ForumGarden

A stunning documentary.

link

It presents the side of the Israel/Palestine war that is overlooked in the media coverage.

As a Canadian I am less concerned with the US involvement aspects that the film ends with and intensely concerned with the rest. If you think you know what this war is about, watch this film.

SECTIONS:

Intro |

American Media: Occupied Territory |

Hidden Occupation |

Invisible Colonization |

Violence in a Vacuum |

Defining Who Is Newsworthy |

Myth of U.S. Neutrality |

Myth of the Generous Offer |

Marginalized Voices |

Is Peace Possible?

Interviewed:

Seth Ackerman

Mjr. Stav Adivi

Rabbi Arik Asherman

Hanan Ashrawi

Noam Chomsky

Robert Fisk

Neve Gordon

Rabbi Michael Lerner

Karen Pfiefer

Alisa Solomon

Gila Svirsky

Toufic Haddad

Sam Husseini

Hussein Ibish

Robert Jensen

I separate these last four because they are likely to be attacked most vehemently.

Israel has alway's maintained the upper hand, for as long as that is ALLOWED to remain in place, they alway's will.

I have the greatest empathy for Palestine.

I'd like to see the number of detainees held in Israeli jails that haven't been given access to a trial or a lawyer. The current time allowed is 21 days I believe, though the Israeli government is trying to raise it.

According to figures released by the respected Palestinian Prisoners Support and Human Rights group Addameer, more than 650,000 civilians have been illegally imprisoned since the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. Because the majority of the detainees are male, this accounts for approximately 40% of the total male population in the occupied territories.


oh. here's a number. I'm open to other statistics as this came from aljazeera and, i've been told, they are anti-semitic. which, apparently, affects the actual number of detainees.

Israel’s Hostages?

Amnesty International believes that those captured and held in Israel or Khiam without charge or trial or beyond the expiry of their sentences are held as hostages, to be used as a bargaining counter with Islamist militia groups. Israel and the SLA have more than once stated, particularly since 1991, that the release of the detainees held in Khiam and Israel is conditional on the release of, or accounting for, Israeli soldiers and SLA members missing in action in Lebanon. Several releases have taken place in exchange for information about Israeli soldiers missing in action. In 1991 a series of releases from Khiam took place in exchange for confirmation of the deaths of Rahamin Alsheikh and Yossi Fink, both Israeli soldiers believed to have been taken prisoner by Hizbullah, an armed militia which works against Israel and the SLA’s occupation of the "security zone". In July 1996 45 Khiam detainees were released as part of a series of exchanges of prisoners and bodies by Israel, the SLA and Hizbullah.


This from Amnesty International. Apparently this hostage thing has been some kind of game for a long time. I read earlier today that Israel even keeps the dead on ice and returns them for proper burial as part of the hostage game. I could probably find it again but I've been online for too long already today.

Who said Hezbollah started this by taking soldiers hostage? At least they were soldiers.

Koan .... If I gave an honest, (and probably true) opinion of what is permitted by the Israeli's, I would be instantly banned from FG, in all probablility.

Why the hell the rest of the world chooses to turn a blind eye is all too apparant, to some of us.

annabelle wrote:

Why the hell the rest of the world chooses to turn a blind eye is all too apparant, to some of us.


That's what this documentary and thread are about. There is a reason much of the world is turning a blind eye to it. PR.

The documentary is on that link. It's free.

koan wrote: That's what this documentary and thread are about. There is a reason much of the world is turning a blind eye to it. PR.

The documentary is on that link. It's free.


Not the rest of the world. Most of it is outraged at what is going on.

I find Canada's news coverage dreadfully underreporting the Palestinian side of the war as well. The easiest way to form an opinion is to believe what the Toronto Sun has to say. It's more black and white. (pun not intended) Most of the people I talk to don't want to know the shades of gray because it requires more work.

I also have a 5 year ongoing debate with a close friend about whether or not reading the daily paper every morning is useful. To me, it's only useful for keywords to type into the news search box on the internet.

It would be encouraging if documentaries had more strength at the box office. I'd like to see the percentages change for a while. Who needs Friday the 13th part 20 when we have more frightening things to learn about in the real world?

koan wrote: It would be encouraging if documentaries had more strength at the box office. I'd like to see the percentages change for a while. Who needs Friday the 13th part 20 when we have more frightening things to learn about in the real world?


Totally agree with the above, but it seems some people prefer to plod through life believing in the fantasy world of movies.

The truth can be distorted and hidden, but in the end the truth will prevail....sooner or later, it`s only a matter of time.!

What`s that American saying ?.........Wake up and smell the coffee.!

koan wrote: It would be encouraging if documentaries had more strength at the box office. I'd like to see the percentages change for a while. Who needs Friday the 13th part 20 when we have more frightening things to learn about in the real world?


but surely the movies are the way people escape from the real world - most people appear to actively avoid seeing what is happening, just make the expected responses to the black and white headlines and then forget about it.

I suppose a lot of people consider their duty done if they read the local paper and watch the new on telly every day. The beauty of a documentary is that it gives a broader format for investigation. I would like to see them used for debate. One film presents the topic, a rebuttal film can be made if the first is lopsided. The news stations provide the fodder and leave the real investigating up to shows that have at least an hour to represent the facts.

koan wrote: I suppose a lot of people consider their duty done if they read the local paper and watch the new on telly every day. The beauty of a documentary is that it gives a broader format for investigation. I would like to see them used for debate. One film presents the topic, a rebuttal film can be made if the first is lopsided. The news stations provide the fodder and leave the real investigating up to shows that have at least an hour to represent the facts.


We certainly need some way of presenting a balanced set of facts to allow people to form an informed opinion - the question is how to ensure that the facts are balanced.

It takes a lot of work digging amongst many sources which is why most people don't bother. It would be wonderful if someone could do that work for you an present a distilation but, as it is, you still have to do the work to ensure the someone is unbaised.

If I were to outline a format for "unbiased" it would be that any reputable show would 1) state the issue in plain language 2) Present the facts as they are known 3) Discuss any criticism available in equal segments of time 4) Summarize all points of view in equal lengths of time.

The conclusions are left up to the audience. If the film/program leaves out any aspect of the format then it compromises its own integrity.

The documentary I linked to does not follow this format. I like it because it brings an under-represented POV to the Western public. Until a balanced format is adopted, films like this are necessary.

koan wrote: If I were to outline a format for "unbiased" it would be that any reputable show would 1) state the issue in plain language 2) Present the facts as they are known 3) Discuss any criticism available in equal segments of time 4) Summarize all points of view in equal lengths of time.

The conclusions are left up to the audience. If the film/program leaves out any aspect of the format then it compromises its own integrity.

The documentary I linked to does not follow this format. I like it because it brings an under-represented POV to the Western public. Until a balanced format is adopted, films like this are necessary.


During the week I do not have access to Video so this is the first chance I've had to see it. Awsome - if I only thought some of our US members would watch it I would have some hope that it might do some good.

Many of the clips shown I have already seen (in particular the sight of the Israeli soldier trying his best to break a youth's arm by smashing at it with a rock created outrage in the UK) but the shear extent of the twisting of the news in the US media surprised even me.