass, then its genocide. When they start rounding up palestinian-israeli citizens in a town, shooting them all, and burying them in the woods in a mass grave, then its ethnic cleansing.
Until then, its whining from both sides.

No. I'm saying that Israel wants the land and wants to get rid of the Palestinians through 'transfer' or, as the more honest among us would express it, 'ethnic cleansing'.

I honestly don't care if we're talking about mass exportations. We're talking about the palestinians sending suicide bombers on to public buses and blowing up women and children. If 'kicking them out' is the israeli plan, then good, its a good plan and they should've done it decades ago. And if the palestinians use the new land that they've been dropped off into to wage war again, then occupy that and export them from that. Let them end up in the himalayas or siberia if it takes them that long. Let them get forced into pakistan or iran, and then see what their brothers do with them.

Then we'll see ethnic cleansing, but it'll be one group of muslims exterminiating another group of muslims.

That's it? That's your argument?

Its utterly irrelevant that the american press tends to favour the israelis. THe american people tend to favour the israelis anyway. And we're talking about people dying here, the press reports in one countries media being somewhat unfair, yikes, cry me a river.

So Israel can kill at least four people without breaking the ceasefire?

Israel can kill a million people, if they're actively engaging in plots against israel. Ceasefire or not. Ceasefire doesn't mean, 'hey, can you stop shooting at me while I reload'.

Sounds like a very one-sided ceasefire to me.

WHen the isareli government and abbas government agree to a ceasefire, and then a hither to unknown 3rd or 4th party within the territory, that wasn't part of the ceasefire, bombs israel, does that mean that the ceasefire is over and the israelis can bomb Abbas's offices? If thats not the case, why is it an abbrogation of the cease fire when israel hits an organization that wasn't part of it and was planning attacks?

And killing innocent civilians, little kids... that's just "collateral damage", I know.

Someone that bombs a building that's being used to build bombs and carry out attacks against them, and kills civilians in the process, is a helluva lot better than a person that specifically targets and kills civilians.

And killing 45 Palestinians for every Israeli... that's just a lot of collateral damage?

Thats not collateral damage. Thats a 'good job' in warefare, inflicting 40 times as many casualties on the enemy than they can give to you?? Thats the point. If the palestinians are upset over the fact that the yehudis are 40x better at killing them than they are at killing israelis, maybe they should be angry with their inept leadership and put someone in power that can balance out that ratio, not whine about it, or delude themselves into thinking that hte UN or international community is ever going to do anything about it.


[edit on 15-12-2006 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Nygdan
The land that the isral occupies now was taken during the wars with the arabs of the region.

Nice dodge. You said the Palestinians, now it's the Arabs. You can't admit you were wrong, or let it go, one of the two. I'm getting bored with dealing with evasion and outright denial.

Of course i'd rather have to spend the tax money to support israel, rather than to have a state of palestine over there, being used to launch attacks on us.

What attacks were these? No, don't bother. This is ludicrous. Palestinians, above all, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

I show you evidence, you keep on denying it. This is pointless. I actually thought you were smarter than this.

So no, I simply don't care that the palestinians have a hard lot. They want war.

You keep dodging the issue of US responsibility for the ethnic violence. The fact is that Sunni and Shias did not fight until the US came along and started their undercover nonsense. You can say that Saddam repressed them, but that only accounts for thirty years out of the last millennium.

As for international law, it lays down rules for occupying territory. Among these rules is a prohibition on settling the territory concerned... I really can't be bothered with this debate. If you insist on continuing, start coming up with some facts rather than insist I do all the work and then denying the evidence I put before you. It's boring.

The germans went through a massive, nationwide 're-education' programme, a brainwashing scheme, in which they rejected nazism, embraced democracy, and if they didn't, they were kept in the camps until they relented.

Are you just making this up?

So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence

That means you are permited to kill someone that breaks into your house and threatens your life.

No... [sigh] it doesn't - it means you're allowed to use reasonable force to stop them killing you. It's different. Not that it matters... you don't seem able to draw distinctions like this. I doubt I shall reply to any more of your posts, as you seem unable to grasp little nuances like this.

When they start pushing palestinians in the occupied terrirotires into ovens to destroy them en mass, then its genocide. When they start rounding up palestinian-israeli citizens in a town, shooting them all, and burying them in the woods in a mass grave, then its ethnic cleansing.

All this demonstrates is that you can't tell the difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide. I really thought you were clever enough to see that difference, I was obviously wrong.

Originally posted by pavil
Just blame both sides.

I'm not exonerating the Palestinians. Israel has the power to change what's going on there. Palestinians don't, because Israel is not interested in anything other than ethnically cleansing the territories. If they were genuine about trying to get peace, they could.

As to your claim that Israel tries to project it's own version of "the truth" ? Are you telling me the Palestinians do not do the same thing?

Yeah... you're right... that Palestinian lobby is soooo powerful.

The point of the film is that it shows, very clearly, the power structures through which Israel manipulates what's going on in the US media. Can you point to anything remotely comparable?

Israel sometimes admits it does wrong with an attack,

Only after all the denials have failed. Look at what happened with that family wiped out on the beach by Israeli shelling. They denied that for a very long time. Or else, there was "crossfire"... and often we see video evidence that there was no crossfire at all.

And in the case of Tom Hurndall, they managed to find an Arab-Israeli to carry the can... surprise, his lawyer said he was being scapegoated.

While you may think 242 is not relevant anymore don't you think the "land for peace" premise of it should be a cornerstone of any lasting agreement between Arab nations in general and the Israel and Palestine specifically.

I think the Palestinians should be given enough land, in one contiguous area uncrossed by Israeli roads and with adequate water resources, to be able to form their own state. If this means booting some settlers out of the occupied territories, they can resettle. I was nauseated by the coverage of the settlers being moved by the Israeli soldiers, treating them far less brutally than they treat Palestinians whose homes are simply bulldozed without warning.

I mean if I am going to give up land, I would want rocksolid assurances that they would never be used to attack me again.

For heaven's sake, Israel has nukes. What Arab nation is going to attack them now?

As far as scuttling peace talks, both sides manage to do that quite well, don't just blame Israel as you seem to imply.

If you'd like to pick one example of the Palestinians scuttling peace talks, we can look at it and see how the discussion develops. And I've already provided a striking example in this thread of Israelis killing four people during a cease-fire, and the cease-fire holding on the Palestinian side. Can you give a counter-example of the Israelis showing restraint?

Must I show you more to prove something you have already conceded is a blatant distortion?

I conceded that it was a little one-sided. However, I didn't say it was a BLATANT distortion, and in view of the fact that the occupation is illegal for many, many other reasons than that single one, (for example, it's illegal to settle occupied territory under international law) it's not a material distortion. Further, to complain about a UN resolution not being complied with, when earlier in the thread there's a massive list of UN resolutions vetoed by the US that, in a truly democratic world, would have been imposed on Israel, is humbug.

The 242 reference does not affect the thrust of the film, which is that Israel has constructed a very efficient and ruthless propaganda machine which controls US media coverage of Palestine and other Israeli issues. I'm sorry, but if you can demonstrate something that's a little more central to the programme's thesis, I'd be grateful.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Nygdan, i agree with your point that this is a piece of propaganda

but there is a serious problem in palestine

for some reason, israel feels it has the right to oppress the palestinian territories, and are not being held accountable

They do not suppress them just for the fun of it, they don't want to be there.

The problem is that they cannot have a state of anarchy next door, where factions will fight eachother and even Israel where as the nation may not, causing a problem of, who to go to war with? Until Palestine can get a government not hell bent on destroying Israel then Israel will occupy Palestine and pretty much baby sit them until they grow up a little and lay the guns down, which I do not see happening in the near future.

A quick way to fix this would be for neighboring states like Jordan, Egypt and such to close their borders and trade with Palestine, preventing to influx of machine guns and bombs. But of course that wouldn't happen either because it is not so much they want to see Israel constantly engaged in war, they rather see Palestine egaged consistantly in war.. ensures less problems with the Palestinians themselves.

The video is crap, poor docu, poor taste and pure propaganda. Unless you where looking for a video to coincide with your own views instead of something "enlightening"