Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land (2004 Video) User Reviews

A very good, pretty fair analysis

[eric-1208 · 8/10 · 22 July 2006]

A movie made by people who ask "why" rather than just shout slogans or point fingers. It's main goal appeared to be to give equal time to the sorrows of both Israelis and Palestinians that result from this occupation. Given the asymmetry in both military and "public relations" power between the two camps, it is tough to get a balanced perspective in the mainstream US media. It highlights the incredible similarities between Israeli resource-grabbing and that of early America, both resulting in the murder of the indigenous population, and peace talks that amount to the creation of scattered non-sovereign reservations. This is not to say that if we were to have given the Palestinians the tanks and jets instead of Israel, they would not have made the same grab for power. A major point is that we cannot rely on existing media outlets to tell us the truth, because the truth will be told by whoever has the dollars and the institutional muscle, so we must dig for it and think about it ourselves. In having to dig for it, we sometimes fall into reliance on more dubious sources like the hedgehoged arguments of David Icke types, who give us a ton of speculation with a kernel of truth. If the mainstream media were to give a more intelligent assessment of the situation, rather than the catch-phrase of the day, it might actually bring some of the "leftists" more toward the center, since they could rely less on the under-funded, over-worked, obviously biased independent media.

Two points on other comments. 1)Chomsky says that this is the longest *modern* military occupation of the Palestinian people, and by modern, he usually means post-industrial. He says a lot of stuff that I think can't possibly be true until I take the time to check his references and they're nearly always right on the mark

2)The self-hating Jew comment is silly, as they addressed this very argument in the movie, and addressed it rather well. I could imagine that this argument would continue work from the perspective of one who closed his or her eyes to the movie at the first sign of cognitive dissonance and fell back on the standard slurs. In addition, Israelis do have a land of their own. The trouble is that they want it to be larger and larger. Where would you have the Palestinians go?

Israeli interests' invisible stranglehold on US media presentations of the Israel-Palestinian conflict

[Chris Knipp · 8/10 · 28 January 2009]

Being a long-time student of Middle East affairs and Arabic who does not get my information from mainstream media (and particularly not from ABC, NBC, CNN, etc.), I am constantly stunned to find out how little Americans understand about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This film shows why. And how much better the news is contextualized even in Britain or on the Continent.

____________________________________________________________________

'Today, the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians are plagued by daily violence and insecurity.'

'The Israeli-Palestinian conflict dominates American news coverage of international issues.' _____________________________________________________________________

Thus begins this instructional-style documentary from the makers of 'Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire' (Jeremy Earp, Sut Jhally, also 2004 but released four months earlier), this film written and directed by Sut Jhally and Bathsheba Ratzkoff just came to my attention three years after release when a friend in Rome sent me links to it in video form online. In view of the media control by pro-Israeli interests in the US described in the film, it's not surprising that it was so little shown it previously escaped my notice, and even that I learned about it from someone who lives outside the US.

As a Media Education Foundation summary puts it, this film shows "how the foreign policy interests of American political elites--working in combination with Israeli public relations strategies--influence US news reporting about the Middle East conflict. Combining American and British TV news clips with observations of analysts, journalists and political activists, 'Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land' provides a brief historical overview, a striking media comparison, and an examination of factors that have distorted U.S. media coverage and, in turn, American public opinion."

"The stranglehold on the US media of Israeli interests." That sounds like shrill agit-prop. Or even like the old anti-Semitic canard that the Jews control the media, or the banking system, or the Eastern Establishment. But it's not like that. Given the evidence of biased, misleading reportage here from the best known American TV journalists and anchormen in clips, which is ably contrasted with facts reported by the BBC and commented on by American peace activist rabbis like Michael Lerner of Tikkun, an ex-IDF officer anti-war activist and other experts on media accuracy, as well as Robert Fisk and Noam Chomsky (the usual suspects), there seems to be a pervasive blackout of the Palestinian point of view--or of anything Israel does that may not be legal or nice. Israeli attacks are always described as "retaliations" (only Palestinians "attack"); Israeli settlements are renamed as "neighborhoods;" and the whole background of the conflict is never, ever filled in.

The charge can be brought against Bathsheba Ratzkoff and Sut Jhally's film--as it constantly and predictably is by US movie reviewers in The Daily News, The Village Voice, the NYTimes, and Variety (all found on the IMDb page or Metacritic)--that this film is "a one-sided account" (NYTimes), "pedantic" and "humorless" (Variety), and "may be better suited for classroom viewing than for theatrical exhibition" (Village Voice). But does that make its information untrue? I don't think so. The same criticisms could be leveled at 'Hijacking Catastrophe,' an indictment of the Bush administration post 9/11 rated equally low by Metacritic. But both films are devastatingly accurate. This second one contains more crucial information. The Bush administration at least has been replaced. The Israeli-Palestinian situation is more urgent and horrific than ever, and the US media bias has just been devastatingly illustrated in the sanitized coverage of Israel's brutal assault on Gaza and its civilian population. The reasons are many and complex and the wrongs are on both sides, but the picture Americans have been getting is completely misleading. As you will see if you watch this film.

This is available online in YouTube segments (which add up to the entire film) which will be found under the heading "Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land." It is essential for a majority of Americans to understand media better and read or watch more critically. Let's take the Sunday New York Times Magazine that just appeared (January 25, 2009). An article is entitled "Can Social Networking Turn Disaffected Young Egyptian into a Force for Democratic Change?" This is to be welcomed as a realistic and in some ways hopeful picture of the political scene in what is essentially the US's second client state in the region, Egypt being the second highest US aid recipient after Israel. But let's look at how the article begins: "Only a few hours after Israel's first air strike against Hamas positions in the Gaza strip late last month, more than 2,000 protesters marched through the streets of downtown Cairo, carrying Palestinian flags..."

"Israel's first air strike against Hamas positions in the Gaza strip" introduces the events in the misleading context provided by mainstream US media. They were air strikes all right, but what makes all the difference is that they were attacks on mostly civilian targets which included hospitals, clinics, ambulances, schools, apartment buildings, shoppers in marketplaces, kids hon their way home from school, and even UN headquarters. The "collateral damage" was immense from the Israeli assault on Gaza (obviously not a "war," though the US media use that word). It amounted to 100:1 ratio of deaths, 100 deaths for every Israeli death that occurred during these hostilities.

"Hamas positions" is a whitewash phrase, indicating that this article will not be taking any hard looks at Israel's actions. How, then, can we trust what is says about so-called "disaffected young Egyptians, " if it begins with a biased presentation of the events those Egyptians were demonstrating against? Americans need desperately to wake up to how the media are distorting the Israel-Palestine conflict. Until that happens, most of the US will continue to live in an Israel-can-do-no-wrong fog and public pressure to change things (which the US has the power to do) will be hard to marshal.

A fair view on a sad subject

[herrerik · 8/10 · 23 January 2009]

Of course, political movies are always criticized by those who don't agree. But even though this film is pro-Palestinian it doesn't lie and its most certainly is not anti-Jewish (arabs are the biggest Semites group themselves so i think you mean anti-Jewish, not anti-Semite).

The makers were also tactical enough to choose many Jews to appear and criticize Israel. They bring up the issue of Jews being called self-hating for criticizing Israel. Is a ex-Cuban called self-hating when he dislikes Castro and his deeds, no, he's called freedom-fighter. Same with Chinese people who say no to Chinese oppression of minorities and other countries. Killing civilians is a SIN to someone of Jewish faith, and not something to be proud about.

The film can however, be called anti-Israeli. But i would say its not, as it only attacks the BAD THINGS Israel does, not Israel or the Israel people in general. Its the same thing as calling a film about the Vietnam war anti-American. Also the negative comments on this site:

1. Saying the films is simply lies and untrue (without specifying how) 2. Saying the film must be anti-Jewish and therefor must be dismissed.

Thanks guys for proving the film's point! This is how pro-Israels always want to move the focus from the real reason for the conflict.

The Israeli people will never be safe as long as they continue to give the Palestians good reasons to hate and fear them. And they really don't gain much from holding the occupied territories so whats the point?

Erik, Sweden

Like nothing you've ever seen!

[pulpncure · 10/10 · 20 November 2004]

This is a documentary about how our country (America) is sheltered by the media when it comes to the atrocities committed against the Palestinian people. It is sort of like Outfoxed (an excellent documentary about the bias of the Fox New Channel), yet completely relating to the U.S. media coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It is hard to watch at times but definitely opened my eyes to such things I never knew were happening. Sure I had an idea that our government always took sides when it came to the conflict, but to see how much the "Israeli PR Machine" influences our media is disgusting and, quite frankly, very disturbing. It is not a documentary made by Arabs, it is a U.S. production and features Rabbis, various media personnel, university professors, etc. It is a huge eye-opener and I recommend it to everyone.

must seen mainly by Americans

[zipzipsaib · 10/10 · 2 March 2006]

This is a must seen documentary about the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

The movie tries to criticize the way the conflict is presented in the us media in a biased way in my opinion.

Few points which are covered through the film are: 1. the claim of Israel generosity in the peace processes. 2. calling the Israeli actions as retaliation and other uses of words in the media. 3. covering the events without context 4. unbiased covering of the events.

Sometimes I hear people who are saying that the us media is pro-Palestinian, I hope that this film can raise thoughts and doubts on such claims.

You are all invited to plant olive trees in occupied Palestinian lands...

Great movie - Well made, and unbiased.

[moka_guy · 10/10 · 6 August 2006]

I don't know how anybody can find this movie biased. It's an incredible journey through the facts that the US mainstream media hides, the lies, and the twisted truths they broadcast to affect the American public's opinion. Anybody in his right mind can spot this vast difference when they compare reports from CNN to that of BBC's (on the same story). Everything said in the movie is backed up by solid evidence and proof that won't leave you doubting. What I really liked about Peace, Propaganda, and The Promised Land is that it was Jews (even Rabbis), and Israelis who were 'telling the story', so to speak. In the end, the movie doesn't force anything down your throat, it just shows you what's really keeping the peace process from happening.

An important film.

[marlowe64 · 9/10 · 8 February 2007]

This film details what most Americans would be able to figure out on their own, if they only thought about it a little bit: Israeli violence is almost always described in the US media as "retaliation," while Palestinian violence is typically portrayed as arising with no direct cause; Israeli victims of violence are often portrayed with biographical information, which conveys the humanity of their loss; Palestinian victims of violence are almost never portrayed with humanizing background information; the fact of Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory is often not mentioned at all; the fact of the $4-6 billion per year aid given by the US to Israel, making a state the size of a large city our largest recipient of international aid, is almost invisible in US news media; the fact that most of Israel's major weapons systems are made in the US - which most of the Arab world is acutely aware of - is unheard. And so on.

I was made a little uncomfortable with the film's description of the news media's filtering process. It seemed to lean toward a suggestion that money interests call the shots on coverage of Israel, which is something that I don't think warrants mention, given the world's history of antisemitism. The real fact of the matter, from my own investigations, is that the lack of promotion of contrary views is the biggest matter. If American Muslims, for example, were as energetic in protecting the interests of Palestinians as American Zionists are in promoting Israel, I think there would be very little bias remaining.

There are other aspects of media bias that were not touched on as much as I think they warrant. First and foremost, water in the Occupied Territories. Israel and its agents, both direct and indirect, have gone out of their way to hide the matter of water in the territorial dispute. However, the facts are pretty plain: most of Israel's water comes out of the territories, and the ground water resources are being over-exploited and are disappearing. THAT is most of the ground, so to speak, of the economic aspects of the dispute, and it was only briefly mentioned in this film, albeit it is only mentioned by accident in the mainstream US media.

Also, I have noted a creeping tendency in the media to refer to places in the Occupied Territories as being in Israel, and to include, contrary to official US and UN policy, the occupied Golan Heights as part of Israel on maps in the news; the bias seems to be getting worse rather than getting better.

A sequel to this documentary - screenplay below

[stefan-414 · 8/10 · 8 August 2006]

Those Israeli soldiers at the checkpoints – total beasts, treating Palestinian women and children like Nazis treated "sub-human" Jews, Gypsies or Poles. There should be an international outcry and demand by the US (let's dream: a special Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing with trustworthy Palestinian witnesses) to bring civility and courtesy right there and punish those young arrogant brutes, full of hubris and chutzpah. Shame on the IDF leadership and civilian government of Israel for allowing this to happen. This is unforgivable and this detail alone in the movie makes me start detesting "things Israel" and morally condemn them. As much as Israel has the right to exist, they have a long way to go to figure out how to solve the problem they themselves are partly to be blamed for, as the movie exposes, notwithstanding the Arab dictatorships that have pushed relentlessly against the state of Israel, which the movie does not mention at all. For that, this excellent documentary receives 8 instead of 10. What Israel does now (August 2006) in Lebanon is foolhardy at best (an elephant in the porcelain store tactics) and they will be punished in the future by the ever stronger Arab, fanatically religious Muslim or Palestinian irredentist movements.

I do not believe in 2 separate states in that small piece of land. It is downright silly from the ecological standpoint if you think about it. I vote for one new state*: call it whatever you want: The Palestine Republic of Israel (or The Israel Republic of Palestine) - with equal rights for the Palestinians. With one condition from the outset – it must be a secular state and all religions should be a private matter of their worshipers with external displays of it confined only to the interior of their respective worship houses).

War interests in the U.S. (and Israel and Syria and Iran) will never allow for permanent peace though. "War is good" for them (for different reasons, not only greed in case of the US and Israel) and unless we get rid of the criminals in the WH the worst is yet to come. The neo-cons are pushing Israel for a greater conflict, trying to suck in Syria and eventually Iran. This will all play out before November…

Arabs should be told loud and clear that in the wake of WWII many nations were moved from one location to another (e.g. Poles, Germans), had to accept the new geo-political reality and live with that whether they liked it or not. Another point is that due to aggression by the Arabs in 1967 Israel gained territory. This is called spoils of war. Too bad Arabs started that war. So once and for all they should stop whining and accept things fairly. Only then the world community will treat them fairly. It is ironic now that Palestinians, Hezbollah and other Arab knuckle heads are rejecting the Israel's right to exist, whereas Palestinians themselves yarn for their own state (read right to exist). An untenable inconsistency and hypocrisy. They have to grow up and so do the Israelis. The only solution to this problem is 1) to remove the Bush criminal squad (the biggest military and economic terrorists on the face of Earth) from the WH, so the world at large starts to trust the American people again 2) form an International Council of Sages that will hold the world mandate to resolve that conflict. Send them down there to meet with the moderates (chosen from peoples representatives) on both sides, and offer them the best equitable solution. Try to stay away from current politicos and government of Israel - make an apeal to the population instead (who is at least 50% secular, i.e. reassonable). They should get rid of the corrupt American a** kissers who are currently in the pocket of neo-cons leading that country and the world to disaster 3) Both Palestinians and Israeli should refrain from use of force and violence during those talks. 4) Again, in this process try to avoid at all cost politicians, especially of criminally lying Condi Rice type. 5) Once the consensus on both sides is achieved US democratic-by-that-time Senate should enact law of banning any weapon exports from the US. 6) Worldwide campaign to shut down armament factories and convert them to wind mill and other sustainable energy plants should follow. 7) Don't forget to put Rupport Murdoch on trial for trying so hard to dismantle the US constitution… Let's wake up, the Earth is too precious thing to loose…

* Why not creating there Middle East Union (Jordan, Israel, Lebanon) and avoid the state issue at all. The state concept is so much XIX-th century anyway.

Please give your 80mins to see this.....

[kevin955 · 10/10 · 11 February 2009]

I usually vote but never comment on a movie as i feel it unnecessary.

However i request all western viewers who spend time watching various Hollywood flicks etc, to devote just 80mins of your life for watching this documentary. I see Hollywood movies with high ratings and 100,000s of votes. It makes me sad when i saw just around some 280 odd votes on this movie here. Ironically it should be opposite because this documentary is about suffering of men,women and children who are also humans like us, isn't it? I will not make any comment or judgment on movie as i leave it to the viewers to make their own judgment.

At last as you know that no movie is perfect so why i gave it a 10? Because it is my trend to give perfect score to films which are made for just cause more so when it is made for us to awake to reality of the world.

Weakness of bills316

[theenemy-1 · 9/10 · 30 September 2006]

1. Why do Jews deserve a land of their own? They stole the land from the Palestinians. If the basis for ownership of land is based on last occupation, I can only assume that bills316 is a Native American. Otherwise, unless s/he is a major hypocrite, s/he would hand back the land to the Native Americans, who owned Canada far more recently than the Jews owned Palestine prior to 1948. 2. Why is a Jew who criticizes Israel "self-hating"? Is a Canadian who criticizes Canada self-hating? Of course not. It is a democratic tradition and right to criticize your own country and people when they misbehave, as Israel has massively done. 3. This is not about appeasement. It is about brutality and the vicious cruelty of Israel - rightful heirs to the Nazis - towards their native population. The fact that it is so rare to see the truth in the Western media does not make it a lie. Bills316 and others should welcome the fact that the truth is finally allowed to appear. 4. See the movie. 5. Bills 316, it's "following its left-wing agenda", not following "it's left-wing agenda" from the grammatical point of view and "telling the truth" from all other points of view. 6. And, yes, I know (yawn) you are going to say that this is anti-Semitic. However, being anti-Zionist is not anti-Semitic any more than it is Jew-hating.

Both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are bias, so is this....

[bbelliott · 2/10 · 3 August 2006]

The movie has only one flaw, unfortunately this flaw damages all credibility of the piece.

It starts with the condemnation of the Israeli occupation of disputed territories. It fails to address the reason Israelis are there. Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel. This is why Israel "occupys" their land, because those countries lost it in a war they started.

The film also claims that Israel has defied the U N by not complying with Resolution 242. Problem is, 242 was rejected immediately upon it's inception by.....the palestinians, making it void.

Many films are put together well, and can really show footage that changes minds, but remember, when watching anything, believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

All participants in this film are known critics of Israel, and some have made many antisemitic public comments, removing any possible credibility to their words.

All participants are in dire need of a actual history lesson taught objectively, not by some palestinian sympathizer.

Well-presented and informative documentary

[jennyhor2004 · 9/10 · 5 January 2012]

This is a highly informative documentary on the role that the US media plays in encouraging support for the Israeli government and its oppression of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories (West Bank and Gaza) and how this support influences US foreign policy in the Middle East. Through interviews with various academics, critics, journalists, religious leaders, peace activists and others, the program examines the methods that the Israeli government and its allies use to hide the truth about the harassment of Palestinians by the Israeli Defense Forces and to portray Israel's occupation and colonisation of Palestinian land as necessary and urgent self-defence. In particular, the role of American journalists and the American media organisations that employ them in disguising the truth is examined.

The film's style is simple and straightforward, built as it is around a wealth of newsreel reports punctuated by excerpts of interviews with guest commentators who include academics Noam Chomsky and Robert Jensen, British journalist Robert Fisk, peace activist Hanan Ashrawi and Tikkun Magazine founder Rabbi Michael Lerner among others. There's a certain polish to the film's presentation, especially in its use of animation and tables, though it is not at all sickly slick and the narration is very sparing, limited to relaying important information to viewers, and serves to introduce interviewees who expound at further length on the topics covered. The film reveals, among other things, that the US- Israeli relationship is of mutual benefit at the Palestinians' expense: the US relies on Israel to use most of the aid it receives from the US into buying American weaponry and other military technology and to test these on unwilling Palestinian guinea pigs, and to play the local sheriff in the Middle East to protect US political and economic interests in that region.

The film's structure centres around a list of strategies that the governments of Israel and the United States, their agencies and the US news media use to deceive the American public into supporting Israel. Particularly pernicious as a strategy is the US media's deliberate ignorance of individuals, groups and organisations, often Israeli and/or Jewish as well as Palestinian and/or Muslim, working to relieve the Palestinian people's suffering or calling attention to the abuses inflicted on them. This ignorance would suggest that the media in the United States (and also in many other countries including Australia) either willingly co-operates in constructing a pro-Israeli narrative about the intransigence and barbaric behaviour of Palestinian people especially if they are Muslim; or has been browbeaten, even threatened, into such co-operation by pro-Israeli lobby groups and institutions. In the US, the main lobby organisation is AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee) and in Australia its equivalent is AIJAC (Australia Israel Jewish Affaris Council) which is known to have intimidated the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service into reporting news about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in ways favourable to Israeli interests.

The other strategies discussed include the reporting of Palestinian violence in a context-less vacuum (so it appears to happen spontaneously without cause and gives the impression that Palestinians by nature are savage and Israel must always be on the alert); defining what is newsworthy (so Israeli victims of violence get more attention; this drives home the notion of Jews as eternal victims of persecution); Israel's colonisation of Palestinian territory being made invisible; the idea of the United States as an impartial and neutral referee; and the idea that any offers of peace to the Palestinians are always rejected by them (because the context in which such offers are made and the fine print within are never revealed in reports). Other ways in which Western audiences are co-opted into supporting Israel go unmentioned but deserve attention: in particular, Israel's use of the Shoah (Nazi-Jewish Holocaust) to beat European governments into coughing up money, none of which actually goes towards Shoah survivors who might be living in penury in Israel.

"Peace, Propaganda …" is a well-presented documentary, quite detailed in parts, and easy to follow. I recommend the film as a primer for those not familiar with the methods and strategies the Israeli government and its supporters uses to intimidate and silence politicians and media organisations around the world who have misgivings about the way Israel treats Palestinians and about the fascist, racist path that country is following in order to pursue such a policy. Media students would do well to watch the film which calls into question the nature of the relationships between the news media and governments, and which also highlights the need for the news media to tell the truth over the pressure to appear "unbiased" or "balanced" in its reporting. Ah, "fair and balanced" reporting: that doubtless is another strategy the apologists for the Israel government like to use

An excellent example of........

[cherny · 1/10 · 13 April 2007]

A propaganda film for the Palestinian "cause". If you were expecting an unbiased documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you will need to look elsewhere. If you are an anti-Semite (or merely an anti-Zionist---nothing wrong with advocating the destruction of a country, right?) or uncritically in support of Palestinian goals (e.g., mass murder, the destruction of Israel), this is the documentary for you. Should make for an entertaining evening on college campuses around the UK and US. However, any informed and intellectually honest person would be outraged at the sheer number of lies presented in this video. I just hope those who truly are unaware of the situation aren't corrupted by this anti-Semitic filth.