[ydoaPs]

I just watched a documentary called Occupation 101.



Does anyone know of a good documentary that argues for the Israeli side?

[A Tripolation]

ydoaPs, on 27 January 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

Does anyone know of a good documentary that argues for the Israeli side?

I don't but I'm hesitant to say that a documentary that is so one-sided is a 'good documentary'.

There is no antagonist in these conflicts. Each side has committed atrocities in the name of land that is their by divine right or original claim. And if I recall correctly, the Six Day War was a result of several nations plotting to push Israel to extinction...and then Israel smacked them around.

I know from your tone that you seem to be pro-palestinian or whatever. But to me, they are both wholly at fault for their troubles.

[ydoaPs]

A Tripolation, on 27 January 2012 - 12:30 AM, said:

I don't but I'm hesitant to say that a documentary that is so one-sided is a 'good documentary'.

There is no antagonist in these conflicts. Each side has committed atrocities in the name of land that is their by divine right or original claim. And if I recall correctly, the Six Day War was a result of several nations plotting to push Israel to extinction...and then Israel smacked them around.

I know from your tone that you seem to be pro-palestinian or whatever. But to me, they are both wholly at fault for their troubles.

From my tone? There wasn't really enough text to gather any sort of tone. I'm just gathering information. If I was "pro-palestinian or whatever", I probably would just leave it at Occupation 101 (if you haven't seen it, it is rather shocking at times). However, this is not the case as I asked for recommendations for documentaries explaining the Israeli side of the situation. So, going back to the OP, know of any good documentaries?

[StringJunky]

I don't know any documentaries but it might help get a balanced view if you could do some study on the events and conditions leading up to the formation of Israel which are a matter of historical fact rather than just opinions from both sides.

[doG]

Here's some interesting video's:

[ydoaPs]

Would it be fair to broadly generalize and say that Palestinians view the situation as a human rights issue and Israelis view it as a legal issue?

doG, on 27 January 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

Here's some interesting video's:

Thanks you; those were interesting.

[lahan]

Israel is very cruel country. I don't know why US supporting them

[ydoaPs]

lahan, on 27 January 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

Israel is very cruel country. I don't know why US supporting them

The phrasing isn't exactly constructive, but the question is valid. Why does the US support Israel to the extent that it does?

[TonyMcC]

I am very uneasy about the way the Israelis seem to believe they have some God given right to keep annexing Palestinian land.

[lahan]

I am sorry.ydoaPs. I am studying in a malayalam meduim school. So I don't know English very much

[JustinW]

Quote

Israel is very cruel country. I don't know why US supporting them

Quote

I am very uneasy about the way the Israelis seem to believe they have some God given right to keep annexing Palestinian land.

The reason that the US backs Israel like it does is because if you look back through the timeline of the conflict it pretty much amounts to Naziism by the Palestinians. And in fact there has been a proven connection between Palestinians and Nazi Germany during the time of the haulicaust. The PLO was founded with the with the specific intent to destroy Israel in 1964. In 1968 the Palestinian National Charter officially called for the liquidation of Israel. There is a lot more examples of the threats and actions that were taken to wipe Israel off the map. All of this because of their religion and the land they sit on. The only times in recent history that Israel has struck first has been when there has been a significant amount of threat to their well being.

As for land. . .These days Israel has a significantly less amount of land than they held in 20's and 30's. All of this they gave to Palestine as peace offerings. They had best claim and hold what they have already or they won't have a pot to piss in if they don't. If you can actually imagine how small the piece that they already sit on is, it is a wonder that they are still there considering that everyone around them is a potential enemy.

[imatfaal]

JustinW, on 27 January 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

The reason that the US backs Israel like it does is because if you look back through the timeline of the conflict it pretty much amounts to Naziism by the Palestinians. And in fact there has been a proven connection between Palestinians and Nazi Germany during the time of the haulicaust. The PLO was founded with the with the specific intent to destroy Israel in 1964. In 1968 the Palestinian National Charter officially called for the liquidation of Israel. There is a lot more examples of the threats and actions that were taken to wipe Israel off the map. All of this because of their religion and the land they sit on. The only times in recent history that Israel has struck first has been when there has been a significant amount of threat to their well being.

As for land. . .These days Israel has a significantly less amount of land than they held in 20's and 30's. All of this they gave to Palestine as peace offerings. They had best claim and hold what they have already or they won't have a pot to piss in if they don't. If you can actually imagine how small the piece that they already sit on is, it is a wonder that they are still there considering that everyone around them is a potential enemy.

1920's Israel? Seriously? - at this point it was a British Administrative area (I think that was the term - it was run under the British Mandate for Palestine after 1922) - before that it was Ottoman

edited to clarify

This post has been edited by imatfaal: 27 January 2012 - 02:45 PM

[JustinW]

Alright, but in 1917 the Balfour Declaration was viewed by Arabs and Jews alike as being a promise for a National Home for Jews in Palestine. So what it amount to is that the British occupied Palestine and ended up giving some of that land to the Jews, and Palestinians have been pissed every since. Right?

[ydoaPs]

StringJunky, on 27 January 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

I don't know any documentaries but it might help get a balanced view if you could do some study on the events and conditions leading up to the formation of Israel which are a matter of historical fact rather than just opinions from both sides.

The thing about documentaries is that you get not only what happened (most of it, anyway), but you also get their viewpoint. If you watch documentaries supporting one side and you watch documentaries supporting the other side of a conflict, you not only get the facts that each side wants to be known, but you get the ones the other side wants to suppress. So, you get what happened and is happening as well as how each side views the situation and how they feel about it. No report other than dates and adjusted figures is going to be unbiased. That approach also misses the human element. So while reading history is important, documentaries, imo, go a long way in understanding as well.

JustinW, on 27 January 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Alright, but in 1917 the Balfour Declaration was viewed by Arabs and Jews alike as being a promise for a National Home for Jews in Palestine. So what it amount to is that the British occupied Palestine and ended up giving some of that land to the Jews, and Palestinians have been pissed every since. Right?

How does one give away land that is being used? The few Palestinians I've talked to thusfar talk of homes that are legally owned by Palestinians being invaded by Israeli settlers and the IDF defends the squatting settlers rather than arresting them. These cases can be challenged in court, but the courts are (as said by Palestinians) set up against the Palestinians as the required proof of ownership for the court is almost impossible to give. Then there are cases of Israel demolishing legally owned Palestinian houses to build settler villages.

I don't know about you, but I'd certainly be pissed if Canadians came into my town and knocked down my house or gave it away. I'd be pretty pissed if a foreign army set up checkpoints every few blocks to restrict my movement to and from home and school, work, the grocery, etc. I'm not saying the actions of the Palestinians are justified, but the anger is more or less reasonable.

[JustinW]

Quote

The thing about documentaries is that you get not only what happened (most of it, anyway), but you also get their viewpoint. If you watch documentaries supporting one side and you watch documentaries supporting the other side of a conflict, you not only get the facts that each side wants to be known, but you get the ones the other side wants to suppress. So, you get what happened and is happening as well as how each side views the situation and how they feel about it. No report other than dates and adjusted figures is going to be unbiased. That approach also misses the human element. So while reading history is important, documentaries, imo, go a long way in understanding as well.

If you'll notice most documentaries are produced with the intent to sway people emotionally towards a given goal. The fact that there are Palestinian documentaries more than Israeli documentaries tells you that history is not a good enough source to establish a justification for the Palestinian plight.

I don't recall Canada ever calling for the destruction or liquidation of Americans or Christians either.

Quote

I'm not saying the actions of the Palestinians are justified, but the anger is more or less reasonable.

Looked at from a Palestinian point of view I kind of agree with this.

[ydoaPs]

JustinW, on 27 January 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

If you'll notice most documentaries are produced with the intent to sway people emotionally towards a given goal.

Which is why you watch the documentaries of BOTH sides-hence the request for Israeli documentaries after having seen a Palestinian one.

JustinW, on 27 January 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

The fact that there are Palestinian documentaries more than Israeli documentaries tells you that history is not a good enough source to establish a justification for the Palestinian plight.

Cold numbers aren't enough for me. We're talking about people here. Breathing, living, loving, bleeding people. "Unbiased" history alone doesn't give the whole picture. I want to understand the human element as well. I'm not saying either side is correct. I just want to know how the differing sides of the conflict view the conflict and how they feel about it. I want the love and I want the hate. I want to understand the situation before it's been sanitized. I'm not sure if that makes any sense to you, but it made sense to me.

Moontanman, on 27 January 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

in fact the reason they are so supportive of the existence of Israel is intimately connected with the belief that the anti Christ will only come into power after Israel destroys the Muslim mosque that sits on the old Jewish Temple which will bring about the reign of the anti Christ and Armageddon

Is THAT really why the US supports Israel? It can't be the stated reason, as it would be blatantly unconstitutional.

[imatfaal]

ydoaPs, on 27 January 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

Which is why you watch the documentaries of BOTH sides-hence the request for Israeli documentaries after having seen a Palestinian one.


Cold numbers aren't enough for me. We're talking about people here. Breathing, living, loving, bleeding people. "Unbiased" history alone doesn't give the whole picture. I want to understand the human element as well. I'm not saying either side is correct. I just want to know how the differing sides of the conflict view the conflict and how they feel about it. I want the love and I want the hate. I want to understand the situation before it's been sanitized. I'm not sure if that makes any sense to you, but it made sense to me.

It makes total sense - I am not convinced it is a good course of action, but it may well still be the best available. It is very difficult to find disinterested commentary on the israel/palestine question, and the partisan commentary is so polarised as to be next to useless. The problem with personalised documentaries with "breathing, living, loving, bleeding people" is that when they are bad and poorly made then they should be ignored and when they are good they are incredibly effective and compelling and thus elicit an emotional response that is quite possibly at odds to a rational decision. I decided not to comment on one side or the other on this thread because I am so torn between the two. I do not believe there is an important issue today with so much misinformation, propaganda, and down-right bias

Quote

Moontanman, on 27 January 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

in fact the reason they are so supportive of the existence of Israel is intimately connected with the belief that the anti Christ will only come into power after Israel destroys the Muslim mosque that sits on the old Jewish Temple which will bring about the reign of the anti Christ and Armageddon

Quote

Is THAT really why the US supports Israel? It can't be the stated reason, as it would be blatantly unconstitutional.

I cannot see Moontanman's original - but I think that reason is completely false. I will respond in more detail when I can work out why I cannot see the original

[Moontanman]

ydoaPs, on 27 January 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

Is THAT really why the US supports Israel? It can't be the stated reason, as it would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Not officially but the religious right, the really fundamentalist ones, like a great many of the popular evangelicals do espouse those views some secretly some more openly but the under lying message is very common in fundamentalist churches. This movement is not new, it has been around a very long time in one incarnation or another, the latest group has it's origins in the early to mid 20th century but it has existed in various forms since very early in the history of Christianity. The 700 club is a very good example of how this message is subtly and sometimes not so subtly delivered to people

This makes it sound less than sensational

http://en.wikipedia....spensationalism

But this type of thing is very common and popular.


http://www.endtime.com/

The sites that assert this crap on the internet are innumerable, TV and internet it's self has been a big factor in allowing it to gain far more prominence in the society of the religious in the US...

If I had a dollar for every church service that has asserted this crap I would be the wealthiest man on the planet. Some members of my family are deeply into this and one of my sons was deeply troubled a long time because his grandmother took him to her church to hear this stuff. It's disturbing and has to be experienced to be believed by most rational people even many Christians deny it is even happening but the movement with this stuff at it's core is what creationism is all about.

Most churches only assert this stuff during church services and seldom assert it in the public domain, it is scary and was a big part of why i just can't give religion in general any credence. Even the more main stream churches often refuse to refute this stuff, preferring to ignore it due to embarrassment as though it will go away if they just pretend it is is not real.

[StringJunky]

ydoaPs, on 27 January 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

The thing about documentaries is that you get not only what happened (most of it, anyway), but you also get their viewpoint. If you watch documentaries supporting one side and you watch documentaries supporting the other side of a conflict, you not only get the facts that each side wants to be known, but you get the ones the other side wants to suppress. So, you get what happened and is happening as well as how each side views the situation and how they feel about it. No report other than dates and adjusted figures is going to be unbiased. That approach also misses the human element. So while reading history is important, documentaries, imo, go a long way in understanding as well.

Yes. you absolutely right, I just meant to get all angles. Even some understanding of the English goverment's perspective at the time might be useful as well. My own sense is that we British were bloody arrogant to carve up the land in the first place..but hey ho we can't change the past now.

[ydoaPs]

StringJunky, on 27 January 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

My own sense is that we British were bloody arrogant to carve up the land in the first place..but hey ho we can't change the past now.

I was thinking the same thing, actually. It's one thing to have a change in government, but it's another to force people out of their homes so others can move in.