Documentary about Israel/Palestine

[JediKnight2.01]

Oh no, students had to watch something that doesn't present your preferred point of view!

I support teaching students factual information.

Did it occur to anyone that the filmmakers might genuinely believe that the "connection" is itself propaganda? or at least that causation goes the other way?

I think the kids who made "Loose Change" believed in their film too.

 

[Gazpacho]

I support teaching students factual information.

It is not counterfactual to disagree about the significance of facts or about causation.

I think the kids who made "Loose Change" believed in their film too.

"Loose Change" JAQs off and hardly ever dares to say what it's driving at. Comparing it to "Occupation 101" is intellectually lazy.

 

[Thunder]

I think the kids who made "Loose Change" believed in their film too.

Leni Riefenstahl truly believed in her work as well.

 

[Gazpacho]

Godwin.

 

[Mycroft]

It is not counterfactual to disagree about the significance of facts or about causation.


"Loose Change" JAQs off and hardly ever dares to say what it's driving at. Comparing it to "Occupation 101" is intellectually lazy.

It may be counter-factual if you don't have any facts to back up your disagreement on the significance of facts or causation.



"Occupation 101" declares itself to be propaganda in the title. Think about it. "Occupation" declares they're only going to present the anti-Israel narrative, they're not even going to try to be objective. "101" presents it as an introductory class. The basic "facts" you need to understand before you move on to the intermediate and advanced anti-Israel propaganda.

 

[DC]

I wonder if anyone has seen "Israel Palestine History of the conflict"
this is a pro Israel documentation that i liked a lot. Its also pretty onesided and i wonder if it is factually correct, anyone seen it?

 

[bigjelmapro]

Oh no, students had to watch something that doesn't present your preferred point of view!

So no distinction between a POV and a 'documentary' that presents both propaganda of the disinformation and misinformation kind with obvious omissions and fabrications is now protected and counted as a POV?

Did it occur to anyone that the filmmakers might genuinely believe that the "connection" is itself propaganda? or at least that causation goes the other way?

Causation only goes one way. If you have a counter-example(s), then provide it.

The link I gave summarizes many of the issues within this 'documentary'.

 

[DC]

a PoV has not to be factual to be a PoV

 

[bigjelmapro]

a PoV has not to be factual to be a PoV

Posing as a 'documentary' and stating information as if they are facts, when in certain cases they aren't, isn't really a POV. Propaganda of the disinformation kind, is just that, propaganda. Could pose as an opinion, but then the extreme version of say, the Armenian genocide and that it didn't occur, could also not really be a POV. I personally think that in 'documentaries' like these, there's a certain responsibility to provide factual evidence.

 

[DC]

Posing as a 'documentary' and stating information as if they are facts, when in certain cases they aren't, isn't really a POV. Propaganda of the disinformation kind, is just that, propaganda. Could pose as an opinion, but then the extreme version of say, the Armenian genocide and that it didn't occur, could also not really be a POV. I personally think that in 'documentaries' like these, there's a certain responsibility to provide factual evidence.

i am not so sure if taking the Armenian genocide as an example was a smart idea

 

[bigjelmapro]

i am not so sure if taking the Armenian genocide as an example was a smart idea

Its an extreme example, as stated. Its a POV of many Turks that it did not happened. Would you view a Turkish 'documentary' stating that it did not happened, as a valid POV, or just propaganda? Simple question....

 

[Gazpacho]

Causation only goes one way.

No, sorry. You're talking about 100-year conflict of actions and reactions. Causation does not trivially go one way.

The link I gave summarizes many of the issues within this 'documentary'.

Not really, no. Most of its criticisms are "you didn't show what I (and Israel propagandists generally) would consider important. Occupation 101 isn't offering to tell everything about the conflict and no documentary could. It's about the effect of the conflict on Palestinians' lives.

 

[bigjelmapro]

No, sorry. You're talking about 100-year conflict of actions and reactions. Causation does not trivially go one way.

Which 100-year conflict? I would understand the 60 year one, the 40 year one, but 100 years?

Causation, by definition, goes one way. Perhaps you want to use another word.

Not really, no. Most of its criticisms are "you didn't show what I (and Israel propagandists generally) would consider important. Occupation 101 isn't offering to tell everything about the conflict and no documentary could. It's about the effect of the conflict on Palestinians' lives.

Then you didn't bother reading the issues that were linked. If you present this conflict, in an introductory level, you should at the very least provide some level of detail on how this conflict came about and how it has perpetuated for this long, not this half-baked correlations to civil rights movements or British colonialism. Perhaps you would like to try again?

 

[Gazpacho]

Which 100-year conflict? I would understand the 60 year one, the 40 year one, but 100 years?

I was aiming for the date of the Balfour Declaration, which would be 93 years.

Causation, by definition, goes one way. Perhaps you want to use another word.

Both Israel and the Palestinian people are agents in this conflict. Both have reacted to the actions of the others.

Then you didn't bother reading the issues that were linked.

I read the entire article and I watched the entire film.

If you present this conflict, in an introductory level, you should at the very least provide some level of detail on how this conflict came about and how it has perpetuated for this long,

This appears to be just another way of saying "reach the politically correct conclusions."

 

[Tapio]

Then you didn't bother reading the issues that were linked. If you present this conflict, in an introductory level, you should at the very least provide some level of detail on how this conflict came about and how it has perpetuated for this long, not this half-baked correlations to civil rights movements or British colonialism.

I would like to point out that the bolded parts of the film constitute as a very small part of the whole. As poor as those parts might be (and especially if they are), I definitely would not trash the rest of the flick because of them. I also thought there was quite an amount of detail regarding the history of the conflict. More than on the pro-Israeli film anyway.

Is it really so hard to look, even take a tiny peak, past that ironhide of affirmation and reinforcing of your thoughts and ideas regarding the subject?

Occupation 101 to me was an emotional experience. The fine details do not matter. What matters is that there are people, both Jews and Muslims, suffering. The film gave faces to this suffering. I would recommend watching the other films linked to on this thread as well.

 

[bigjelmapro]

I was aiming for the date of the Balfour Declaration, which would be 93 years.

I keep hearing this as if its was an exclusive statement for a Jewish state, which it isn't, and as if this declaration was somehow followed through instead of contradicted until the British fled. And lastly, this declaration wasn't a marking point for this conflict we're currently in.

Both Israel and the Palestinian people are agents in this conflict. Both have reacted to the actions of the others.

Moral equivalence fail, and excessive laziness strikes yet again.

I read the entire article and I watched the entire film.

No you didn't. Otherwise you wouldn't summarize the article linked with the "" bit.

This appears to be just another way of saying "reach the politically correct conclusions."

As was this gem?:

Both Israel and the Palestinian people are agents in this conflict. Both have reacted to the actions of the others.

The film fails to address basic issues, lays blame on overwhelmingly one side, and makes blanket statements that justify terror as a form of 'resistence'. Nothing new.

 

[bigjelmapro]

I would like to point out that the bolded parts of the film constitute as a very small part of the whole. As poor as those parts might be (and especially if they are), I definitely would not trash the rest of the flick because of them. I also thought there was quite an amount of detail regarding the history of the conflict. More than on the pro-Israeli film anyway.

It sets a precedent and runs with this throughout the documentary. I'm not looking for a pro- or anti- anything, but a responsible summary of this conflict, which at this point, it isn't.

Is it really so hard to look, even take a tiny peak, past that ironhide of affirmation and reinforcing of your thoughts and ideas regarding the subject?

Ironhide? Don't confuse making an informed assessment of this conflict as some stubborn reluctance to refuse to see the other side. There was one point during the earlier stage of my studies of this conflict for almost a decade and a half that I was more critical of Israel than to the PA/PLO/etc., but I attribute this to where you are now currently, not being informed of all the factors. I advise you to delve into this subject more, which would go beyond that scope of simply watching documentaries, before you judge me on my position. If you want to talk further, then provide some talking points rather than this baseless rhetoric directed at me.

Occupation 101 to me was an emotional experience. The fine details do not matter. What matters is that there are people, both Jews and Muslims, suffering. The film gave faces to this suffering. I would recommend watching the other films linked to on this thread as well.

This whole conflict is an emotional ride, for both sides, no doubt. But yet it still reads like a documentary and as stated several times already, including specific points, its still disinformation.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Yoav Shamir, Machssomim / Checkpoint

(an unscripted series of encounters at check points in the West Bank during 2002-2003)

I too highly recommend this one.
Saw it at the IDFA in Amsterdam, the director was there and gave an introduction.

Some Muslim friends of mine saw it on TV and were foaming at the mouth about it. They couldn't believe that the film is made by an Israeli, when I told them.

The film records the endless waiting at Israeli checkpoints that the Palestinians have to go through and the weird orders that the soldiers have to follow. ('You can go through, but your wife has to stay here').
The Palestinians are bored, annoyed or desperate. The soldiers are on edge and are just trying to get through the day wanting people to follow orders.

And then, in one of the weirdest scenes I've ever seen in a documentary, everybody just seems to forget the part they are playing.
On a snowy day, some Palestinian guys and the soldiers start -well- breaking each others balls, I guess.
They make fun of each other and the whole thing ends with some soldiers dropping their guns and having a snowball fight with the Palestinians, giggling through the whole thing.
When the parties have battled out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by soaping each other in with snow, everybody falls back in their role.
The soldiers pick up their guns and the Palestinians have to show their papers and wait endlessly in line again.

 

[Gazpacho]

Moral equivalence fail, and excessive laziness strikes yet again.

A sure sign of a propaganda culture is that those who state the obvious are criticized for not taking the correct side.

 

[bigjelmapro]

A sure sign of a propaganda culture is that those who state the obvious are criticized for not taking the correct side.

Sorry, can't turn that tables and let flow the baseless rhetoric once again. Its pretty self-evident that the PA and Hamas have learned quite a bit from Hezbollah in terms of indoctrination. Can't say this for one bit in Israel, even when some Israelis have fallen for much of the same Hezbollah-esk indoctrination.

If you can't argue the points, then just fold.