There is this new documentary that was aired in Israel that is making a buzz. It is a documentary that alleges Israeli forces led by Beniyamin Ben Eliezer, former defense minister and labor party leader, had executed the Egyptian soldiers in cold blood and they were POWs. Well, the movie initiated strong criticism from the same country whose parliament not more than a month ago pledged that a Nuclear Bomb being used on Israel could solve the Israel’s question. Now this country wants to stand up against war crimes violations. They allege that it was a war crime and same bull crap that we hear all the time.
After the relation between Israel and Egypt started deteriorating, the detective went to work to find out whether this film has any credibility. It didn’t take more than a week until the director himself admits that those weren’t Egyptian Commando Unit. The next day he even admits that the footage from the archive he used were from a totally different scene completely unrelated to the subject matter of his documentary. Then he admits that they were Palestinian fighters being used by Egyptian soldiers and they were not executed and the whole situation is not completely ambiguous. OK, so far there are four things being admitted here. The question is does this documentary pledge anything or show anything at all?
This is the same story we always hear. During the Lebanon war, it turned out that associated press started working on the pictures to make the situation seem worse and Beirut was up in smoke. Then it was in Qana when it came out that the building was bombed at 12 am and it came down 8 am. The number of the killed did not add up and at the same time, the majorities were not kids and women, as they had alleged. At the same time, there were no men among dead for some reason. After Israel started releasing videos about how the building was being used and how the victim somehow were not really victims, then Hizbollah dropped this issue of Qana and never spoke of it again! I wonder why?!
In a day or age that we live today with freedom of speech, you could make any movie you and allege anything. With digital technology or access to different type of archive, you could create any reality you want. The thing is, in today’s world, the left and anti-Zionists would utilize any tool to try to discredit Israel. Israel might have made some mistakes just as any country has in time of war, however it does not justify making phony documentaries and question integrity of people.
Another issue: maybe Egypt should focus on their own war criminal during the Yum Kippur war instead of relying on a unreliable documentary to stand up for human rights. As soon as they crossed the canal in the war, there were about telephone operators working in the canals who were female officer. First they were brutally raped and then their heads were cut off. So my message to Egypt is: calm your nerves and before you take out your sword to cut the head of the criminals, conduct an investigation. This is the exact problem in Arab world and it is the lack of due process.
8 comments:
Documentaries are always a little iffy in capturing the truth of an issue. Often documentaries result from a message that the filmmaker wants to publicize, and so you start with a bias from the very beginning. Nonetheless, that does not mean that documentaries have free reign to distort the facts or knowingly misrepresent their subjects.
I have watched a lot of documentaries that tell the otherwise. One example was this documentaries about China's criminal action. It was done by this chinese guy, I have watched a lot of Arab documentaries that tallk about lack of education in Arab world, they are not biased. But I don't know, I am just sick and tired of the masses following and bowing to a documentary calling it "an absolute truth" or some shit like that without first asking their own questions. It is amazing how if somebody has a liberal agenda, their documentary is carrying an undeniable truth.
I am especially talking about documentaries about Israel, one is "Jenin Jenin", ohh that was my favorit where there wasn't a single image of mass graves or massacre, but again, the liberal world held it up as an absolute truth!
But ben u have disregarded many issues about this media matter first when hezbolllah was bombing isreal and haifa in precise media in isreal was exaggerating matters we all know the capability of nasrallahs missile " me as lebanese" all wat his missles did was either punch a wallor cause a balcony to fall bu media in isreal made it sound as if they were bombed by smart misslies "katyousha" missles and "zilzal" have both less than 10 kg of TNT whicj is nothing in comparison to missiles used to bomb beirut which contained 2000+ kg of explosive material ...and about the massacres yes qana was a joke but many others as in sour and maroun il ras and kirbit silm that were true massacres ... adn wat about mohammad il doura who was killed in his dads lap that was no mistake that was intended terrorisim and planned murder it was terorisim and cruelty and anti-humanian that is what i know isreeal is not an angel neither is hezbollah but still i want isreal to kick their butts and yes i am lebanese but the problem with isreal it hurts many civilians an many casulaties they had many mistakes ... i hope that war would be the final solution
the last comment was by me ben i am fadel
Fadel:
I understand where you are comming from. But if you review any war, that has always been the situation. Why do we have to go to War to have these situations? Israel doesn't have a choice anymore except to bomb anywhere they see a missle comming doesn't matter the size or the magnitute of the missle. Israel has the right to defend itself by any means necessary. However, the quesiton, could Israel have done a better job in going after Hizbollah? Yes, by relying less on the Airforce and more on Ground Troops. But point well taken though fadel!
Another thing is, this is the nature of the war, this is what happen when wars break out, civilians will be hurt, show me a war that civilians were not killed. However, the difference is between people who intentionaly target the civilians and those who try to minimize it or at least not target them!
Israel is not an angel and therei s another argument that Israel is reckless in targeting terrorists but again, the other side is going to argue that we have no other choice!
With regard to mohammad il doura:
"adn wat about mohammad il doura who was killed in his dads lap that was no mistake that was intended terrorisim and planned murder it was terorisim and cruelty and anti-humanian"
A 2002 documentary on Germany's ARD television network titled Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?, based on the IDF findings and a ballistic analysis of the scene, supported Shahaf's conclusion that al-Durrah could not have been killed by gunfire from the Israeli outpost. The documentary stated that the boy's death was accidental and he was not purposely targeted by either side.[20]
James Fallows, in a June 2003 article in The Atlantic Monthly titled Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? cited a number of unanswered questions raised by the Israeli physicist Nahum Shahaf during the second IDF investigation:
"Why is there no footage of the boy after he was shot? Why does he appear to move in his father's lap, and to clasp a hand over his eyes after he is supposedly dead? Why is one Palestinian policeman wearing a Secret Service-style earpiece in one ear? Why is another Palestinian man shown waving his arms and yelling at others, as if 'directing' a dramatic scene? Why does the funeral appear — based on the length of shadows — to have occurred before the apparent time of the shooting? Why is there no blood on the father's shirt just after they are shot? Why did a voice that seems to be that of the France 2 cameraman yell, in Arabic, 'The boy is dead' before he had been hit? Why do ambulances appear instantly for seemingly everyone else and not for al-Dura?"
well, that is why we don't hear anything about that kid anymore!
It is just a lost cause for them!
Post a Comment