| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Well... there are alot of things that were well put together in this documentary, and many things that just utilized an "appeal to sympathy" fallacy.
jenin was truly a bad thing that happened, although there were not as many people as thought that were killed, it was still devastating.
In any event, after realizing this program was made by Martin Hamil, i knew i was in for another arab-villification program, like the joke of a documentary he made about the Concordia conflict. That film made the arab student council look like terrorists...claiming they wanted "israel destroyed" even though nobody on that film or any publication of what they said even implied that.
So back to the tpic at hand. The documentary did make its point though (as specified and selective as it was). It appealed to much sympathy (like the woman who lost her IDF soldier husband) and inter-lacing that with terrorist bus attacks inside israel. He compared many of the atrocities of other nations like Serbia, American sponsored NATO, America itself and the Hutu's, but failed to recognize that america also provides much of israel's military aid that ends up killing many palestinians. Not once, did he interview in depth what a victim of the Jenin event went through. Much of the documentary focused on the saddened state of an ISraeli soldier who lost 14 of his sioldier frinds that day.
Hamil did however succeessfully confront many journalists who used the words "massacre" and "genocide", but made it look as thoiugh they themselves said it by Highlighting these words in their articles. He didnt even look at the context of the sentence that was written. I carefully read those statements, and many of them were CLAIMS of massacres by palestinians.
But i think he did get his point across by illustrating the stigmatization this created.
Another problem I had was the "EXPERT" Alan Dershowitz who had alot to say. He has been proven by Norman Finklestein himself that many sections of the book that he wrote called "The Case for Israel" was plagiarized. So him as an expert was kinda funny. He utlized the concept of Anti-semetism to reinforce his argument that Europe in a way "wanted" to beleive ISrael is an Evil nation.
What bothered me about this documentary was the fact that Hamil didnt recognize that it was a devastating event, regardless of whether the media was wrong about their word choice and usage. Like most reporters, he tired to take an objective point of view, but it was hardly that when he interlaced it with mostly israeli suffering. If you are going to look at this event objectively, dont bring personal opinion and subjective matter into this.
I wont even comment about the "fatwa" that the man described to show that islamic people and arabs use fear to even cartoonists!
But he made his point well, jenin was not a "massacre". He didnt however discuss the innocents and combatant ratio's in depth.. which i think deserves the most attention when dealing with this topic.
I feel like diginut now.. i should stop rambling |
this is the quiet before the storm .. an arsenal of DigiNut rebuttal awaits you!
___________________
Palm Trees > Pine Trees , Sand > Snow
|
