Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hooray for Pallywood!
- Thread starter Roudy
- Start date
Statistikhengst
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #3
Ah, those vewy vewy vewy busy Pawwies!
LOL
There's no business like Palestinian show business!
My favorite Palywood production was that Palestinian funeral we saw on national TV several years ago where when they discovered some Israeli's were present they all dropped the coffin & ran --- including the dead man. Heh Heh!
Here's the real Pallywood...
Israeli's say a Palestinian threw acid on some settlers,
turns out to be vinegar.
Israeli's say a Palestinian threw acid on some settlers,
turns out to be vinegar.
That's the real Pallywood. How many times have the Israeli's changed their "official" statement of the events after embarrassing evidence comes to light?Liquid Used in Alleged West Bank "Acid Attack" Determined to be Vinegar
The Jerusalem Post has reported that the acid thrown by a Palestinian on six Israelis in the occupied West Bank, Friday, was actually vinegar, according to Channel 2.
I like how you post innocuous pictures and don't explain anything about them. You just let conjecture, innuendo and ones own imagination to do the rest.There's no business like Palestinian show business!
Is this Pallywood?
Is this Pallywood?
Is this Pallywood?
YEP! All Pallywood. Funny, Funny. Funny! Thanks.
- Mar 16, 2012
- 59,243
- 17,529
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #12
PALLYWOOD: HISTORY
DEFINITION
The term “Pallywood” refers to the staging of scenes by Palestinian journalists in order to present the Palestinians as hapless victims of Israeli aggression. They are able to succeed in this endeavor in large part due to the credulity and eagerness of the Western press to present these images, which reinforce the image of the Palestinian David struggling valiantly against the overpowering Israeli Goliath. Pallywood has led to astonishing lapses in Western journalistic standards in which badly staged scenes regularly appear on the news as “real events.” This page attempts to outline how such lapses could have come about, producing the current situation.
MAJOR STAGES IN THE EMERGENCE OF PALLYWOOD
1982: Lebanon invasion
The earliest clear signs of an emerging Pallywood come from the Lebanese invasion of 1982. There, for the first time, the media seems to have embraced an openly hostile stance towards Israel, which led to a widely discussed article entitled “J’Accuse” (Commentary, September 1983), by Norman Podhoretz who charged America’s leading journalists, newspapers and television networks with “anti-Semitism.” The alleged hostility was characterized by the following incidents:
- Using Arafat’s brother, Fathi Arafat, head of the Palestinian Red Crescent, Palestinian sources claimed 10,000 dead and 600,000 refugees from the Israeli onslaught. Without checking to see how many people lived in southern Lebanon (300,000), the media repeated these figures constantly (pp. 300-301), until they became widely accepted.
- Reporters comparing the siege of Beirut with the Nazi siege of Warsaw. Of all the sieges of cities in 20th century warfare, it would be harder to find a more inappropriate one, and yet the analogy between Israelis and Nazis seems to have had an almost irresistable lure to some journalists. Among the most aggressive reporters was Peter Jennings. For a discussion of his work, see here and here.
- The use of clearly false images by a press eager to believe the worst of the Israeli army, including images of areas devastated in the civil war between Palestinians and Lebanese, dead babies that were not dead, etc (pp. 353-389).
- Coverage of Sabra and Shatilla massacres that left many under the impression that Israeli soldiers had massacred Palestinian refugees, and failed to inform people of why the Phalange wanted to take vengeance. Everyone has heard of Sabra and Shatilla; Only recently have people started to hear of Darfur. The stark contrast between the hundreds of dead at Sabra and Shatilla and the over ten thousand dead at Hama, a town in the heart of Syria, the same year, illustrates both the medias penchant for reporting any Israeli misdeed no matter how removed direct culpability, and the power of intimidation and (no) access journalism to silence them on matters of Arab misdeeds (see Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalém, chap. 4.)
- Use of streaming text below footage informing the viewer that the footage had been viewed by “Israeli military censors.” No similar indication of the role of Palestinian “authorities” in controlling the images emanating from areas under their control ever appeared. For a discussion of the press’s differential treatment of formal Israeli military censorship and informal but pervasive Palestinian censorship via intimidation and violence, (see pp. 353-387).
- Reluctance of the press – especially the “resident” reporters to reveal the extent of PLO brutality in the “state within a state” in southern Lebanon (see pp 219-278).
Given the eagerness of the Western press to report the worst of the Israelis, to avoid reporting on the worst of the Palestinians, their susceptibility to intimidation and the murder of journalists who displeased the PLO, and their remarkably shoddy standards in sifting real from confected evidence, Palestinians clearly understood that they had a valuable ally in the Western media based at the Commodore Hotel – “Chairman Yasser’s Best Battalion” (Chafets, Double Vision, chap. 6).
Poisoning of Palestinian Schoolgirls, Jenin (West Bank), March, 1983
A year after the Lebanese media debacle, Israel found itself the object of an extensive, premeditated fraud in which a number of Palestinian girls at middle school claimed to have been poisoned by “the Israelis.” The story immediately became an international scandal, with each nation reporting such a variety of details that the tale ended up resembling a version of Rashoman. None, however, questioned the veracity of the reports of poisoning, nor of the accusations of Israeli guilt. Only after a lengthy investigation did it turn out that there were no girls poisoned, and that PLO operatives had encouraged and bullied the girls and the hospital officials into cooperating.
The most interesting element of the story from the perspective of the media coverage reveals the following breakdown:
- The Israeli press took the accusations seriously and only after a medical investigation did they conclude that these were false.
- The Palestinian and Arab press immediately assumed they were true and used them to incite hatred and fear of Israelis. No amount of counter-evidence brought a change in coverage.
- The Western press presented the accusations as probable if not true (Europeans far more aggressive than Americans), and when the evidence of staging emerged, ceased to cover the incident, leaving the Israelis between libel and silence.
The accusations of Poison constitute the first clear-cut case of Pallywood: atrocities staged by Palestinian activists, depicting the Israelis poisoning innocent Palestinians, done for the sake of – and embraced by – both local and foreign press.
The First Intifada, 1987-91?
During the first Intifada, the media turned the West Bank into a feeding frenzy of Israeli brutality against what was often characterized as non-violent resistance. Here for the first time, we find an open collaboration between cameramen who were either informed of the imminent occurrence of, or had paid for, action sequences that they could photograph.
Staggering from the negative press, and uncertain as to how to quell the violence, Israeli authorities sometimes closed the territories to foreign press. These latter often supped drinks at the American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem while they gave cameras to Palestinian stringers to bring them action footage. This probably marks the first time that Palestinians with Western equipment were able to feed the news agencies images that they and the “street” staged. For an interesting analysis of the media’s handling of the first Intifada and the ways in which, focused on a particular story line (the Israeli Goliath vs. the Palestinian David), see Jim Lederman, Battle Lines.
There has also been in recent times an increasing number of web/newspaper articles that have described and denounced the manipulation of the media by Palestinians, and the anti-Israel bias of many in the western media.
- Recently a Palestinian filmmaker, producer of “Jenin, Jenin” admitted falsifying scenes in order to make Israelis look bad.
- Jeff Helmreich has documented a pattern of violation of professional journalism codes that dominate the reporting of Israel and the Palestinians.
- In an interview media analyst David Bedein has argued that for the past twenty years, the Palestinians have outmaneuvered the Israelis in framing the conflict for the world media.
- Josh Muravchik denounced the lousy job of the Western media covering the intifada and denounced the mechanical even handedness in reporting the conflict that gives the upper hand to authoritarian societies.
- Stephanie Gutmann, in “The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media supremacy” argues that Israel has floundered on the battlefield of editorial pages, television screens and the Internet.
The second “Al Aqsa” Intifada, October 2000-2004?
The outbreak of the second round of Palestinian violence against Israel came, ironically, in the wake of peace negotiations in which, according to the most credible sources, the Israelis offered the vast majority of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip (including the evacuation of settlements) in exchange for an end to the war between the Israelis and the Arabs. For a brief moment Barak and the Israelis actually got some sympathy in the world arena, and Arafat was weathering a rare period of disapproval from the world community. But once the violence broke out, and Israel could be blamed, and especially once pictures of Muhamed al Durah showed on TVs around the world, opinion shifted dramatically and decisively.
Perhaps the best way to understand how Pallywood was able to have such success at this juncture is to examine what happened on September 29, the day after Sharon visited the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif. That day, news agencies reported violent clashes between Israeli troops and Palestinians enraged by Sharon’s visit. AP published a photograph of a young man, bloodied and kneeling in front of an angry Israeli brandishing a baton.
Now it doesn’t take an insider to know that something is wrong here. There are no gas stations anywhere near the Temple Mount, so the location is clearly mistaken. But the mistakes far exceed mere location, and a closer look suggests that the Israeli soldier seems to be yelling at people beyond the wounded man. The man wounded in the picture is not a Palestinian, but an American Jew, a seminary student, who was dragged from his car by an angry mob of Palestinians and almost beaten and stabbed to death. (It took him months in the hospital to recover.) Read Tuvya Grossman’s personal account here. The Israeli is then not beating the boy, but protecting him from the mob, which is the object of his anger and attention. Among other papers, the New York Times, without checking any of these facts, ran the picture with the caption.
Nothing illustrates better the problem of paradigmatic expectations influencing what we see and how we register it. The Palestinians are the victims, the Israelis the victimizers. The picture illustrates JP: aggressive Palestinians initiating violence against civilians in Israel, and Israeli restraint (the soldier does not even use a gun to chase the murderous crowd). The caption re-reads the photo so it accords with PCP: aggressive Israelis viciously attacking unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the third holiest site in Islam.
It took the NYT 4 days to acknowledge the error identifying the victim as “Tuvya Grossman of Chicago” and a week to do a story on the beating. But by then the damage had been done. Not only was the PCP firmly set in place, but also the picture had become an emblem of Palestinian victimization. Despite this subsequent retraction, therefore, as in the case of the poison accusations of 1983, Palestinian and Arab media and their PCP2 supporters have continued to use the picture as part of their Palestinian victim narrative. To this day, Tuvya Grossman’s picture adorns a poster calling on everyone in the world to boycott Coca Cola in order to stop Israelis from killing Palestinians like this man.
With such a powerful storyline affecting (and transforming) the very nature of the evidence that our MSM presented to us at the outbreak of the violence in the Fall of 2000, is it surprising that the following day, they responded so eagerly to yet another piece of evidence that supported their PCP grand narrative – the case of Muhamed al Durah?
DEFINITION
The term “Pallywood” refers to the staging of scenes by Palestinian journalists in order to present the Palestinians as hapless victims of Israeli aggression. They are able to succeed in this endeavor in large part due to the credulity and eagerness of the Western press to present these images, which reinforce the image of the Palestinian David struggling valiantly against the overpowering Israeli Goliath. Pallywood has led to astonishing lapses in Western journalistic standards in which badly staged scenes regularly appear on the news as “real events.” This page attempts to outline how such lapses could have come about, producing the current situation.
MAJOR STAGES IN THE EMERGENCE OF PALLYWOOD
1982: Lebanon invasion
The earliest clear signs of an emerging Pallywood come from the Lebanese invasion of 1982. There, for the first time, the media seems to have embraced an openly hostile stance towards Israel, which led to a widely discussed article entitled “J’Accuse” (Commentary, September 1983), by Norman Podhoretz who charged America’s leading journalists, newspapers and television networks with “anti-Semitism.” The alleged hostility was characterized by the following incidents:
- Using Arafat’s brother, Fathi Arafat, head of the Palestinian Red Crescent, Palestinian sources claimed 10,000 dead and 600,000 refugees from the Israeli onslaught. Without checking to see how many people lived in southern Lebanon (300,000), the media repeated these figures constantly (pp. 300-301), until they became widely accepted.
- Reporters comparing the siege of Beirut with the Nazi siege of Warsaw. Of all the sieges of cities in 20th century warfare, it would be harder to find a more inappropriate one, and yet the analogy between Israelis and Nazis seems to have had an almost irresistable lure to some journalists. Among the most aggressive reporters was Peter Jennings. For a discussion of his work, see here and here.
- The use of clearly false images by a press eager to believe the worst of the Israeli army, including images of areas devastated in the civil war between Palestinians and Lebanese, dead babies that were not dead, etc (pp. 353-389).
- Coverage of Sabra and Shatilla massacres that left many under the impression that Israeli soldiers had massacred Palestinian refugees, and failed to inform people of why the Phalange wanted to take vengeance. Everyone has heard of Sabra and Shatilla; Only recently have people started to hear of Darfur. The stark contrast between the hundreds of dead at Sabra and Shatilla and the over ten thousand dead at Hama, a town in the heart of Syria, the same year, illustrates both the medias penchant for reporting any Israeli misdeed no matter how removed direct culpability, and the power of intimidation and (no) access journalism to silence them on matters of Arab misdeeds (see Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalém, chap. 4.)
- Use of streaming text below footage informing the viewer that the footage had been viewed by “Israeli military censors.” No similar indication of the role of Palestinian “authorities” in controlling the images emanating from areas under their control ever appeared. For a discussion of the press’s differential treatment of formal Israeli military censorship and informal but pervasive Palestinian censorship via intimidation and violence, (see pp. 353-387).
- Reluctance of the press – especially the “resident” reporters to reveal the extent of PLO brutality in the “state within a state” in southern Lebanon (see pp 219-278).
Given the eagerness of the Western press to report the worst of the Israelis, to avoid reporting on the worst of the Palestinians, their susceptibility to intimidation and the murder of journalists who displeased the PLO, and their remarkably shoddy standards in sifting real from confected evidence, Palestinians clearly understood that they had a valuable ally in the Western media based at the Commodore Hotel – “Chairman Yasser’s Best Battalion” (Chafets, Double Vision, chap. 6).
Poisoning of Palestinian Schoolgirls, Jenin (West Bank), March, 1983
A year after the Lebanese media debacle, Israel found itself the object of an extensive, premeditated fraud in which a number of Palestinian girls at middle school claimed to have been poisoned by “the Israelis.” The story immediately became an international scandal, with each nation reporting such a variety of details that the tale ended up resembling a version of Rashoman. None, however, questioned the veracity of the reports of poisoning, nor of the accusations of Israeli guilt. Only after a lengthy investigation did it turn out that there were no girls poisoned, and that PLO operatives had encouraged and bullied the girls and the hospital officials into cooperating.
The most interesting element of the story from the perspective of the media coverage reveals the following breakdown:
- The Israeli press took the accusations seriously and only after a medical investigation did they conclude that these were false.
- The Palestinian and Arab press immediately assumed they were true and used them to incite hatred and fear of Israelis. No amount of counter-evidence brought a change in coverage.
- The Western press presented the accusations as probable if not true (Europeans far more aggressive than Americans), and when the evidence of staging emerged, ceased to cover the incident, leaving the Israelis between libel and silence.
The accusations of Poison constitute the first clear-cut case of Pallywood: atrocities staged by Palestinian activists, depicting the Israelis poisoning innocent Palestinians, done for the sake of – and embraced by – both local and foreign press.
The First Intifada, 1987-91?
During the first Intifada, the media turned the West Bank into a feeding frenzy of Israeli brutality against what was often characterized as non-violent resistance. Here for the first time, we find an open collaboration between cameramen who were either informed of the imminent occurrence of, or had paid for, action sequences that they could photograph.
Staggering from the negative press, and uncertain as to how to quell the violence, Israeli authorities sometimes closed the territories to foreign press. These latter often supped drinks at the American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem while they gave cameras to Palestinian stringers to bring them action footage. This probably marks the first time that Palestinians with Western equipment were able to feed the news agencies images that they and the “street” staged. For an interesting analysis of the media’s handling of the first Intifada and the ways in which, focused on a particular story line (the Israeli Goliath vs. the Palestinian David), see Jim Lederman, Battle Lines.
There has also been in recent times an increasing number of web/newspaper articles that have described and denounced the manipulation of the media by Palestinians, and the anti-Israel bias of many in the western media.
- Recently a Palestinian filmmaker, producer of “Jenin, Jenin” admitted falsifying scenes in order to make Israelis look bad.
- Jeff Helmreich has documented a pattern of violation of professional journalism codes that dominate the reporting of Israel and the Palestinians.
- In an interview media analyst David Bedein has argued that for the past twenty years, the Palestinians have outmaneuvered the Israelis in framing the conflict for the world media.
- Josh Muravchik denounced the lousy job of the Western media covering the intifada and denounced the mechanical even handedness in reporting the conflict that gives the upper hand to authoritarian societies.
- Stephanie Gutmann, in “The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media supremacy” argues that Israel has floundered on the battlefield of editorial pages, television screens and the Internet.
The second “Al Aqsa” Intifada, October 2000-2004?
The outbreak of the second round of Palestinian violence against Israel came, ironically, in the wake of peace negotiations in which, according to the most credible sources, the Israelis offered the vast majority of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip (including the evacuation of settlements) in exchange for an end to the war between the Israelis and the Arabs. For a brief moment Barak and the Israelis actually got some sympathy in the world arena, and Arafat was weathering a rare period of disapproval from the world community. But once the violence broke out, and Israel could be blamed, and especially once pictures of Muhamed al Durah showed on TVs around the world, opinion shifted dramatically and decisively.
Perhaps the best way to understand how Pallywood was able to have such success at this juncture is to examine what happened on September 29, the day after Sharon visited the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif. That day, news agencies reported violent clashes between Israeli troops and Palestinians enraged by Sharon’s visit. AP published a photograph of a young man, bloodied and kneeling in front of an angry Israeli brandishing a baton.
Now it doesn’t take an insider to know that something is wrong here. There are no gas stations anywhere near the Temple Mount, so the location is clearly mistaken. But the mistakes far exceed mere location, and a closer look suggests that the Israeli soldier seems to be yelling at people beyond the wounded man. The man wounded in the picture is not a Palestinian, but an American Jew, a seminary student, who was dragged from his car by an angry mob of Palestinians and almost beaten and stabbed to death. (It took him months in the hospital to recover.) Read Tuvya Grossman’s personal account here. The Israeli is then not beating the boy, but protecting him from the mob, which is the object of his anger and attention. Among other papers, the New York Times, without checking any of these facts, ran the picture with the caption.
Nothing illustrates better the problem of paradigmatic expectations influencing what we see and how we register it. The Palestinians are the victims, the Israelis the victimizers. The picture illustrates JP: aggressive Palestinians initiating violence against civilians in Israel, and Israeli restraint (the soldier does not even use a gun to chase the murderous crowd). The caption re-reads the photo so it accords with PCP: aggressive Israelis viciously attacking unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the third holiest site in Islam.
It took the NYT 4 days to acknowledge the error identifying the victim as “Tuvya Grossman of Chicago” and a week to do a story on the beating. But by then the damage had been done. Not only was the PCP firmly set in place, but also the picture had become an emblem of Palestinian victimization. Despite this subsequent retraction, therefore, as in the case of the poison accusations of 1983, Palestinian and Arab media and their PCP2 supporters have continued to use the picture as part of their Palestinian victim narrative. To this day, Tuvya Grossman’s picture adorns a poster calling on everyone in the world to boycott Coca Cola in order to stop Israelis from killing Palestinians like this man.
With such a powerful storyline affecting (and transforming) the very nature of the evidence that our MSM presented to us at the outbreak of the violence in the Fall of 2000, is it surprising that the following day, they responded so eagerly to yet another piece of evidence that supported their PCP grand narrative – the case of Muhamed al Durah?
- Mar 16, 2012
- 59,243
- 17,529
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #13
Is this Pallywood?
And the Pallywood Oscar goes to.....
- Mar 16, 2012
- 59,243
- 17,529
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #14
What's fake about getting punched by the IDF?And the Pallywood Oscar goes to.....
- Mar 16, 2012
- 59,243
- 17,529
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #17
It's actually pretty good, from an acting point of view that is!What's fake about getting punched by the IDF?And the Pallywood Oscar goes to.....
Pallywood (Arabic: باليوود Bālīwūd; Hebrew: פאליווד), a portmanteau of "Palestinian" and "Hollywood", is a coinage that has been used by some in the international media, to describe "media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians and other Arabs ... designed to win the public relations war against Israel." The incidents of the Muhammad al-Durrah tapes and the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies (dubbed "Hizbollywood" or "Hezbollywood")[1] are notable events which have been cited as examples.[2]
The term has been publicized in part by Richard Landes, as a result of an online documentary video he produced called Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources, alleging specific instances of media manipulation.[3] The term is considered by some to be a racist ethnic slur and a conspiracy theory, as it associates the Palestinian people with the telling of lies and the deliberate staging of their own suffering and death.[4]
Richard Landes' video
Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources... an online documentary byRichard Landes.[5]
In 2005, Richard Landes produced an 18-minute online documentary video called Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources.[6] Landes and pro-Israel advocates argue that the Israeli government is insufficiently robust in countering Palestinian accounts of events in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[2]
In his video, Landes shows Arab-Israeli conflict-related footage that was taken mostly by freelance Palestinian video journalists. He argues that systematic media manipulation (which he dubs "Pallywood") dates back to at least the 1982 Lebanon War, and argues that broadcasters are too uncritical of the veracity of Palestinian freelance footage.[7]
He focuses in particular on the case of Muhammad al-Durrah, a 12-year-old Palestinian who was widely reported to have been killed by Israeli gunfire in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000 at the beginning of the Second Intifada. The shooting was filmed by a Palestinian freelance cameraman and aired on the France 2 television channel with narration by the veteran French-Israeli journalist Charles Enderlin, who was not present at the incident. It made worldwide headlines and the conduct of the Israel Defense Forces was heavily criticized internationally, severely damaging Israel's public standing on the world stage.[2]
Landes questions the authenticity of the footage and disputes whether al-Durrah was killed at all, arguing that the entire incident was staged by the Palestinians.[8] An investigation by Israel after the shooting found that the boy was killed but did not determine whether he was shot by the IDF or Palestinians. Landes based his argument on an incident earlier in the day that he alleges shows that "Palestinian cameramen, especially when there are no Westerners around, engage in the systematic staging of action scenes."[6]
Journalist Ruthie Blum, writing in the Jerusalem Post, describes "Pallywood" as a term coined by Richard Landes to refer to "productions staged by the 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." Landes himself describes Pallywood as "a term I coined... to describe staged material disguised as news." Besides al-Durrah, Landes cites the Gaza beach blast and Hamas's alleged exploitation of electricity shortages during the 2007–2008 Israel-Gaza conflict, as incidents of Pallywood. According to Blum, Landes's "pretty harsh claims" have earned him a "reputation in certain circles as a right-wing conspiracy theorist."[9]
Other uses of the term
Dr. Anat Berko, a research fellow with the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, and Dr. Edna Erez, head of the criminal justice department of the University of Illinois at Chicago, say that "the phenomenon of manufacturing documentation about the conflict has been referred to as "Pallywood" (Palestinian Authority Hollywood)."[10]
Similar allegations have been made by other media analysts, particularly after assertions of media manipulation (dubbed "Hizbollywood")[1] were made during the 2006 Lebanon War.[3][11][12][13][14] The Mackenzie Institute, a Canadian defense and security think tank,[15] has argued that given "a long history of posing for the cameras... the cynical 'Pallywood' nickname from once-deceived journalists for [Palestinian Authority] news services becomes understandable."[16]
The term has been applied beyond the Muhammad al-Durrah case in a number of publications,[17][18] and by conservative commentators such as David Frum,[19] Michelle Malkin[20] and Melanie Phillips.[21] Canadian columnist Paul Schneidereit has written, "[...] we've seen cases where the bodies of Palestinian martyrs carried on stretchers are inadvertently dropped, then, of their own volition, climb back on again. We’ve seen reports of massacres, as in Jenin in 2002, that turned out, after independent investigation, to have been greatly exaggerated. Needless to say, such episodes don’t instil an abiding trust in subsequent Palestinian claims, at least until they’re verified."[22]
So much to amaze us on Pallywood productions. Ya gotta love the Palis for their great sense of humor.
You have the mind of a 10 year old.
Is this a fake?
22,000 homes destroyed. Over 100,000 people displaced. And you want people to think this didn't happen? Fuck you! I mean, really, fuck you!
What's up with the data dump?It's actually pretty good, from an acting point of view that is!
Pallywood (Arabic: باليوود Bālīwūd; Hebrew: פאליווד), a portmanteau of "Palestinian" and "Hollywood", is a coinage that has been used by some in the international media, to describe "media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians and other Arabs ... designed to win the public relations war against Israel." The incidents of the Muhammad al-Durrah tapes and the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies (dubbed "Hizbollywood" or "Hezbollywood")[1] are notable events which have been cited as examples.[2]
The term has been publicized in part by Richard Landes, as a result of an online documentary video he produced called Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources, alleging specific instances of media manipulation.[3] The term is considered by some to be a racist ethnic slur and a conspiracy theory, as it associates the Palestinian people with the telling of lies and the deliberate staging of their own suffering and death.[4]
Richard Landes' video
Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources... an online documentary byRichard Landes.[5]
In 2005, Richard Landes produced an 18-minute online documentary video called Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources.[6] Landes and pro-Israel advocates argue that the Israeli government is insufficiently robust in countering Palestinian accounts of events in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[2]
In his video, Landes shows Arab-Israeli conflict-related footage that was taken mostly by freelance Palestinian video journalists. He argues that systematic media manipulation (which he dubs "Pallywood") dates back to at least the 1982 Lebanon War, and argues that broadcasters are too uncritical of the veracity of Palestinian freelance footage.[7]
He focuses in particular on the case of Muhammad al-Durrah, a 12-year-old Palestinian who was widely reported to have been killed by Israeli gunfire in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000 at the beginning of the Second Intifada. The shooting was filmed by a Palestinian freelance cameraman and aired on the France 2 television channel with narration by the veteran French-Israeli journalist Charles Enderlin, who was not present at the incident. It made worldwide headlines and the conduct of the Israel Defense Forces was heavily criticized internationally, severely damaging Israel's public standing on the world stage.[2]
Landes questions the authenticity of the footage and disputes whether al-Durrah was killed at all, arguing that the entire incident was staged by the Palestinians.[8] An investigation by Israel after the shooting found that the boy was killed but did not determine whether he was shot by the IDF or Palestinians. Landes based his argument on an incident earlier in the day that he alleges shows that "Palestinian cameramen, especially when there are no Westerners around, engage in the systematic staging of action scenes."[6]
Journalist Ruthie Blum, writing in the Jerusalem Post, describes "Pallywood" as a term coined by Richard Landes to refer to "productions staged by the 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." Landes himself describes Pallywood as "a term I coined... to describe staged material disguised as news." Besides al-Durrah, Landes cites the Gaza beach blast and Hamas's alleged exploitation of electricity shortages during the 2007–2008 Israel-Gaza conflict, as incidents of Pallywood. According to Blum, Landes's "pretty harsh claims" have earned him a "reputation in certain circles as a right-wing conspiracy theorist."[9]
Other uses of the term
Dr. Anat Berko, a research fellow with the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, and Dr. Edna Erez, head of the criminal justice department of the University of Illinois at Chicago, say that "the phenomenon of manufacturing documentation about the conflict has been referred to as "Pallywood" (Palestinian Authority Hollywood)."[10]
Similar allegations have been made by other media analysts, particularly after assertions of media manipulation (dubbed "Hizbollywood")[1] were made during the 2006 Lebanon War.[3][11][12][13][14] The Mackenzie Institute, a Canadian defense and security think tank,[15] has argued that given "a long history of posing for the cameras... the cynical 'Pallywood' nickname from once-deceived journalists for [Palestinian Authority] news services becomes understandable."[16]
The term has been applied beyond the Muhammad al-Durrah case in a number of publications,[17][18] and by conservative commentators such as David Frum,[19] Michelle Malkin[20] and Melanie Phillips.[21] Canadian columnist Paul Schneidereit has written, "[...] we've seen cases where the bodies of Palestinian martyrs carried on stretchers are inadvertently dropped, then, of their own volition, climb back on again. We’ve seen reports of massacres, as in Jenin in 2002, that turned out, after independent investigation, to have been greatly exaggerated. Needless to say, such episodes don’t instil an abiding trust in subsequent Palestinian claims, at least until they’re verified."[22]
That has nothing to do with the video I posted.
BTW, most of that shit has already been debunked.
So, the upshot here is that the Palestinians are consummate bullshit artists?
Why restate the glaringly obvious?
The routine obvious will do nicely.
Why restate the glaringly obvious?
The routine obvious will do nicely.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 119
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 158
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 318
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 86
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 186
- Views
- 829
- Replies
- 86
- Views
- 680
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8082
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-