America's one-eyed view of war:

[Risto 0]

This video itself is the fraud — originally claiming to be an actual "60 Minutes" report. It’s already been posted on VJ, and has already been debunked.

and debunked by who? you? a

Actually, I was going to ask the same thing. I see the link you posted to a previous thread about this video where you said it was proven to be a fraud, but I don't see where you actually proved it to be a thread. You said:

Look at it again. The "producers" begin with a title of their own making (which is not part of any "60 Minutes" report that has ever aired -- note the absence of the logo,) adding the sound effect of the trademark ticking stopwatch to fool viewers into believing it's part of the actual "60 Minutes" piece.

Well, that may have been what you got out of it, but that's not what most of us got out of it. What the producers are doing is analysing a piece that ran on 60 minutes, basically showing how 60 minutes was duped.

Instead, after about :40 seconds, they cut back to their own propaganda (right at the point where the "60 Minutes" logo disappears.) Note the change when the "60 Minutes" reporter's voice disappears, and another voice takes over.

Yes, and it is obvious that the "Pallywood" analysis is beginning here. They don't appear to be disguising that fact at all.

The rest of the piece is nothing from any "60 Minutes" report at all, but rather someone's extremely weak attempt at anti-Palestinian propaganda, which the producers have tried to hoodwink viewers into believing is an actual report broadcast on "60 Minutes."

Again, I personally was never under the impression that it was and I don't see why you think the producer was trying to say it was. I think you are missing the point of the video. It is not a recording of a 60 minutes program, it is a critisism of that program.

But none of this is to say that the video has not been debunked somewhere. If you have actual proof showing it is a fraud, please post the link.

There is no honesty anymore among the thieves

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

This video itself is the fraud — originally claiming to be an actual "60 Minutes" report. It’s already been posted on VJ, and has already been debunked.

and debunked by who? you? a

Actually, I was going to ask the same thing. I see the link you posted to a previous thread about this video where you said it was proven to be a fraud, but I don't see where you actually proved it to be a thread. You said:

Look at it again. The "producers" begin with a title of their own making (which is not part of any "60 Minutes" report that has ever aired -- note the absence of the logo,) adding the sound effect of the trademark ticking stopwatch to fool viewers into believing it's part of the actual "60 Minutes" piece.

Well, that may have been what you got out of it, but that's not what most of us got out of it. What the producers are doing is analysing a piece that ran on 60 minutes, basically showing how 60 minutes was duped.

Instead, after about :40 seconds, they cut back to their own propaganda (right at the point where the "60 Minutes" logo disappears.) Note the change when the "60 Minutes" reporter's voice disappears, and another voice takes over.

Yes, and it is obvious that the "Pallywood" analysis is beginning here. They don't appear to be disguising that fact at all.

The rest of the piece is nothing from any "60 Minutes" report at all, but rather someone's extremely weak attempt at anti-Palestinian propaganda, which the producers have tried to hoodwink viewers into believing is an actual report broadcast on "60 Minutes."

Again, I personally was never under the impression that it was and I don't see why you think the producer was trying to say it was. I think you are missing the point of the video. It is not a recording of a 60 minutes program, it is a critisism of that program.

But none of this is to say that the video has not been debunked somewhere. If you have actual proof showing it is a fraud, please post the link.

Whoever originally posted the video claimed it was a "60 Minutes" report. In fact, Lucky Strike cut and pasted the info directly from the site:

"This is a really interesting 60 minutes segment from a few yeas ago about how the Palestinians use their own camera crews and actors to basically set up war scenes in their favor. Their calling it Pallywood and I thought it was pretty relavent considering whats happening now in the middle east."

So if you paid attention to what I wrote, I debunked the claim that it was an actual "60 Minutes" video.

And considering that the producers have already been willing to compromise their credibility by making such a false claim, they have cast the rest of their "production" into doubt.

Interestingly, the claim has since been removed from the YouTube site (I suspect due to the threat of litigation from CBS.)

So who actually produced this piece ? Why would you trust a source that gives absolutely no information about who's behind it ? The producres try to give themselves legitimacy by using a "60 Minutes" clip that has nothing to do with its own "story," even inserting their own opening title to make it appear as the "60 Minutes" report was about "Pallywood," when it was not.

As for the infra-red video -- it's not convincing. How do we know it's what it purports to be, and not a staged event (just as it claims that Palestinians stage events ?) It becomes even more dubious when you consider that the producers of the piece are unwilling to reveal their own identities, and especially considering that they tried to pass off their own production as a "60 Minutes" video.

Likewise, the animated segments are equally unconvincing -- anyone can create animated elements, but does it make them credible ? Again, the producers hide their own identities, so how do we know they are reliable reporters ?

Reputable journalists and broadcasters include the names of their reporters and producers, and they don't pirate pieces of other reports in order to re-title and re-package them into a premise that's entirely absent from the original.

But it seems there are some people will believe anything and any source without question, at least if it strikes a chord with their own pre-conceptions and prejudices about Muslims, Arabs and/or Palestinians.

[Ban Hammer 14,279]

So if you paid attention to what I wrote, I debunked the claim that it was an actual "60 Minutes" video.

And considering that the producers have already been willing to compromise their credibility by making such a false claim, they have cast the rest of their "production" into doubt.

Interestingly, the claim has since been removed from the YouTube site (I suspect due to the threat of litigation from CBS.)

So who actually produced this piece ? Why would you trust a source that gives absolutely no information about who's behind it ? The producres try to give themselves legitimacy by using a "60 Minutes" clip that has nothing to do with its own "story," even inserting their own opening title to make it appear as the "60 Minutes" report was about "Pallywood," when it was not.

As for the infra-red video -- it's not convincing. How do we know it's what it purports to be, and not a staged event (just as it claims that Palestinians stage events ?) It becomes even more dubious when you consider that the producers of the piece are unwilling to reveal their own identities, and especially considering that they tried to pass off their own production as a "60 Minutes" video.

Likewise, the animated segments are equally unconvincing -- anyone can create animated elements, but does it make them credible ? Again, the producers hide their own identities, so how do we know they are reliable reporters ?

Reputable journalists and broadcasters include the names of their reporters and producers, and they don't pirate pieces of other reports in order to re-title and re-package them into a premise that's entirely absent from the original.

But it seems there are some people will believe anything and any source without question, at least if it strikes a chord with their own pre-conceptions and prejudices about Muslims, Arabs and/or Palestinians.

i don't recall anyone saying it was entirely a 60 minutes film. it's obvious to me that it starts with a 60 minutes story and then someone adds to it. does that mean it's fake? not necessarily.

since you're losing this one, should we get your favorite two people - gerard and mawilson - to come play good zionist/bad zionist with you? and btw, you're spraying something and it ain't knowledge, it's more like disinformation

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

i don't recall anyone saying it was entirely a 60 minutes film.

Can't you read ? Apparently not. To repeat what I just wrote:

Whoever originally posted the video claimed it was a "60 Minutes" report. In fact, Lucky Strike cut and pasted the info directly from the site:

"This is a really interesting 60 minutes segment from a few yeas ago about how the Palestinians use their own camera crews and actors to basically set up war scenes in their favor. Their calling it Pallywood and I thought it was pretty relavent considering whats happening now in the middle east."

it's obvious to me that it starts with a 60 minutes story and then someone adds to it. does that mean it's fake? not necessarily.

I'm not surprised you want to believe it. But there's nothing credible about this video, despite your wish that it be.

since you're losing this one, should we get your favorite two people - gerard and mawilson - to come play good zionist/bad zionist with you? and btw, you're spraying something and it ain't knowledge, it's more like disinformation

You think "winning" a debate is about having the last word, no matter how childish your words are.

By the way, I very much enjoy mawilson's posts and ability to debate. You certainly could learn a lot from him.

[Ban Hammer 14,279]

Can't you read ? Apparently not. To repeat what I just wrote:

as the original quote you listed does now show who it is attributed to, why should i pay attention to it when you don't list who said such?

it's obvious to me that it starts with a 60 minutes story and then someone adds to it. does that mean it's fake? not necessarily.

I'm not surprised you want to believe it. But there's nothing credible about this video, despite your wish that it be.

there's nothing credible about you either

keep up your mena infomercial, it's quite amusing

since you're losing this one, should we get your favorite two people - gerard and mawilson - to come play good zionist/bad zionist with you? and btw, you're spraying something and it ain't knowledge, it's more like disinformation

You think "winning" a debate is about having the last word, no matter how childish your words are.

By the way, I very much enjoy mawilson's posts and ability to debate. You certainly could learn a lot from him.

those words above happen to be an exerpt of your words, not mine, so if they sound childish then point the finger at yourself. i take it you don't remember posting them?

[dalegg 143]

Whoever originally posted the video claimed it was a "60 Minutes" report. In fact, Lucky Strike cut and pasted the info directly from the site:

"This is a really interesting 60 minutes segment from a few yeas ago about how the Palestinians use their own camera crews and actors to basically set up war scenes in their favor. Their calling it Pallywood and I thought it was pretty relavent considering whats happening now in the middle east."

So if you paid attention to what I wrote, I debunked the claim that it was an actual "60 Minutes" video.

Wow, I don't know W.O.M. You are saying right here that "This video itself is the fraud". Just because LuckyStrike misworded his post does not make the video a fraud. Can you produce me evidence somewhere that the producers of the video claimed the entire video claimed to be an actual 60 minutes report? If not, you have done nothing to damage the credibility.

This video itself is the fraud — originally claiming to be an actual "60 Minutes" report. It’s already been posted on VJ, and has already been debunked.

And considering that the producers have already been willing to compromise their credibility by making such a false claim, they have cast the rest of their "production" into doubt.

Well, correcting a statement made by Lucky Strike is a far cry from debunking the contents of the video. I don't think Lucky Strike is claiming to be part of the production cast, so again, you have yet to show me where the producers make this claim. There is simply no way a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that the producers of this film are trying to pass the entire clip as seen on YouTube as a documentary shown on 60 minutes.

Interestingly, the claim has since been removed from the YouTube site

Clarify for me, has the claim been removed from the index caption on the YouTube site, or has the film actually been re-edited to remove a claim that the whole program aired on 60 minutes?

[dalegg 143]

Interestingly, the claim has since been removed from the YouTube site

Clarify for me, has the claim been removed from the index caption on the YouTube site, or has the film actually been re-edited to remove a claim that the whole program aired on 60 minutes?

Okay, I think I've answered my own question, and also I can clarify LuckyStrikes' statement.

Worth watching.

"This is a really interesting 60 minutes segment from a few yeas ago about how the Palestinians use their own camera crews and actors to basically set up war scenes in their favor. Their calling it Pallywood and I thought it was pretty relavent considering whats happening now in the middle east."

http://break.com/index/what_really_happens_pallywood.html

If you note there, LuckyStrike has put that statement in quotes, because that's exactly how the caption is worded on the break.com posting of this video. You can follow Lucky's original link and see it still written like that. It is not a claim made by the producers of Pallywood, it's a comment made by some bloke named Todd Baxter who submitted the video, but he has misrepresented the video that he has posted.

If you watch the full video, at close to the 17:00 minute mark (it's easier to watch it in one piece on you tube), there is a scene where Bob Simon of 60 minutes is making a statement "In this one tiny area, which Palestineans now call 'the martyrs junction', more than 30 were killed and hundreds injured".

Right after that, the narrator of the film says "Not even the Palestineans claimed anything like that figure". Then, he quotes the New York Times disputing the claim. This seems like a strange thing to do (correcting your own prized anchorman) if you are claiming to actually be 60 minutes, doesn't it?

Now, back to the question, where has the film actually been debunked?

Edited August 23, 2006 by dalegg

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I am not sure which part of my posts were not clear; however, it seems that several people either don't understand, or are willfully ignoring what I wrote.

#1. I clearly stated that the description Lucky Strike posted was cut and pasted from the info on the Break.com website. I also said that the same descriptive info had been subsequently removed from the YouTube site.

#2. I said "whoever posted the video" claimed it was a "60 Minutes" report. (If you read the description, you would see that the poster even claimed that that they "remembered" seeing it broadcast on the "60 Minutes" program.)

I pointed out that the video is not something that was ever aired on "60 Minutes," but rather is a separate production that pirates a clip from a "60 Minutes" program, then splices it into other material that is entirely different in content from the original "60 Minutes" broadcast.

#3. I said that "whoever produced the video" tried to make it appear that their own "embellishment" (specifically the added "Pallywood" title graphic, underscored with the well-known ticking stopwatch) was actually part of the "60 Minutes" clip, even though this title was not part of any "60 Minutes" report.

#4. I said that this added title graphic was clearly deceptive, and a flagrant misrepresentation of the actual "60 Minutes" broadcast. That's why I say it's a fraud.

#5. I pointed out that such an obvious deception compromised the credibility of the entire video.

#6. I pointed out that reputable journalists not only put their own name on their works; but more importantly, they don't pirate works of other journalists in order to re-edit and misrepresent the originals.

#7. I pointed out that anyone can create computer animations, even produce "infrared" video of unrecognizable, indeterminate subjects, and then claim the video is "proof" of anything they wish. But this doesn't make such video "credible." Especially when one considers that the producers are not reputable journalists backed up by reputable news agencies.

Got it now ? Good.

Now an update -- since yesterday, I've done a bit of investigating, and now have some information on the producer of the "Pallywood" video.

His name is Richard Landes, a self-described "pro-Israel leftist," and he's a history professor at Boston University. (Somebody named Nidra Poller is also sometimes given co-credit.) He has produced 2 videos (he refers to them as "short films," although none of his works seems to contain any "film" at all,) both alleging that Palestinians "stage" Israeli atrocities.

He has a website called Second Draft which promotes his allegations, and showcases his 2 videos:

http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php

His supporters apparently subscribes to the theory that Palestinians don't even exist, as they are quoted as saying:

When communists and nazis join together with a criminal movement disguised under the veil of ideology or religion, they create [/b]a fake nation that never existed, in a common fight against life and civilization, promoting the genocide of some and the enslavement of other innocent people, and using blatant LIES as their propaganda.

http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=mod...r=0&thold=0

However, despite his website's claim that he is part of the "international news media," Landes' "films" are not linked to any reputable news site, but seem to primarily promoted on (predictably) vehemently pro-Zionist websites. Some of them include:

http://www.likud.ca/

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

http://israeloncampuscoalition.org/speakers/rlandes.htm

http://www.imw.org.il/english/article.php?id=143

http://www.honestreporting.com/a/region.asp

This last site is very interesting -- it openly brags about the techniques it's used to intimidate CNN, Reuters and other media outlets for daring to print unfavorable coverage of Israel's actions (any criticism of which they brand as "anti-Semitism.")

Edited August 24, 2006 by wife_of_mahmoud

[dalegg 143]

I am not sure which part of my posts were not clear; however, it seems that several people either don't understand, or are willfully ignoring what I wrote.

#1. I clearly stated that the description Lucky Strike posted was cut and pasted from the info on the Break.com website. I also said that the same descriptive info had been subsequently removed from the YouTube site.

#2. I said "whoever posted the video" claimed it was a "60 Minutes" report. (If you read the description, you would see that the poster even claimed that that they "remembered" seeing it broadcast on the "60 Minutes" program.)

Yes, you got me on that one. When I originally saw the clip I saw it on YouTube and I also thought LuckyStrike was making that remark. I didn't read your remarks closely enough and you did acknowledge that. My bad

I pointed out that the video is not something that was ever aired on "60 Minutes," but rather is a separate production that pirates a clip from a "60 Minutes" program, then splices it into other material that is entirely different in content from the original "60 Minutes" broadcast.

Agree that you pointed this out, but as stated this is obvious. The whole point of the Pallywood video is to show what took place behind that 60 minutes broadcast, not to pretend to be an actual 60 minutes broadcast.

#3. I said that "whoever produced the video" tried to make it appear that their own "embellishment" (specifically the added "Pallywood" title graphic, underscored with the well-known ticking stopwatch) was actually part of the "60 Minutes" clip, even though this title was not part of any "60 Minutes" report.

Agree that you said that. Don't agree with the statement at all. As just one example- if you watch the full video, at close to the 17:00 minute mark (it's easier to watch it in one piece on youtube), there is a scene where Bob Simon of 60 minutes is making a statement "In this one tiny area, which Palestineans now call 'the martyrs junction', more than 30 were killed and hundreds injured".

Right after that, the narrator of the film says "Not even the Palestineans claimed anything like that figure". Then, he quotes the New York Times disputing the claim. This seems like a strange thing to do (correcting your own prized anchorman) if you are claiming to actually be 60 minutes, doesn't it?

#4. I said that this added title graphic was clearly deceptive, and a flagrant misrepresentation of the actual "60 Minutes" broadcast. That's why I say it's a fraud.

Again, agree you said this, but don't agree at all (as most people don't) that they were trying to be deceptive. I really think you are focusing on the first minute of this video too much which is why you are walking away with that impression, but that's just my opinion.

#5. I pointed out that such an obvious deception compromised the credibility of the entire video.

See reply to #4. Since no such obvious deception occurs, there is no credibility lost.

#6. I pointed out that reputable journalists not only put their own name on their works; but more importantly, they don't pirate works of other journalists in order to re-edit and misrepresent the originals.

Okay.

#7. I pointed out that anyone can create computer animations, even produce "infrared" video of unrecognizable, indeterminate subjects, and then claim the video is "proof" of anything they wish. But this doesn't make such video "credible." Especially when one considers that the producers are not reputable journalists backed up by reputable news agencies.

Agreed. The video doesn't necassarily prove anything and I don't want you to think that I think it proves anything either. My only point in all of this is that it has not been debunked and it has not been proven to be a fraud

Got it now ? Good.

yes ma'am.

Now an update -- since yesterday, I've done a bit of investigating, and now have some information on the producer of the "Pallywood" video.

His name is Richard Landes, a self-described "pro-Israel leftist," and he's a history professor at Boston University. (Somebody named Nidra Poller is also sometimes given co-credit.) He has produced 2 videos (he refers to them as "short films," although none of his works seems to contain any "film" at all,) both alleging that Palestinians "stage" Israeli atrocities.

He has a website called Second Draft which promotes his allegations, and showcases his 2 videos:

http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php

His supporters apparently subscribes to the theory that Palestinians don't even exist, as they are quoted as saying:

"When communists and nazis join together with a criminal movement disguised under the veil of ideology or religion, they create [/b]a fake nation that never existed, in a common fight against life and civilization, promoting the genocide of some and the enslavement of other innocent people, and using blatant LIES as their propaganda."

From the quote it sounds like he's saying that the nation of Palestine doesn't exist, not that the Palestinians don't exists. Just my take.

However, despite his website's claim that he is part of the "international news media," Landes' "films" are not linked to any reputable news site, but seem to primarily promoted on (predictably) vehemently pro-Zionist websites. Some of them include:

http://www.likud.ca/

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

http://israeloncampuscoalition.org/speakers/rlandes.htm

http://www.imw.org.il/english/article.php?id=143

http://www.honestreporting.com/a/region.asp

This last site is very interesting -- it openly brags about the techniques it's used to intimidate CNN, Reuters and other media outlets for daring to print unfavorable coverage of Israel's actions (any criticism of which they brand as "anti-Semitism.")

Got it. He's a Zionist, and definitely not unbiased. Still waiting for an actual debunking though. You know, something on the order of. "We discovered that all of the actors were paid by Landes and the clip at the beginning of his film never even broadcast on 60 minutes." Something like that.

[Risto 0]

I said "whoever posted the video" claimed it was a "60 Minutes" report. (If you read the description, you would see that the poster even claimed that that they "remembered" seeing it broadcast on the "60 Minutes" program.)

Who cares what the video is called? What it shows is important and is embarrassing for the Palestinians and their supporters!

[Ban Hammer 14,279]

Got it. He's a Zionist, and definitely not unbiased. Still waiting for an actual debunking though. You know, something on the order of. "We discovered that all of the actors were paid by Landes and the clip at the beginning of his film never even broadcast on 60 minutes." Something like that.

lol, according to wom, everyone is a zionist.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Got it. He's a Zionist, and definitely not unbiased. Still waiting for an actual debunking though. You know, something on the order of. "We discovered that all of the actors were paid by Landes and the clip at the beginning of his film never even broadcast on 60 minutes." Something like that.

lol, according to wom, everyone is a zionist.

Ho hum - might say the same about liberals. These days you can be called one whether you are or not.

[samir_shannon 0]

America's one-eyed view of war: Stars, stripes, and the Star of David

by Andrew Gumbel

15 August 2006 The Independent

There are two sides to every conflict - unless you rely on the US media for information about the battle in Lebanon. Viewers have been fed a diet of partisan coverage which treats Israel as the good guys and their Hizbollah enemy as the incarnation of evil. Andrew Gumbel reports from Los Angeles

If these were normal times, the American view of the conflict in Lebanon might look something like the street scenes that have electrified the suburbs of Detroit for the past four weeks.

In Dearborn, home to the Ford Motor Company and also the highest concentration of Arab Americans in the country, up to 1000 people have turned out day after day to express their outrage at the Israeli military campaign and mourn the loss of civilian life in Lebanon. At one protest in late July, 15,000 people - almost half of the local Arab American population - showed up in a sea of Lebanese flags, along with anti-Israeli and anti-Bush slogans.

A few miles to the north, in the heavily Jewish suburb of Southfield, meanwhile, the Congregation Shaarey Zedek synagogue has played host to passionate counter-protests in which the US and Israeli national anthems are played back to back and demonstrators have asserted that it is Israel's survival, not Lebanon's, that is at stake here.

Such is the normal exercise of free speech in an open society, one might think. But these are not normal times. The Detroit protests have been tinged with paranoia and justifiable fear on both sides. Several Jewish institutions in the area, including two community centres and several synagogues, have hired private security guards in response to an incident in Seattle at the end of July, in which a mentally unstable 30-year-old Muslim walked into a Jewish Federation building and opened fire, killing one person and injuring five others.

On the Arab American side, many have expressed reluctance to stand up and be counted among the protesters for fear of being tinged by association with Hizbollah, which is on the United States' list of terrorist organisations. (As a result, the voices heard during the protests tend to be the more extreme ones.) They don't like to discuss their political views in any public forum, following the revelation a few months ago that the National Security Agency was wiretapping phone calls and e-mail exchanges as part of the Bush administration's war on terror.

They are even afraid to donate money to help the civilian victims of the war in Lebanon because of the intense scrutiny Islamic and Arab charities have been subjected to since the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration has denounced 40 charities worldwide as financiers of terrorism, and arrested and deported dozens of people associated with them. Consequently, while Jewish charities such as the United Jewish Communities are busy raising $300m to help families affected by the Katyusha rockets raining down on northern Israel, donations to the Lebanese victims have come in at no more than a trickle.

Outside Detroit and a handful of other cities with sizeable Arab American populations, it is hard to detect that there are two sides to the conflict at all. The Dearborn protests have received almost no attention nationally, and when they have it has usually been to denounce the participants as extremists and apologists for terrorism - either because they have voiced support for Hizbollah or because they have carried banners in which the Star of David at the centre of the Israeli flag has been replaced by a swastika.

The media, more generally, has left little doubt in the minds of a majority of American news consumers that the Israelis are the good guys, the aggrieved victims, while Hizbollah is an incarnation of the same evil responsible for bringing down the World Trade Centre, a heartless and faceless organisation whose destruction is so important it can justify all the damage Israel is inflicting on Lebanon and its civilians.

The point is not that this viewpoint is necessarily wrong. The point - and this is what distinguishes the US from every other Western country in its attitude to the conflict - is that it is presented as a foregone conclusion. Not only is there next to no debate, but debate itself is considered unnecessary and suspect.

The 24-hour cable news stations are the worst offenders. Rupert Murdoch's Fox News has had reporters running around northern Israel chronicling every rocket attack and every Israeli mobilisation, but has shown little or no interest in anything happening on the other side of the border. It is a rarity on any of the cable channels to see any Arab being tapped for expert opinion on the conflict. A startling amount of airtime, meanwhile, is given to the likes of Michael D Evans, an end-of-the-world Biblical "prophet" with no credentials in the complexities of Middle Eastern politics. He has shown up on MSNBC and Fox under the label "Middle East analyst". Fox's default analyst, on this and many other issues, has been the right-wing provocateur and best-selling author Ann Coulter, whose main credential is to have opined, days after 9/11, that what America should do to the Middle East is "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".

Often, the coverage has been hysterical and distasteful. In the days following the Israeli bombing of Qana, several pro-Israeli bloggers started spreading a hoax story that Hizbollah had engineered the event, or stage-managed it by placing dead babies in the rubble for the purpose of misleading reporters. Oliver North, the Reagan-era orchestrator of the Iran-Contra affair who is now a right-wing television and radio host, and Michelle Malkin, a sharp-tongued Bush administration cheerleader who runs her own weblog, appeared on Fox News to give credence to the hoax - before the Israeli army came forward to take responsibility and brought the matter to at least a partial close.

As the conflict has gone on, the media interpretation of it has only hardened. Essentially, the line touted by cable news hosts and their correspondents - closely adhering to the line adopted by the Bush administration and its neoconservative supporters - is that Hizbollah is part of a giant anti-Israeli and anti-American terror network that also includes Hamas, al-Qa'ida, the governments of Syria and Iran, and the insurgents in Iraq. Little effort is made to distinguish between these groups, or explain what their goals might be. The conflict is presented as a straight fight between good and evil, in which US interests and Israeli interests intersect almost completely. Anyone who suggests otherwise is likely to be pounced on and ripped to shreds.

When John Dingell, a Democratic congressman from Michigan with a large Arab American population in his constituency, gave an interview suggesting it was wrong for the US to take sides instead of pushing for an end to violence, he was quickly - and loudly - accused of being a Hizbollah apologist. Newt Gingrich, the Republican former House speaker, accused him of failing to draw any moral distinction between Hizbollah and Israel. Rush Limbaugh, the popular conservative talk-show host, piled into him, as did the conservative newspaper The Washington Times. The Times was later forced to admit it had quoted Dingell out of context and reprinted his full words, including: "I condemn Hizbollah, as does everyone else, for the violence."

The hysteria has extended into the realm of domestic politics, especially since this is a congressional election year. Republican have sought to depict last week's primary defeat of the Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, one of the loudest cheerleaders for the Iraq war, as some sort of wacko extremist anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli stand that risks undermining national security. Vice-President ####### Cheney said Lieberman's defeat would encourage "al-Qa'ida types" to think they can break the will of Americans. The fact that the man who beat Lieberman, Ned Lamont, is an old-fashioned East Coast Wasp who was a registered Republican for much of his life is something Mr Cheney chose to overlook.

Part of the Republican strategy this year is to attack any media that either attacks them or has the temerity to report facts that contradict the official party line. Thus, when Reuters was forced to withdraw a photograph of Beirut under bombardment because one of its stringers had doctored the image to increase the black smoke, it was a chance to rip into the news agency over its efforts to be even-handed. In a typical riposte, Michelle Malkin denounced Reuters as "a news service that seems to have made its mark rubber-stamping pro-Hizbollah propaganda".

She was not the only one to take that view. Mainstream, even liberal, publications have echoed her line. Tim Rutten, the Los Angeles Times liberal media critic, denounced the "obscenely anti-Israeli tenor of most of the European and world press" in his most recent column.

It is not just the US media which tilts in a pro-Israeli direction. Congress, too, is remarkably unified in its support for the Israeli government, and politicians more generally understand that to criticise Israel is to risk jeopardising their future careers. When Antonio Villaraigosa, the up-and-coming Democratic Mayor of Los Angeles, was first invited to comment on the Middle East crisis, he sounded a note so pro-Israeli that he was forced to apologise to local Muslim and Arab community leaders. There is far less public debate of Israeli policy in the US, in fact, than there is in Israel itself.

This is less a reflection of American Jewish opinion - which is more diverse than is suggested in the media - than it is a commentary on the power of pro-Israeli lobby groups like Aipac, the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, which bankrolls pro-Israeli congressional candidates. That, in turn, is frustrating to liberal Jews like Michael Lerner, a San Francisco rabbi who heads an anti-war community called Tikkun. Rabbi Lerner has tried to argue for years that it is in Israel's best interests to reach a peaceful settlement, and that demonising Arabs as terrorists is counter-productive and against Judaism.

Lerner is probably right to assert that he speaks for a large number of American Jews, only half of whom are affiliated with pro-Israeli lobbying organisations. Certainly, dinner party conversation in heavily Jewish cities like New York suggest misgivings about Israel's strategic aims, even if there is some consensus that Hizbollah cannot be allowed to strike with impunity.

Few, if any, of those misgivings have entered the US media. "There is no major figure in American political life who has been willing to raise the issue of the legitimate needs of the Palestinian people, or even talk about them as human beings," Lerner said. "The organised Jewish community has transformed the image of Judaism into a cheering squad for the Israeli government, whatever its policies are. That is just idolatry, and goes against all the warnings in the Bible about giving too much power to the king or the state."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...icle1219241.ece

sounds like to me you are one sided ... instead why dont we just feel sorry for all the innocent lives that were lost on BOTH sides.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[mawilson 2,133]

since you're losing this one, should we get your favorite two people - gerard and mawilson - to come play good zionist/bad zionist with you? and btw, you're spraying something and it ain't knowledge, it's more like disinformation

LOL @ Good Zionist / Bad Zionist

Which one am I, Good or Bad?

By the way, I very much enjoy mawilson's posts and ability to debate. You certainly could learn a lot from him.

Awwww I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy inside! Thanks, wife_of_mahmoud, I like your posts too.