Lies about Israel and why People tell them

Surely anti-Zionism doesn't have to be anti-Semitism? So why is it always?

Published on May 28, 2008 By Leauki In War on Terror

I have always wondered about the many "arguments" against Israel (or for the "Palestinian cause") but I never could understand where they came from.

Surely the sources of the most-often-cited "arguments" have been discredited a long time ago and are now only believed by stupid illiterate people but not well-educated western students?

However, despite the fact that "Mein Kampf" and the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are not accepted as factual in the west, lies about Israel are still believed and made up. And I wonder why.

Recently I was lucky enough, here in these forums, to see a common lie used as an argument and ask the person using it where he had it from. USUALLY such questions result in only insults but never a source. But this time the person in question was, ultimately, an honest debater (or thought he was) and gave me a source.

And that's when the big surprise hit me.

Here's the original argument:

"All I know for sure is the following, Palestinian settlements are bulldozed down and in their place Israeli settlements are built."

It sounds really bad, what with it being ethnic cleansing and all. Surely if Israel does such things, attacking Jewish kindergardens to stop it is justifiable?

And that Israeli practice appears to be the cause for the conflict, as the argument continues:

"Well quite simply because if a foreign goverment came into my town, bulldozed some buildings and built a settlement I'd be sure as hell willing to fight to take it back."

Is it not obvious that a terrorist group shooting rockets into a Jewish school is just trying to prevent the destruction of homes by the Israeli army?

But I asked for a source, and finally got a source, a BBC article on Israeli bulldozers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1539426.stm

"Israeli tanks and bulldozers rolled into the Palestinian town of Jenin early on Wednesday and destroyed a police building."

This was in 2001 during the second Intifada, during a war.

I assume the BBC article is more or less correct, except for the fact that it uses the word "uprising" to describe the breaking of a peace treaty for some reason.

So it appears that the legend of Israeli ethnic cleansing, which is often used as an argument for why the Intifada started(!) is based on the destruction of a police station that happened DURING that Intifada.

But why do people make the jump from "bulldozing a police station" to ethnic cleansing? Why is it obvious to so many that Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing to replace Arabs with Jews? Would the same people read any report about the destruction of a police station during a war as evidence for ethnic cleansing?

I think many people have decided that Israel simply cannot be the angel Zionists claim it is. (They know this. It must be true. How could Jews be such good guys now, really!) Hence they are jumping to conclusions to find Israeli crimes whereever they can.

Why would anybody attack Israel if Israel is so harmless, right?

People in the west don't understand hatred.

I also assume that the individual in question simply didn't realise that the ethnic cleansing accusation could be a lie and hence assumed that any report on bulldozers would prove any story about bulldozing. Maybe I wasn't doubting the ethnic cleansing accusation but the part that it was done with bulldozers?

P.S.: Yes there are Israeli settlements in the West-Bank. Yes they are illegal according to the peace treaty (which obviously is still binding for Israel even though the Arabs broke it during their "uprising" and it is certainly not anti-Semitism to apply two different standards to the two sides, in fact NOTHING is anti-Semitism these days). However, those settlements have NOT, as a rule, been built on destroyed Arab homes, and certainly not in the middle of Jenin on the ruins of a former police station; that would have been suicide.

P.P.S.: It is also quite clear to many people that a Jew forced from his property in an Arab country, who then fled to Israel, does not enjoy the right to fight back violently; even though Arabs have that right. Incidentally, I assume that if Israel had bulldozed Arab homes, the BBC who call breaking a peace treaty an "uprising" would have pointed it out.

Comments (Page 1)

Leauki

on May 28, 2008

Incidentally... Israelis and Jews DIE because of other people believing that Israel regularly destroys Arab homes to replace them with houses for Jews. It is NOT funny.

Leauki

on May 28, 2008

Hm... I replied to this article and can occasionally see the reply, but the forums listed it as zero replies and the reply is not there.

What's up with that?

Leauki

on May 28, 2008

Now it's listed as one reply and I can see both... Weird.

Tova7

on May 28, 2008

Now it's listed as one reply and I can see both... Weird.

That happens to me all the time. I think it takes the forums a few minutes to show replies on new articles..

I believe most Americans have two sources for information about the Jews..ok, three.

1. News media

2. History

3. Church

Depending on what you watch, which books you read, or where you worship, lots of information about Jews can be distorted.

I do understand why Jews are hated from a Christian perspective. But when you try and pin down the specifics it sounds so trite compared to the amount of hatred, if that makes any sense.

Here's the problem. Most Americans don't even understand what is happening between the Palestinians and Jews and most don't care. We are a lackadaisical country when it comes to the rest of the world. Our students are horrible at World Geography and only pull a close miserable second at world history.

We are fairly self centered.

If you went out on the street today and asked the average American..."What is the deal with Jews and Arabs? Why can't they get along?"

You will get an answer from one of the aforementioned sources. And I imagine most wouldn't even be able to parrot those.

Leauki

on May 29, 2008

I believe most Americans have two sources for information about the Jews..ok, three.

1. News media

2. History

3. Church

I guess so.

The media:

But the news media do not actually tell those lies. As you can see in my example the BBC report did not actually claim that Israel destroys Arab homes and replaces them with Jewish settlements. Nevertheless that particular claim was used as an "argument" against Israel and an excuse for Arab violence.

The BBC did lie about the war being an "uprising", since a war between two parties subject to a peace treaty is NOT an "uprising". But that is a lie about definitions (a war against Israel is always an "uprising" or "resistance"), not a lie about physical facts.

(The first "Intifada" could be called an "uprising", not the second though.)

The lie about ethnic cleansing in Israel is not something the media made up.

History:

Most anti-Zionists have an interesting way to study history. They do not read historical documents (and hence are constantly surprised when confronted with statements made by Arab leaders historically about Jews and Israel). For them "history" is just a story that changes with your point of view.

Church:

That would include mosques, of course. And I have heard that Muslims are told the most ridiculous lies in mosque. However, in this case I was wondering about secular liberal non-Muslims and where they get the lies from. I don't think they go to church either. (Perhaps they should!)

As for the question.

"What is the deal with Jews and Arabs? Why can't they get along?"

My answer is, of course, to suggest that whoever wants to know the answer should spend one day dressed up as a nationalist Arab Muslim in a Jewish city in Israel and one day dressed up as a Zionist Israeli Jew in an Arab city anywhere in the Arab world (with the exception, perhaps, of Morocco).

The answer will come to him.

Leauki

on May 29, 2008

In fact, I have often proposed that game as a bet to people who told me that the conflict is due to the Jews' hatred of Arabs and Muslims (whereas the Arabs are the victims and not hateful at all).

I suggested that I would wear a pro-Arab-nationalist t-shirt in Tel Aviv if my opponent would wear a pro-Israel t-shirt in an Arab city in Egypt. Whoever survives, I proposed, wins the argument.

For some reason the number of people who "know" that Israelis hate Arabs and kill them whenever they can while Arabs are peaceful victims is much larger than the number of people who would bet their lives on that "knowledge".

Dr Guy

on May 29, 2008

I can easily see the "why people tell them" answer. But the people who blindly accept news are the ones that scream the news is unbiased and truthful. When in fact by any measure other than their hatred it is not. The Media has it in for Israel. For the simple reason they are winners (overall media, as I am sure there are plenty of closet nazis among them as well). If Israel was not so closely allied with the US (another winner), they would not be vilified. But more often than not, the only 2 nations that stand on the side of peace and justice in the UN are the US and Israel (Europe does when it does not impact their pocketbook).

Short and sweet - Israel is hated because they are so much like the US. And are one of its strongest friends.

Leauki

on May 29, 2008

Yes, but in this case the media, even the BBC, did NOT actually tell the lie.

Dr Guy

on May 29, 2008

Yes, but in this case the media, even the BBC, did NOT actually tell the lie.

No, but they frame the debate so that those thinking along the same lines jump to the conclusion. They have a distinct anti-Israel Bias. And it may not be stated, but as you saw, it is implied or shadowed, and then the willing lemmings snap at the conclusion the writer is hinting at, but is trying to avoid saying outright.

Leauki

on May 29, 2008

While I would generally agree with your point, I really don't think it was the case here.

The BBC article clearly spoke of a police station destroyed by tanks and bulldozers. The article had an anti-Israel bias, yes. But the reporter was honest. I don't think he was trying to manipulate anyone or imply anything. He just happened to think that breaking a peace treaty with Israel does constitute an uprising against an oppressor. But he reported the events correctly and objectively.

There was room for changing the story in such a way that the ethnic cleansing conclusion would have been more obvious without reporting an untruth. He could have said "Israeli bulldozers destroyed Palestinian houses in Jenin." Instead he said that tanks and bulldozers (i.e. clearly a military operation) destroyed a police station (clearly a military target).

No, that reporter was reporting the truth. It is of course up to the reader to decide that that truth wasn't evil enough.

What really happened:

The PLO broke a peace treaty and attacked Israel. The specific event was Israel responding to the attacks by destroying a PLO police station.

What the BBC reported:

The PLO engaged in an "uprising". (Which is a normally accepted term for a war against Israel.) Event remains the same, except that Israel "claims" to respond to attacks. (Which is true. However, it is also true that Israel both responded to the attacks and claimed to respond to the attacks.)

What the report became:

Israel destroys "Palestinian" homes to replace them with Jewish homes and the "Palestinians" fight Israel in response.

The complete logical disconnect lies clearly between the BBC story and the lie, not between the BBC story and the actual events.

Paladin77

on Jul 05, 2008

It is very simple, Jews are bad because they killed Christ. Ask any Nazi, they will tell you, this it was their reason behind the final solution. The nation state of Israel was our response to the final solution. It seems some groups don’t get that.

lulapilgrim

on Jul 05, 2008

If you went out on the street today and asked the average American..."What is the deal with Jews and Arabs? Why can't they get along?"

Tova7,

We've heard from some of the others, but what are your answers your own questions?

I believe most Americans have two sources for information about the Jews..ok, three.
1. News media
2. History
3. Church

To this list, I'd add the Holy Bible and Jews themselves.

Depending on what you watch, which books you read, or where you worship, lots of information about Jews can be distorted.

I agree. So what's the truth and where are we to find the truth?

I agree.

To a certain degree, I fall into this category...I don't fully understand what's happening and most everything I read or hear, I take with a "grain of salt" and always consider the source.

lulapilgrim

on Jul 05, 2008

Leauki writes:

Surely anti-Zionism doesn't have to be anti-Semitism? So why is it always?

Leauki,

You're question, "So why is it always?" is puzzling to me. It's the word "always" that has me wondering....

What is Zionism to you? and what constitutes "anti-Zionism"?

Same questions with Semitism?

Leauki

on Jul 07, 2008

You're question, "So why is it always?" is puzzling to me. It's the word "always" that has me wondering....

Me too.

I just don't understand why all criticism of Zionism is always accompanied with anti-Semitic lies.

Perhaps there are no real arguments against Zionism.

What is Zionism to you? and what constitutes "anti-Zionism"?

Zionism is to me pretty much what it was to the founders of the modern state of Israel.

Zionism is the ideology that Jews have a right to live in the Land of Israel. It is rooted in the Bible, the Quran, the understanding that all peoples have a right of self-determination, and necessity.

Anti-Zionism would be the belief that Jews don't have a right to live in the Land of Israel.

Same questions with Semitism?

That's not a word.

taltamir

on Aug 17, 2008

The BBC is distinctly anti semetic, they are also pro terrorist and anti democratic. The BBC is under a LOT of heat right now by the british taxpayers (who fund it) because the BBC is so obvious about it. when the train bombing in britain occured, the BBC quickly renamed the "terrorists" into a positive term and punished the writer of said article, and stated "one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter" (interestingly, rueters said the same when the WTC were bombed).

The BBC writes very loaded titles and articles. Bulldozers rolling into town demolishing buildings? sounds like ethnic cleansing to me. Why are they even MENTIONING that a tank rolled over a police station during a war? isn't it quite obvious that property damage occurs? AFAIK there are no bulldozers used in military actions, ever. Only tanks.

I actually clearly remember seeing a picture of a tank breaking through a wall (not of a house, just a wall, a barriar). It was broadcast over and over with captions such as "israeli tanks destroying palestinian homes" and "israeli bulldozer destroying palastinian school".

If you clicked such a title you saw a picture of a tank driving through a wall, but that is not what the caption said.

Also when people shoot rockets into israel, and israel shells the region and hits someone, its "Israel kills X palastinian civilians". When a terrorist attack hits israel it is "bulldozer "attack" strikes jerusalem". Last I checked bulldozers don't attack people. the "attack" is a fact, not a falsity (which is what the parenthesis implies), and the victems were people, not a city. (note they don't name israel as a target either, since even that is too much legitimacy).

Mincing words is what reporters do best. check this out for more info: http://honestreporting.com/

Also, an amusing example, take the guardian. "Israel and the palestinians" section... not govt vs govt, not people vs people... govt vs people... and a whole section at that.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!