• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Watch the film the Israel lobby didn’t want you to see

Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
20,632
Location
Ivory Tower
https://electronicintifada.net/content/watch-film-israel-lobby-didnt-want-you-see/25876

The Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The Lobby – USA, a four-part undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel’s covert influence campaign in the United States.

It is today publishing the first two episodes. The Paris-based Orient XXI has published the same episodes with French subtitles.

The film was made by Al Jazeera during 2016 and was completed in October 2017.

But it was censored after Qatar, the gas-rich Gulf emirate that funds Al Jazeera, came under intense Israel lobby pressure not to air the film.

Although Al Jazeera’s director-general claimed last month that there were outstanding legal issues with the film, his assertions have been flatly contradicted by his own journalists. [...]

You can watch the first two parts in the video embeds above and below.

To get unprecedented access to the Israel lobby’s inner workings, undercover reporter “Tony” posed as a pro-Israel volunteer in Washington.

The resulting film exposes the efforts of Israel and its lobbyists to spy on, smear and intimidate US citizens who support Palestinian human rights, especially BDS – the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.

It shows that Israel’s semi-covert black-ops government agency, the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, is operating this effort in collusion with an extensive network of US-based organizations. [...]
 
Last edited:
The final two episodes are now online as well.

Electronic Intifada said:
[...] The Electronic Intifada is releasing the leaked film simultaneously with France’s Orient XXI and Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar, which have respectively subtitled the episodes in French and Arabic.

In part three, Al Jazeera interviews Bill Mullen, a professor of American Studies at Purdue University in Indiana, and a leading activist in the BDS movement.

As The Electronic Intifada reported in 2016, Mullen and his family found themselves targeted by an organized smear campaign, starting in March of that year.

Several anonymous websites sprang up, containing fabricated accounts of sexual harassment by Mullen, supposedly by a student. [...]
Electronic Intifada said:
[...] Episode four reveals how Israel is working against the Black Lives Matter movement.

Israel’s consul-general in Atlanta is seen in undercover footage complaining that “the major problem for Israel is with the young generation of the Black community.”

The Israel Project’s successful attempts to influence American mainstream media are also detailed, with former CNN journalist Jim Clancy describing it as “propaganda.”

Also in episode four, Tony goes along for the ride with a comically unenthusiastic group of young, conservative think tank fellows, who are compelled by their bosses to join a protest against a Students for Justice in Palestine conference. [...]
 
I don't have time to waste on a bunch of Anti Semitic crap.
How would you know it was anti-semitic unless you watched it?
Probably for the same reason we don't have to watch Loose Change or listen to Duane Gish... we know the particular biases and techniques used by the source to know what to expect: A horribly one-sided presentation that attempts portray one side as being excessively evil while the other side are saints. "Yay pallistinains... Boo israel!"
 
I don't have to pick up dog poop and taste it to know it's dog poop.

It's ironic, then, given this messageboard's inherent scientific bias, that the most famous empirical investigation of that matter was performed by someone named 'Divine'. In a movie that takes no position on Israel at all, iirc. Unless the chicken business was metaphor.
 
Is any of this new information? Who hasn't been aware of the Jewish lobby in the US and the UK?
 
Oy vey folks, you've been so brave in ignoring the thread the first time, now you've ruined the whole effort with your indirect endorsements. Is that what the Hasbara handbook teaches? Didn't think so.
I had no idea of what that was, and now that I know, I have to say I have no intention of reading anything that would be considered propaganda from either side of the argument (including stuff from the Israel side).

This is a skeptics forum. We prefer our sources to not be subject to extreme bias in any way. Why is that so difficult to understand?
 
I had no idea of what that was, and now that I know, I have to say I have no intention of reading anything that would be considered propaganda from either side of the argument (including stuff from the Israel side).

As an aside...Can name a source from each side of the argument that you would not consider propaganda?

This is a skeptics forum. We prefer our sources to not be subject to extreme bias in any way. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Skeptics usually engage with a source before deciding it's extremely biased.
 
I had no idea of what that was, and now that I know, I have to say I have no intention of reading anything that would be considered propaganda from either side of the argument (including stuff from the Israel side).
As an aside...Can name a source from each side of the argument that you would not consider propaganda?
I will get my information from mainstream media sources (CNN, Major broadcast networks, newspapers). While I recognize that no media source will be completely without bias, I feel that they are at least more moderate and will make at least some attempt to provide a semi-balanced perspective.

I do not look for "sides" because even if a biased site is providing information that is factually correct, they typically take stuff out of context, ignore opposing viewpoints, etc.
This is a skeptics forum. We prefer our sources to not be subject to extreme bias in any way. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Skeptics usually engage with a source before deciding it's extremely biased.
[/QUOTE]
I have been around enough to have seen at least some of their materials in the past to recognize their ideological leanings.

Furthermore, there is substantial information on Electronic Intifida on sites like Media Bias.
 
The film maker Clayton Swisher has written a long piece about what's in the documentary series and the circumstances of how it hasn't been aired by Al Jazeera. Published in March of this year in the (jewish) Forward magazine. Interesting read.

Clayton Swisher said:
For since October, we’ve faced a series of unexplained delays in broadcasting our project, the likes of which I’ve never experienced. I was repeatedly told by everyone I asked to “wait,” and was assured our documentary would eventually see the light of day. Then, as now, I took my senior management at its word. To my own specially trained ears, “wait” did not constitute “stop.”


As of now, over half a year later, the films have still not been aired, but instead they were leaked and now published in a concerted effort by the Electronic Intifada, Orient XXI in France and Al Akhbar in Lebanon with respective subtitles in French and Arabic.
 
Last edited:
I had no idea of what that was, and now that I know, I have to say I have no intention of reading anything that would be considered propaganda from either side of the argument (including stuff from the Israel side).

This is a skeptics forum. We prefer our sources to not be subject to extreme bias in any way. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Come on, get with the program. It's merely a filtering technique. Apply this matrix:

TheirSide|Myside
0|1
 
Read the article linked in my previous post and judge for yourself if you think watching the films will be worth your time.

I'm going to guess this documentary teaches us how awful, AWFUL it is that these people (Jews, Israelis and people who don’t hate them) advocate in their own self-interest in opposition to those that hate them, who should be allowed to disseminate their own narrative unopposed and unquestioned.

Oh yeah, and no matter how openly they do it, it’s still “secret” and “clandestine” in need of being “exposed”.
 
Of course you're going to guess. Reading the article as recommended could potentially have an impact on the mountain of prejudices you can so comfortably build irrelevant (for everybody but yourself) guesswork upon.
 
It's like the Jack Chick view of non-Christians: he assumed they've never even heard of Jesus because of course if they had they'd have instantly converted, as they do after two minutes of preaching by that insufferable little girl.

The US is well aware of Israel's bad behavior, including the times they attacked us themselves. Like the old man dating the gold-digging hussy we know damn well what she is, and what our relationship is. But we're getting what we want out of it so we'll continue on as we are, thanks. You can't "enlighten" us to anything we don't already know and accept.
 
It's like the Jack Chick view of non-Christians: he assumed they've never even heard of Jesus because of course if they had they'd have instantly converted, as they do after two minutes of preaching by that insufferable little girl.

The US is well aware of Israel's bad behavior, including the times they attacked us themselves. Like the old man dating the gold-digging hussy we know damn well what she is, and what our relationship is. But we're getting what we want out of it so we'll continue on as we are, thanks. You can't "enlighten" us to anything we don't already know and accept.


Then what's the whining about?
 
I'm going to guess this documentary teaches us how awful, AWFUL it is that these people (Jews, Israelis and people who don’t hate them) advocate in their own self-interest in opposition to those that hate them, who should be allowed to disseminate their own narrative unopposed and unquestioned.

Oh yeah, and no matter how openly they do it, it’s still “secret” and “clandestine” in need of being “exposed”.

Well, racist, White nationalist neo-Nazi types who "advocate in their own self-interest in opposition to those that hate them" truly are despicable AWFUL people.

But that's not what this documentary is about. I haven't finished watching all four parts yet. But it seems to be very similar to the documentary about the Israeli lobby in the UK (which I have seen in its entirety). Frankly I don't see what the fuss is all about. There isn't a whiff of anti-semitism in anything I've seen so far. It doesn't say anything that isn't true about Israeli influence in the US. Some of the things we see going on might be technically illegal but this is mainly a story about the inner workings of a successful PR campaign.

If you want to see something that is anti-semitic, Sasha Baron Cohen's 'Who is America' is far more troublesome. Not only does it show Jews as duplicitous liars, it exposes the extent to which American politicians will suspend their disbelief when they are asked to help out the Jewish state.
 
Of course you're going to guess. Reading the article as recommended could potentially have an impact on the mountain of prejudices you can so comfortably build irrelevant (for everybody but yourself) guesswork upon.

That's one possibility. Another is that I've read so many of those articles and watched enough videos that I can reasonably predict what they're going to say. It's not like they're coming up with something new, they're only re-hashing and re-presenting the same material they've been working on for decades or longer.

And yes, it tends to boil down to people who have become immersed in this alternative narrative created by Electronic Intifada (like their chosen name shouldn’t tip you off to their partisanship?), the ISM, and other organizations are absolutely flabbergasted to learn that not only is there another point of view, but that many of the people who espouse that view are educated, articulate and organized.

Being organized, if you’re Jewish or in any way related to Jews, Judaism or Israel, is proof of the great Zionist Conspiracy. It’s always, ”Oh my Gawd!!1! Those people wrote a pamphlet! That proves the great Hasbara conspiracy!!1! That’s how I know that person on Facebook is a paid Hasbara agent, he must have read the pamphlet!!!” or ”Oh my Gawd1!!! Can you believe they had the gall to form a lobbyist group?!1! How dastardly they must be to use the same means everyone else uses to convince the sheeple they’re not so evil after all!!1”

So yeah, I’m pretty sure what’s in it and that were I to take the time to look at it, like I’ve looked at thousands of other articles and videos, that it would not contain anything I haven’t already seen.
 
Last edited:
But that's not what this documentary is about. I haven't finished watching all four parts yet. But it seems to be very similar to the documentary about the Israeli lobby in the UK (which I have seen in its entirety). Frankly I don't see what the fuss is all about. There isn't a whiff of anti-semitism in anything I've seen so far. It doesn't say anything that isn't true about Israeli influence in the US. Some of the things we see going on might be technically illegal but this is mainly a story about the inner workings of a successful PR campaign.

The whiff of anti-Semitism is when you realize that advocating for Israel is being presented as being sinister in a way that nobody else is when they advocate for their cause.

If you want to see something that is anti-semitic, ...

Do I want to chase your red herring? No thanks. Stick to the topic, please.
 
I'm going to guess this documentary teaches us how awful, AWFUL it is that these people (Jews, Israelis and people who don’t hate them) advocate in their own self-interest in opposition to those that hate them, who should be allowed to disseminate their own narrative unopposed and unquestioned.
Skepticism at its finest! Why bother examining the evidence when you can just jump straight to a conclusion based on nothing more than your preconceptions?

I don't have the patience to watch videos, but I did read the linked article and nothing jumped out at me as being antisemitic. You don't have to hate someone to be suspicious of them disseminating a 'narrative' advocating their own self-interest - no matter who they are or what their agenda. And it doesn't have to be nefarious to be bad.

The whiff of anti-Semitism is when you realize that advocating for Israel is being presented as being sinister in a way that nobody else is when they advocate for their cause.
Is that like the whiff of anti-business you get when when you realize that advocating for coal power stations is being presented as being sinister, or the whiff of anti-military when advocating for invading North Korea is being presented as sinister, or the whiff of anti-science when advocating for artificial intelligence is being presented as sinister? You don't have to be 'anti' to realize that blindly accepting a particular advocacy might not be in our best interests.

When any group is pushing an agenda purely for their own self-interest we should be concerned, because even if their motives are pure they may distort facts and propagate half-truths to reinforce their arguments. We should realize that advocacy is not objective, and avoid being unduly influenced by it. And the first step is knowing what that influence is. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to escape our notice and become insidious.
 
And yes, it tends to boil down to people who have become immersed in this alternative narrative created by Electronic Intifada (like their chosen name shouldn’t tip you off to their partisanship?), [bla]


Are you somehow claiming that the Electronic Intifada made up the films or what is the "argument" about one of the leaking outlets? It's like bitching about Assange while trying to discredit the "Collateral Murder" video. We are talking about films by professional journalists working for Al Jazeera. Try to focus.
 
When any group is pushing an agenda purely for their own self-interest we should be concerned, because even if their motives are pure they may distort facts and propagate half-truths to reinforce their arguments. We should realize that advocacy is not objective, and avoid being unduly influenced by it. And the first step is knowing what that influence is. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to escape our notice and become insidious.

We can save a lot of time just knowing most things are not objective. That way, we don't have to follow the link.

Lobbyists are lobbying....got it.
 
Skepticism at its finest! Why bother examining the evidence when you can just jump straight to a conclusion based on nothing more than your preconceptions?

Out of faith that if it contained anything other than what I described, someone would say, "Nuh-uh! It says this!!!"

The fact that it hasn't happened yet tells me it's very unlikely to happen at all.

I don't have the patience to watch videos, but I did read the linked article and nothing jumped out at me as being antisemitic. You don't have to hate someone to be suspicious of them disseminating a 'narrative' advocating their own self-interest - no matter who they are or what their agenda. And it doesn't have to be nefarious to be bad.

You're conflating different things that, I'm sure, seem like the same in your mind.

Is that like the whiff of anti-business you get when when you realize that advocating for coal power stations is being presented as being sinister, or the whiff of anti-military when advocating for invading North Korea is being presented as sinister, or the whiff of anti-science when advocating for artificial intelligence is being presented as sinister? You don't have to be 'anti' to realize that blindly accepting a particular advocacy might not be in our best interests.

Sure, but in general if you have a problem with someone's advocacy, you point out how it's wrong or misleading, then you can present more accurate information. When it comes to Israel, it's the very fact that people advocate for Israel that is presented as being bad.

Like when CE posted a link to a Hasbera handbook. She didn't say anything in there was inaccurate or misleading. In her mind, it's the very fact that someone wrote it and made it available to people who want to advocate for Israel that is threatening.

When any group is pushing an agenda purely for their own self-interest we should be concerned, because even if their motives are pure they may distort facts and propagate half-truths to reinforce their arguments. We should realize that advocacy is not objective, and avoid being unduly influenced by it. And the first step is knowing what that influence is. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to escape our notice and become insidious.

All of politics is people pushing their own agenda for their own purposes, including Al-Jazeera and Electronic Intifada.
 
We should be following Israel's example.
#EthnostatesFTW

There was once a time when you tried to make articulate arguments for your point of view. You stopped because you didn't win those arguments, and now rely on sarcasm instead.
 
Back
Top Bottom