The film is propaganda, designed to portray the Israelis in a bad light.
Agreed. But I'd say most of what people in the US, and to a lesser extent the UK, see about the Israel/Palestine issue is also propaganda, from the other side.
For example, if 3 people are killed in a suicide bombing in Israel, it will make the main TV news bulletins here, and probably in the US also (unless it's a very busy news day). 3 Palestinians killed by the IDF, even if they are innocent bystanders,rarely makes the news.
Scenes of brutality by Israeli soldiers are presented with no background in which to frame the incident.
Would you expect suicide bombings to be presented with "background" to frame the incident?
I've been gone all day so I'm too tired to summarize the information at the following web-site, so I'll just post the web-address and you can read it yourself. It's a pro-Israeli web-site, so you can call it propaganda if you wish,
It
is propaganda. It's telling one side of a story. Can I point you to a more impartial site? It's the US State Department Human Rights reports, which they compile yearly, on every country in the world:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61690.htmThis site presents some facts that strike directly at some of the most common accusations made by western critics of Israeli policy.
Presenting
some facts doesn't give a true picture. To give a made up example:
"My neighbour slashed a woman with a scalpel yesterday, leaving her needing 20 stiches", makes him sound like a nutter, saying he's a doctor and he performed a caesarian on her makes it sound very different.
One side of a story never gives you an accurate picture.
Well mate, the Peel Commission says you Brits mucked things up pretty well to get the ball rolling.
I think the British, so used to the good old British compromise, underestimated the determination of both sides to have it all, and the resistance to compromise. The original Balfour declaration, after all, called for a Jewish homeland
in Palestine, and nothing prejudicing the rights of non Jews already there.
Well Lasz, they don't have a solution...at least, not a workable one.
There is of course a solution, it's called "the two state solution". It's what just about every country in the world supports. Implementing it is something else entirely.
Except, possibly, that the Israelis give up even more land,
The land Israel is supposed to "give up" is that taken in 1967, that even Israel itself does not claim is part of Israel. How can they be "giving up" that which they say is not theirs?
grant unrealistic "rights" to the "oppressed" Palestinians which jeopardize their own security
The "rights" Israel has to give to the Palestinians is independence.
removal of the security fence,
A security fence is Israel's right. But it has to be on the border. It would be a lot more effective on the border, too. As the military historian Martin Van Creveld points out, the problem with the current wall is that Israel is on both sides of it. What he didn't add, probably because the current convoluted route wasn't proposed then, is that the Palestinians are also on both sides of it.
a drawdown of Israeli military forces,
I've never seen that suggested as part of a peace plan. The size of the Israeli army is up to Israel.
reduction of troop presence at crossing points between Palestinian areas and Israeli settlements.
Reduction of Israeli settlements. Then you won't need the army to guard them
The essential decency of Western civilization is our greatest source of strength and what most clearly differentiates us from the savages we fight against. But Israelis could, perhaps, be excused for wondering if those of us far removed from Hezbollah's rockets are going a bit too far in indulging our moral vanity at their expense."
The biggest problem with Israeli tactics is that they don't work. Collective punishment of the Lebanese population has seen them rally round Hezbollah, because they are seen as the only ones who can stand up to Israel. Bombing of Lebanon has seen Hezbollah rocketing Israel, with 40 Israeli civilians killed.
What began as a border incident with 10 Israeli soldiers killed and captured has turned into 100 Israelis dead, over a thousand Lebanese dead, Israel's reputation in the world tarnished even more, Hezbollah's raised amongst the Arabs.
Look back to the news in the first couple of days of this. Hezbollah was being criticised throughout the Arab world. Israel has gone from being the victim to the agressor, and all because once again they have chosen precisely the wrong way of going about things.
You don't win a war against guerillas with overwhelming military force. It just doesn't work.
When Aerial Sharon came to power in Israel in 2000, promising to "let the IDF win", 4 Israeli civilians had been killed in Israel during the current intifada. By the time he left power, the figure was over 400. And Israel was seen as the bad guy.
What is the point of supporting tactics that don't just not work, but actually make the situation worse?
