Hi Jeff, just to clarify. I appreciated the video that Neri posted. My concern was that some may use this video as evidence to say there is no racism in Israel. A perspective that I know Neri does not share.
I was preempting a response from those who deny the problem of racial discrimination within Israel.
On the one hand the positive thing of the video is here is an example of Jewish-Israelis who showed courage and compassion to a Palestinian-Israeli woman being discriminated against. But on the other hand the fact that this video was made demonstrates that Israel (like other nations) needs to continue to ever vigilant in combatting racism. The challenge for Israel is how not to build racism within a society that intrinsically seeks to identify itself as a Jewish State. There are some who can navigate this morally challenging goal, but there are many who fall into the trap of thinking this means elevating Jewish status above non-Jewish. This is a form of Zionism that is untenable with democracy and human rights.
Here is another video I found also shows propaganda - horrible to try to fake human suffering for political agenda, makes the real suffering less believable...
Jeff, this video is a disgraceful attempt to disguise the real impact of 43 years of military occupation by Israel. Only gullible people already fully brainwashed would accept it as representing anything close to the true situation.
Just as it is despicable to try and minimise the Holocaust. It is despicable to undermine the plight of the Palestinian people.
The video focuses on 2 days. 1 day 30 September 2000 and another day in April 2002.
1. The man shot in the leg
The video disputes the man is shot in the leg because no blood is seen. For crying out aloud, if the man was shot with a rubber bullet are we going to see blood? No. Yes, potentially if he was shot in the head but not necessarily in the leg. Did the commentator raise that is a reason why there was no blood seen.
2. The man shooting in the hole in the wall.
From what I saw of the video it would lead me to agree with the commentator. But because I am already skeptical of the producer I would need further evidence to clarify what was happening.
3. The boy with blood on the head
The commentator suggests this is fake. And why? Because he holds his head up high when he is carried? Come on...
4. The alleged dead man in a funeral procession in Jenin
Hard to tell what is happening here. Certainly if you are already brainwashed you will believe what the commentator says with few questions. The questions I have are how do we know this is a funeral procession? What is to say the man is not being carried on a stretcher? The response to that is there does appear to be a funeral-like blanket that goes over a dead person. The next question to ask is what is the motive for this? What cameras are on the ground at that time to film this event. Obviously the group is not doing this for the benefit of the Israelis (or the drone) flying above.
5. The speed of ambulances turning up to pick up injured persons
The commentator cynically tries to present the fact that ambulances turned up to help injured persons as something of a staged event. Who would have thought that Palestinians could be so organised as to predict that people would be injured during such a situation?? Is that what the commentator is really telling us. This type of logic reeks of racism. The whole video is a disgraceful attempt to minimise the deaths of Palestinians.
Jeff, the difference between the video Samira presented and what you showed is Samira's was an artistic representation of the Palestinian struggle. Yes, it did a show a certain perspective and yes some could take away an unfair representation of Israelis. But Jeff the video that you shared is purpotedly a documentary. As a documentary it gave no acknowledgement of the quantitative killings of Palestinians since occupation began in 1967 (or the second or third phase of occupation). It gave no sense that Palestinians were being killed. Instead this video sought to create the false impression faking deaths was part and parcel of this conflict.
Jeff how do you feel if people deny the Holocaust? Rightfully so you should be angry. How should people feel towards those that deny the loss and suffering of Palestinians? To think anything other than anger or sadness shows a lack of compassion and sensitivity for the other.
Why cannot we acknowledge the suffering that both the Jewish and Palestinian communities have felt during the past 100 years? Why do some seek to minimise (or wish away) the suffering of another?
They are both cheap propaganda... I really with yoy would use the same ruler for all issues not just ones you agree with...
I agree it is important to base our decisions on principle. It is using a principled approach that I made my decision. The principle used is
1. There are variety of formats that advocates can use to influence others.
2. Those formats may include, amongst others: documentary and artistic representations (political cartoons, comedy, paintings, videos, songs).
3. The format of political expression chosen carries with it different effects. For example a documentary demands a more rigorous and objective standard to the truth. Whereas artistic representations, by their nature, are inherently subjective and not meant to be the final word on a topic.
4. Whatever format is chosen care should be made to match the end with the means. (ie a rejection of the ends justifies the means approach. Or put another way be the change you want to see in the world.
The end result is this - we may both agree that we may not have made the French video as it is seen in its final product. For example, as I mentioned previously I would have emphasised the dangers of suicide bombing and violent resistance (eg a figure could have put his hand up to a Palestinian to indicate no); I would have empashised Israelis who have struggled at great personal cost for Palestinian self-determination. But despite, my differences, I still hold that as a piece of art, this crosses no red lines. In contrast Jeff the video you shared is purportedly a documentary. And it is judged on different grounds to a piece of art. The alleged documentary fails to do its job ie present to an audience an objective presentation of the conflict. There are different tests depending on the format of expression used. You may disagree but that is the difference between art and documentary.
Does that give artists free license to make what they want? Well of course freedom of expression would say yes. However, I would urge artists to be aware of the responsibility they carry in their representations and the potential dangers that may result from their works of art.
The principle is doe it have a truthful representation or is it propaganda and spreading lies... If they showed children coming out of a palestinan schools dressed like suicide bombers running into cafes is that ok? Artist is trying to make a point about insightment but the underlining message is pretty obvious.....
Would you defend such a clip?
I'd have to see the clip first. As I indicated earlier I would encourage any artist to try and round out their message linking in a common humanity theme. This was missing from Samira's video. But that is just my personal choice. Artists do have a greater licence with 'truth' than documentary makers. At their worst artists can merely peddle mistruths and the like and further build enmity between people. At their best artists can empower people to see another suffering and seek for a way forward for all people. Samira's video did not meet the latter criteria and it was not merely the former.
If anything this dialogue shows that artists must continue to wrestle with how best to present their message without it getting distorted or misread.
So what do you think about the following: