Tuesday, August 29, 2006

A Documentary for the Brainwashed, Disillusioned, & Politically Confused

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.

Through the voices of scholars, media critics, peace activists, religious figures, and Middle East experts, Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land carefully analyzes and explains how--through the use of language, framing and context--the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza remains hidden in the news media, and Israeli colonization of the occupied terrorities appears to be a defensive move rather than an offensive one. The documentary also explores the ways that U.S. journalists, for reasons ranging from intimidation to a lack of thorough investigation, have become complicit in carrying out Israel's PR campaign. At its core, the documentary raises questions about the ethics and role of journalism, and the relationship between media and politics.

Interviewees include Seth Ackerman, Mjr. Stav Adivi, Rabbi Arik Ascherman, Hanan Ashrawi, Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Neve Gordon, Toufic Haddad, Sam Husseini, Hussein Ibish, Robert Jensen, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Karen Pfeifer, Alisa Solomon, and Gila Svirsky

You can watch it here: Peace Propaganda, & the Promised Land

Your constructive comments are all welcome.

The above summary was taken from the following website:


  1. Look at the names you list for God's sakes.

    If anyone has a clear cut agenda it's those people: Chomsky/Ashrawi/Fisk/Ibish.

    That's propaganda, and you're falling for it.

  2. I started to watch it, but ceased watching it before the introduction was over. UNSC 242 does NOT call for an Israeli withdrawal from "the territories", as the film claims, but "territories" - not all of them, because the resolution goes on to affirm the right of Israel to live within secure boundaries (so adjustments may be necessary), that all parties are to cease their belligerence, that navigation of the seas be assured, that the refugee problem be settled, and that the inviolability of states in the area be assured, perhaps through the establishment of demilitarized zones.

    This is the course of action that Israel has utterly faithfully followed ever since, through goodwill gestures and more substantial actions. Egypt, Jordan, and even Syria (Quneitra is a partially demilitarized zone) have accepted at least some aspects of this approach. Only the Palestinians themselves and militant Arabs and Muslims continue to act in bad faith in this regard.

    So you now see that the video's introduction saps credibility from the rest of its contents, whatever they may be. I'm not going to waste time watching it further, any more than I would continue doing business with a man who cheats on transactions.

    The fact that you endorse this film, Kronos, diminishes your credibility as well, wouldn't you agree?

  3. Dear Solomon2,

    You must be happy living in ignorant bliss. I must say, I envy you.

    What "Goodwill gestures" are you referring to? Is it the destruction of Beirut in '82, the massacres of Sabra and Shatila, the massacre at Qana in '96 or the 22 year illegal occupation of South Lebanon?

    And there are so many more "Goodwill" gestures I could refer to, but I decided I am not going to waste my time describing the horrors of an apartheid state whose sole justification to their actions is a frivolous promise that "God" made to them about a piece of land.

    Moreover, I take it that you are joking when you say that Israel is working towards solving the refugee problem.
    Now, I'm sure "God" would want the Palestinians to return to their homes in present day Israel, don't you say dear Solomon2?

  4. wc: The fact that Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 means nothing to you? You don't think that was a demonstration of goodwill and an ultimate desire for peace? It's not like Hezbollah was causing massive Israeli casualties back then.

    Nor can Israel be described as an "apartheid" state, not in the South African sense, anyway. Rather, its situation is the reverse: often Israelis and Arabs don't live in integrated neighborhoods because Arabs won't lease or rent to Jewish Israelis due to threats from their fellow Arabs. That's very different from pre-Mandela S.A.'s herding of the deprived majority of its citizens into Bantustans.

    Why should "Solving the refugee problem" be a matter for Israel exclusively? The UNHCR does nothing to help matters, nor have any Arab countries, is that not so? Israel has integrated the Jewish refugees from Arab countries into its citizenry. Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and wishes to do the same in the West Bank, and (unfortunately) facilitates the delivery of "humanitarian" aid to the poor unfortunates who are perpetually held down by excessive welfare and their Arab peers. You can't blame Israel for the Arab refugee problem, any more than Abu Mazen does.

    I can't say I'm as certain about what G-d wants as you are, but could you list a few goodwill gestures from the militant Arab side for my edification, please? Thank you.

  5. Solomon2, in response to your first comment, UNSC 242 does call on Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories in the 1967 war, and a number of other elements too that you pointed out. Note, that this resolution was conjured under Chapter 6 meaning that it is infact a non-binding recommendation dealing with the peaceful resolution of disputes. Mind you, that there does not exist a sinlge acceptable interpretation of this resolution by leading scholars of international law on the elements you mentioned. But, one thing does stand out clearly, is that Israeli forces must withdraw from the occupied territories of the recent war(1967) under any one of these interpretations.
    So, continue watching, and raise more points for a more fruitful discussion.
    And no, it does not harm my credibility at all.

  6. Josewales, you are right that these people I list do have a clear cut agenda and it is called the following:
    1.Exposing biggotry and hatred.
    2.Reaching a peacful resolution to the Israeli -Arab conflict.
    3. Setting up an independent Viable Palestinian state.
    4. Documenting crimes against humanity.

    The only prodaganda that exists is the one you have been fed.

  7. Kronos, I posted the link to the U.N. site so their could be no doubt: there is no "the" (in the English) or "du" (in the French) preceding the word "territories". It is that simple and any other form of 242 has been a deliberate misrepresentation. Translations into other languages may mess things up, but responsible translators know how to do it correctly, and no translators, according to every account, are better than those who work at the U.N. UNSC 242 simply does not commit Israel to withdraw from ALL territory occupied in the '67 war.

    UNSC 242 was not an international condemnation of Israel as much as it was a criticism of the Arab countries that refused to respect Israel's borders, and (left unsaid but obvious in the historical context) criticism of Arab states for promoting terrorism against Israel within the territories under their control.

  8. Teapot9:09 PM

    Hi Kronos,
    I would like to respond seriously on the issue of Arabs and western media. but it will take more time.
    1. I heard today something that I found very disturbing. Lebanese civilians are claiming that during the war Hizbollah men broke into their homes forced them out and put rocket launchers on their roof. After the rockets were launched the IAF destroyed the house. Until now I thought Hezbollah only used houses of their supporters.
    2. LBC is going to air a video of Ron Arad and a video of the kidnappings of 2000. It supposed to be a very disturbing video. If shown on Israeli TV it would create pressure on Olmert to hold the sir and sea siege until the 2 soldiers are free.

    U are one of a kind. I once saw Ashrawi speak at a college. She said it is obvious that the Palestinians will have a democracy because they are well educated and more informed than other Arabs. I think the Palestinians just voted for anarchy.

  9. BTW, as long as we are talking of goodwill gestures, I have one to suggest. The rocket bombardment of Israel by Hezbollah may not have taken so many lives as the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, but it certainly destroyed hundreds of acres of forest. Lebanon has trees in comparitive abundance. Would it not be a wonderful gesture if Lebanon could provide, say, ten thousand seedlings to assist in Israeli reforestation efforts?

  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Powered by Blogger.