How the Arabs Manipulate the Media, Israelis and the West
Summary ... In the Middle East, the Arabs have learned their lessons well when it comes to manipulation of the media and the Western world. In addition, they have successfully employed a number of psychological techniques to demoralize many Israelis. Why is the world so willing to believe the lies of Jew-hating terrorists, even when they have been proven time and again to be liars?
"One need not destroy one's enemy. One need only destroy his willingness to engage." — Sun Tzu, The Art of War
The recent Arab riots on the Temple Mount and inside Jerusalem's Old City are part of the ongoing war against Israel. The Arabs employ a number of psychological techniques to demoralize Israelis in order to convince them that their county has usurped Arab lands, is unjust and morally bankrupt. Their ultimate objective is for Israel to abandon the idea of a Jewish state, allow the Arabs to establish their own country, and then purge the Jews.
In this "war of nerves," the Arabs borrow from revolutionaries including Carlos Marighella, a leader of the Brazilian guerrilla organization ALN. Marighella urged his followers to use the mass media, foreign embassies, the UN [United Nations], international commissions, and Vatican representatives to spread their lies and false rumors in order to discredit the government. Acts of terror, assassination, sabotage and kidnappings further create an environment of uncertainty, anxiety and apprehension.1
During the first Intifada (December 1987 to October 1991), the Arabs manipulated the international press by placing individuals affiliated with the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] and other Islamic political groups into their media bureaus. Rather than hide these connections, the Arabs used them to enhance their attraction to their employers.2
Developing personal relationships with Israelis who oppose Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, meeting with them in Israel and taking them on tours of the refugee camps helped solidify support for the Arabs, and created a sense of guilt among those who know little about the history of the conflict.3
Semantics is another weapon used against Israel. Instead of describing insurrections as riots, the Arabs call them demonstrations. This is in keeping, they assert, with their basic right in a democracy to protest against unfair government policies. What they don't say is that the riots are designed to hasten the demise of Israel. After the Arabs continually used the term demonstration, members of the media adopted it as their own.
When a demonstration becomes violent after the military intervenes to disband the crowd, the Arabs allege that they are being oppressed. Often they charge Israelis with committing atrocities. This is after trying to goad the army into committing indiscriminate acts of force, particularly against women and children.
Contrived shootings, protests, arrests for the Western media is another technique Arabs use. Dutch television showed an Arab boy being aggressively arrested by Israeli soldiers while he was walking on the street. To ensure that the TV crew noticed that he was "innocent," he yelled to them to take notice of what was happening.
An investigation later revealed that the youth had purposely violated curfew after seeing the TV crew. He knew he would be apprehended, that his violent arrest would be recorded and the broadcast would help to discredit Israel. This was an isolated event, yet Israeli intelligence claimed that journalists knew how much they would have to pay for a stone throwing or a demonstration. The Arabs instructed the journalists when and where to stand in order to get the best shot.4
At the beginning of the second Intifada in 2000, Muhammad al-Dura, a 12 year-old Palestinian [sic] boy, was reportedly shot by Israelis in a cross fire near the Netzarim crossing in Gaza while being shielded by his father. The episode was filmed and broadcast on France TV 2.
Though few Americans ever heard of Muhammad al-Dura, to "a billion people in the Muslim world, " his name had become "an infamous symbol of grievance against Israel" and "a potent symbol of the genocidal intentions of Israel's government."5
After conferring with Israeli soldiers and photographers who were at the scene and reviewing unedited videotape from the area of the incident, Israeli physicist Nahum Shahaf found that the Palestinians had cooperated with foreign journalists and the UN to arrange this staged production.6
Historian Richard Landes began investigating the case as a blood libel after seeing this incident as "One Jew allegedly kills a gentile child in cold blood, and all Jews everywhere are responsible. That's the beginning of the wave of anti-Semitism that literally has marked the 21st century, and we have not seen the end of it. This is where cyberspace can play a crucial role."7
Landes coined the phrase "Pallywood" to describe this and other "pernicious productions staged by Palestinians in front of (and often with cooperation from) Western camera crews, for the purpose of promoting anti-Israel propaganda by disguising it as news."
While examining footage from another alleged incident, Landes noticed a Palestinian with "blood" on his forehead ostensibly from a head wound running without any sign of trauma.8
After giving what appears to be a Molotov cocktail to a colleague, the Palestinian darts into the crowd. In the next frame, he is put on a stretcher and taken to an awaiting ambulance, while keeping his head high though allegedly suffering from a head injury. "It's really obvious that it's fake," Landes concludes.9
In the Gaza beach explosion on June 9, 2006, eight Palestinians were killed and 30 or more injured. Though very compelling evidence shows they were killed by Palestinian land mines, the Palestinians accused Israel.
The foreign media sided with the Arabs. Landes noted "And herein lies another real tragedy: The eagerness with which the media seize upon anything negative about Israel, and the reluctance with which they reveal anything negative about the Palestinians, have radically skewed the world's view of what's going on here."10
In Rhetoric, Aristotle claimed that "Men have a sufficient natural instinct for what is true, and usually do arrive at the truth." When it comes to the Arabs, many in the West and Israel have yet to use their natural instinct.
Footnotes1. Carlos Marighella, Mini-Manual of the Urban Guerrilla (Toronto: Abraham Guillen Press and Arm The Spirit, 2002), 28-32; Maurice Tugwell, "Terrorism and Propaganda: Problem and Response," Conflict Quarterly (Spring 1986): 5; Abu Iyad with Eric Rouleau, My Home, My Land: A Narrative of The Palestinian Struggle (New York: Times Books, 1978), 69, 136-138; Shaul Mishal and Reuben Aharoni, Speaking Stones: Communiques from the Intifada Underground (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1994). [return]
2. Ron Schleifer, Psychological Warfare in the Intifada (Portland, Oregon: Sussex Academic Press, 2006), 94. [return]
3. Ibid. 31, 78. [return]
4. Ibid.21, 48, 95, 97. [return]
5. James Fallows, "Who Shot Mohammad al-Dura," Atlantic Monthly (June 2003); Nidra Poller, "Myth, Fact, and the al-Dura Affair," Commentary Magazine (September 2005); Doreen Carvajal, "The Mysteries and Passions of an Iconic Frame," New York Times (February 7, 2005); James Fallow, "News on the al-Dura front-Israel finding that it was staged," Atlantic Monthly (October 2, 2007); Martin Patience, "Dispute rages over al-Durrah" BBC News (November 8, 2007); Gabriel Weimann, Communicating Unreality: Modern Media and the Reconstruction of Reality (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1999). [return]
6. Amnon Lord, "Who Killed Muhammad Al-Dura? Blood Libel-Model 2000" Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, No. 482. (July 15, 2002) [return]
7. Ruthie Blum Leibowitz, "One on One: Framing the Debate" The Jerusalem Post (March 27, 2008). For more information on Professor Landes efforts in this area, please see Second Draft; The Augean Stables (blogs) and Understanding the Goldstone Report. [return]
8. Ibid. [return]
9. Ibid. [return]
10. Ibid. [return]
[ Published: December 17, 2009 ]
The tragedy of the pro-'Palestinian' movement is its attachment to a single narrative: "Look at how wretched the lives of the 'Palestinian' people are," they tell us, "It is because of Israeli oppression." Because this narrative must be constantly reinforced, there is little room for real reporting about the failures of the 'Palestinian' leadership and the corruption and infighting that have caused the 'West Bank' [i.e., Judea & Samaria] and Gaza to languish.
The Arab leadership is attempting to portray the current Intifada as a kind of popular, spontaneous struggle that expresses the population's despair over the political situation. In reality, it is an Intifada supported and directed by the Arab leadership of the PA/PLO-Fatah and Hamas.
Rabbi Meir Kahane points out that, contrary to popular belief, the Temple Mount is in Arab hands, the cunning Arab foxes. And the words of Motta Gur ring hollowly — and it is the Jews who are to blame. They took a miracle and disdained it. They, who took holiness and profaned it. They who were given a Zion, a Jerusalem, Temple Mount — gave it over to the jackal-foxes.
Hamas explains general principles and objectives in 42-article document.
PA/PLO leader Abbas seems intentionally to ignore that he and his PA/PLO are responsible for the violence, as a result of their daily incitement against Israel. A recent poll found that approximately half of 'Palestinians' believe the "Intifada" should lead to the destruction of Israel.
What is really going on behind the scenes of the current terrorist attacks? It's actually a lot more than what is seen on a daily basis. Hamas is fighting to take control of the PA/PLO while Fatah is doing its best to stay in power and get Gaza back under its control.
US Jewish leaders blew it recently when what was a rare opportunity to ask the US president face-to-face to release Jonathan Pollard, they didn't even consider the matter as being a priority.
Obama needs to wake up. The real enemy is not Netanyahu. The real enemy is Iran, Hizb'Allah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Islamic State, and the establishment of a terrorist state in the midst of Israel.
It's no state secret that US President Barack Obama is not a huge fan of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His distain for the Jewish leader is well-known throughout the world; he's never tried to hide it. But now that Israel is having new elections in March does it mean Obama could, either directly or indirectly, influence the elections in Israel in order to obtain a defeat for Netanyahu?