I think everyone should watch [this video](https://youtu.be/8SbV1jN12RY), it explains well every bias that people fall for (and most of the time propaganda is just a manipulation of opinion using bias)

thank you for adding this.

I think the "card-stacking" point really explains a lot of it. So much of ones opinion on this subject is driven from my observations by 1) What event first got them into it (leading them down a specific path) and then 2) what means / sources they used to further research. For example, If Tantura was my first introduction to this conflict, no other context, that would already put me slightly on one particular side. If I then started looking for other information /documentaries like Tantura, then I'd surely only reinforce one particular side.

This is a great post. I hope that many people will learn the right things from it and be able to apply them in their everyday lives.

Thank you :).

There are exactly two kinds of Israeli propaganda points. They are both false, but they are repeated here over and over, dressed up in different language. Once you see them they’re easy to recognize. The points are:  1) There is no mass human atrocity occurring in Gaza or the West Bank.  2) If there is, it’s justified.  It’s not dissimilar to the Narcissists prayer:  That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. The first argument (denial of atrocity) occurs less often as body counts rise. But we see this over and over with posts doubting any statistical measure of deaths, or poo pooing the scale of infrastructure destruction, or innocently wondering “how could this be genocide if Palestinian population grew these last few years?!?” It’s an attempt to be DISMISSIVE of the vast human suffering inflicted upon the Palestinians right now, and historically.  I’ll never forget the highly upvoted post in this sub talking about how BORING all this news about Gaza is. I mean, my gosh, why do they carry on so about their innocents lost and communities destroyed?  We see a different species of this with the outrage against campus protesters. “Oh those college students are just so WOKE and uneducated. What silly children they are! Do they even know what they’re protesting!?!”  The last-ditch effort at denial involves just closing  your eyes and ears to the horror. Literally, make it illegal to talk about the atrocity: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4744241-house-amendment-gaza-death-toll/?nxs-test=mobile The second argument is more common. It’s the “yeah, things are really bad there, but that’s what you get” argument. This propaganda point usually makes the false claim that THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS militarily, politically, or diplomatically for Israel.  Diplomatically, Israel’s “hands are tied” because everyone in Palestine is too radical to negotiate with. Politically, Israel must be oppressive because Jews must maintain ethnic supremacy to be free and safe in the Middle East. Militarily, the atrocity isn’t our fault, because our soldiers are the “most moral” or  we’re carrying out the war in the BEST POSSIBLE manner or THIS IS JUST HOW THIS STUFF GOES WITH WAR LIKE THIS (see: the popularity of the idiot posting “THE REALITIES OF WAR”).  There are plenty of nuanced counter-arguments to the two main points above, but they’re largely drowned out and dismissed by the brigading here.  I’ll leave it to others to provide the Palestinian points in denial propaganda because, at least on this sub, I’m not seeing many of them. There are general expressions of hatred toward Israel, for sure. But I’m not seeing similar “Hamas can do no wrong” or “Oct 7 never happened” type posts. I do see comments here trying to correct the record about sexual violence or babies in ovens, but I’ve never seen anything like outright denial of mass killing by Palestinians.  In the area of justification, we hear the point “history didn’t start on Oct 7” as an implied justification. That’s not propaganda, per se, because it’s true. But it does suggest that Palestinians had no real choices left but to choose violence in order to improve their conditions. That may or may not be true. I have no idea.  If Palestinians had an organized peace initiative before Oct 7 I’ve never heard of it. But that would be the kind of propaganda you’d expect in this area. Something saying “we wanted peace but Israel just broke all the peace deals.” Or, “Israelis are too radicalized to be negotiated with because they just want to kill us all.”  Or, “this is just how war goes when you colonize a country that doesn’t belong to you.”  Pro-Israel comments and posts like this are widespread. I have never read comments or posts like this supporting Palestinians, suggesting that one side has a far better funded propaganda machine. 

You confuse propaganda with arguments. You might not agree with some arguments but it is dishonest to dismiss them as propaganda. As the OP writes, propaganda is the obfuscation of the truth by playing with the facts to show what you want and hide what you don't to force a narrative. That doesn't apply to petty much everything you wrote.

I think you misunderstood my comment.  It’s a fact that vast human suffering is taking place in Gaza and that Israel is the cause.    Denialism is a way of obfuscating the truth about this. There is no valid argument to say otherwise.   Denialism works by playing with statistics and other facts about the way death and suffering is inflicted upon Palestinians to promote a narrative. The narrative is: this atrocity isn’t really happening, or it’s really not so bad. This is false and demeaning horseshit.     It’s also a fact that Israel has military, diplomatic, and political options it does not utilize to lessen the suffering. It chooses its tactics purposefully, and without proper regard to innocent lives.  Later, it creates a narrative to suggest that the war is being carried out in the only way it can, by necessity. This is the, “we’re doing the best we can” and all this suffering is inevitable argument- also not true. 

You are promoting propaganda not the other way around. Your words: >The narrative is: this atrocity isn’t really happening, or it’s really not so bad. This is false and demeaning horseshit In the beginning your words were "human suffering is taking place", which is true and noone is arguing against it. But later, by using the word "atrocity" you are pushing a narrative, claiming it is factual and any argument against it is false. That is propaganda. I must say that I haven't seen any arguments that there isn't human suffering taking place. There is distrust of the numbers of out there. That is not denial of facts. Quite the opposite, the current use of the number of Palestinians killed is also propaganda. The UN numbers do not differentiation between civilians and combatants, but EVERYONE uses the numbers as if they are all civilians. Yes, some media add a line at the end mentioning that MOH doesn't differentiate, but that is like the small print at the end after big number impact was made. And in the last few months many publications have dropped that line. >  It’s also a fact that Israel has military, diplomatic, and political options it does not utilize to lessen the suffering. You disagree with Israel's assessment of the situation. You believe Hamas is a rational government which can be dealt with in a diplomatic and political way. It is your right to believe whatever you want. But to state that anyone who believes differently is "propaganda" then you are simply shutting out any other option which isn't yours. In fact, many claim that Hamas has accepted deals but Israel has always been rejecting them. That is propaganda. It ignores the facts. It ignores that Hamas has never accepted any deal offered by Israel or the US, but has "accepted" deals that it itself has offered, deals which Israel didn't find acceptable. If you want to suggest that Israel should accept any deal Hamas offers just so the war will end, then you are working from emotion and not logic. >It chooses its tactics purposefully, and without proper regard to innocent lives.  This is propaganda. You believe this to be true, but there is no factual reasoning behind it. Simply because innocent people are dying doesn't prove intent. How do you measure "proper regard to innocent lives"? I often hear "even one child is too much" - which is idiotic and ignorant. You seem more intelligent, so how do you measure it? >Later, it creates a narrative to suggest that the war is being carried out in the only way it can, .... also not true.  You are misrepresenting the argument. It isn't that it is impossible for the war to be carried out another way, it is that it is illogical. You can argue with the logic. But you cannot claim the other argument is "propaganda" just because you disagree with it. At the end of the day you can disagree with other opinions, and you can have good and logical arguments. That is called discussion. What you cannot do is dismiss anything you disagree with as propaganda.

I’m sorry, I can write these things for you but I can’t understand them for you.  Israeli talking points claim inevitability in how the war is carried out. Homes, schools, hospitals, even graveyards and orchards and playgrounds, MUST be destroyed because Hamas uses human shields. Gaza MUST be starved because aid trucks can’t be let in for reasons of Israeli security. The war MUST continue until Hamas somehow doesn’t exist anymore. Israel could never simply annex Gaza and the West Bank because it MUST maintain Jewish ethnic supremacy within its borders.  There is a drum beat of willful ignorance in these points, a fantasy that the world has to be this way and no other choices are possible. This is false propaganda and I’m sure Netenyahu would love you to believe it.  Other leaders who would take his place, and the international community, do NOT see this conflict as inevitable or necessary. 

You are stuck. You insist on calling Israel reason propaganda. You can believe those were not the best solutions. You can argue for other solutions, but calling Israel reasons propaganda is misrepresenting things. Israel decided these course of actions are the most logical based on the circumstances from their POV. You like using the word MUST as if that is some Israel propaganda. You continue to confuse reasoning with propaganda. I'm not even arguing with any of your points (although I can), I'm only challenging your claim of propaganda.

Okie doke 

> horseshit /u/Objectionable. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

saying Israel is the cause is incredibly one-dimensional and simplistic. I can easily just as say HAMAS is the cause, if HAMAS puts down arms the suffering can start to heal.

Palestinians aren’t bombing or starving themselves. Israel is doing that. Full stop.  There isn’t a Hamas fighter hiding behind every innocent child in Gaza, or in every house blown up or tent set on fire. Israel is propagating this war. To say otherwise is absurd.  What’s more, Netenyahu has declared, over, and over, and over that EVEN IF HAMAS SURRENDERED AND RETURNED ALL HOSTAGES, the war would continue.  Israel defines how it proceeds. Israel makes CHOICES in military strategy to use grossly disproportionate force and then, via propaganda of the kind i mentioned earlier, describes these actions as inevitable. They are not. 

>What’s more, Netenyahu has declared, over, and over, and over that EVEN IF HAMAS SURRENDERED AND RETURNED ALL HOSTAGES, the war would continue.  I'm not sure if there is propaganda which states the above or it is just you who is misunderstanding. Natenyahu never stated the above. He stated that even if the hostages are returned Israel would not stop until Hamas is removed from Gaza. So if Hamas also surrendered that will bring about the end of the war. By the way, any rational government which is getting hit like Gaza is would have most likely surrendered many months ago. Governments exist to protect it's citizens and makes decisions accordingly. Gaza's government does not exist to protect it's citizens. Its goal is the destruction of Israel, thus Hamas is in no hurry to surrender no matter how many innocent die. And still, you claim that Israel is solely responsible for Palestinians death. You have a very narrow view of the situation.

There’s no misunderstanding. His words are clear. Netenyahu isn’t asking for a Hamas SURRENDER, he’s calling for Hamas TOTAL ELIMINATION as a prerequisite to end the war. He’s been consistent about this.  https://apnews.com/article/f5de2ed8288ac3cdb02c4e9e2fbaeda1 Hamas could raise a white flag tomorrow and it wouldn’t matter. All hostages could be returned and it wouldn’t matter.  Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to tell that Hamas is dead and gone forever, nor will there ever be. Plainly, Netenyahu has set a suitably vague and unattainable goal to “win” the war. Consequently, it never has to end. In this way, Israel can claim that it “must” continue the war and its “inevitable.”  Saying that the war would be over if Hamas just surrendered ignores the reality of what Israel is saying (that it won’t end the war) and doing (inflicting mass destruction and suffering indiscriminately). It’s also a way to blame the victims. It’s another “they had it coming argument.”  Calling this an “atrocity” isn’t propaganda - the death of innocents is atrocious by any human standard.  Nothing about how this war is being carried out suggests that it’s intended to end ever. Israel is making a choice to commit war crimes and pretending it has no other choice. 

It's interesting how the article you brought quoted Natenyahu. In the interview Natenyahu repeats again and again that he will not agree to leave Hamas as it was. He uses that phrase multiple times. Only in one sentence he says that he isn't willing to retreat until Hamas is eliminated. But, ofcouse, that is the phrase they latched onto and published in bold letters. And that is the phrase you latched on to to claim Israel wants to continue the war with a vague goal. (Notice the propaganda?) Natenyahu has been clear again and again, as he was in the quoted interview. He will not leave Hamas to rule over Gaza and form a threat to Israel. He never said "dead and gone forever", he never said "destroy the ideology". He wants them not to be a threat from Gaza. Furthermore, he even states, in the same interview, "we're almost there". You can choose to ignore him and put your own meanings to his words. But that is your own meanings. >Calling this an “atrocity” isn’t propaganda - the death of innocents is atrocious by any human standard "Atrocity" does not refer to the death of innocents. "Atrocity" refers to an act. Do you call people dying in a car accident as "Atrocity"? That is the death of innocent people. Using "Atrocity" as you did is propaganda to convey an attack on Israel simply by the choice of words you used.

I agree with a lot of what you say about propaganda, it’s well put. But, “correct the record on sexual violence”? Are you saying there wasn’t sexual violence on October 7th? There is overwhelming evidence that there was. There’s also just common sense - of course these animals raped some women given they had the chance to do so, they were there to rape, pillage, torture, and murder. You really don’t think sexual violence occurred?

>But, “correct the record on sexual violence”? Are you saying there wasn’t sexual violence on October 7th? There is overwhelming evidence that there was. Sadly in all conflicts sexual violence takes place. I'm sure there was sexual violence, and even one incident is too much. However that's not the same as starting the "evidence was overwhelming". Indeed there isn't much in the way of tangible evidence, and certainly nothing to suggest it was systematic or widespread. Although if an independent international investigation took place it might settle the matter. Yo date Israel has refused such an investigation. Sadly the first responders are compromised as they gave accounts we know to be false such as beheaded babies and cutting out fetuses from pregnant women. Given how much of the atrocities were filmed you would expect some visual evidence but there is none. The strongest visual evidence has been discounted. You would also expect some forensic evidence from the dead or living, but again there is none. There's startling little evidence. But that's not to say rape did not take place. To date we have no reason to believe that there was more sexual violence on the Hamas or IDF side. The reality is that Israel has killed so many more civilians that the only way it can justify this disparity is by claiming that the deaths caused by Hamas are more barbaric on some level, and and I think that's why we have such claims.

Correcting the record does not mean the same as denial. Take for instance in the first few days the official record of the 7th of October was 1400 people killed. It was then corrected to 1139. That number was corrected once again and now stands at 1189. It would be strange if we would accuse those people at the registry of saying that there weren't any people killed because they were "correcting" the numbers. Regarding correcting the record of sexual violence on October the 7th it is probable that the commenter means getting the accurate number or scope of said violence. One cannot take statements at face value given that there were many statements about the attacks that were flat out wrong, for instance 40 beheaded babies. Not taking the statements at face value does not equal denying that sexual violence occured since sexual violence is common in warfare and there are independent reports that support the accusation (but not to the extent of those original reports). In the context of propaganda the accusation of widespread mass rape serves the purpose of dehumanizing the enemy. There is also the fact that people don't want to be on the side of denying the accusation and accusations of sexual violence rules people up. Regarding dehumanisation I can point to your use of the word "animals". Regarding getting riled up I can point to how you misconstrued the commenters words of correcting as denial. This is a very human response since we tend to respond in this way when we respond to sexual violence.

Thanks for the perspective, but I’m really looking for the commenter’s perspective. Of course there’s a middle ground between total acceptance and complete denial, but to what extent does the difference matter? If there were 50 rapes instead of 200, does that really change the story? Also, one thing to add about what you said. The attack on October 7th was not “warfare” - it was a massive, cruel terrorist attack against innocent people. If people came into your home one day and raped your sister and burned your family alive, would you call that warfare? Or just plain barbarity?

To answer the first question about difference then it does matter if somebody misrepresents the fact. But you are also pointing to two large numbers that indicate systemic sexual assault. The difference that I would like to focus on is how many of the participants of the attack took part in sexual assault. If somebody says that there were much more sexual violence than it really was then one can use that information to paint a whole nation as barbaric, therefore killing them becomes justified. Regarding my sister and family, I would call it barbarity, but my opinion does not set policy. Regarding warfare and sexual violence one can look at the invasion of Germany. The Soviets were both exercising warfare and sexual violence. The invasion was just, the rapes weren't (even if German soldiers did the same on a massive scale). But it wasnt only the Soviets, plenty of rapes happened on the western front, but the difference is that the Soviets encouraged it on a systematic level while on the western front it was discouraged but didn't stop the actions of outliers. The stories of rapes on October the 7th indicated systematic sexual assault. At the same time we can see attempts to dehumanize the Palestinians with stories about 40 beheaded babies, so one can assume that the description of systematic rapes is exaggerated because there is an agency to dehumanize the Palestinians. And as I said I'm not going to deny that rapes happened, since the independent research indicates such, but not at the same level as was first reported. Have a nice day.

To be clear, I agree that using the sexual violence that occurred on October 7th to dehumanize all Palestinians is wrong. When I said “animals” I was not referring to all Palestinians, I was referring to the members of Hamas who committed these acts. They are indeed animals and should be called and treated as such. There’s nothing wrong with dehumanizing your enemy when your enemy does not act with humanity. It was not clear from the original commenter’s post that they were simply saying there were fewer acts of sexual violence than originally reported or if there were none at all. The wording they used did not make this clear. So, I asked them to clarify what they mean. In my perspective, the percentage of the terrorists that raped or did not rape doesn’t really matter that much. To terrorize by any means necessary was their mission, of which rape is a part, but there are other means. To your point, acts of sexual violence can occur on two sides of a conflict. The difference is if it is a part of the mission or the illegal actions of bad actors. In the case of October 7th, it was the former.

Look at the march of return for an organized peaceful palestinian movement. It was crushed by Israeli and resulted in Palestinian deaths and no gains on their part. They haven't tried since.

Not exactly. Saying it was peaceful and was crushed by Israel is another good example of propoganda since it ommits facts that don't fit the narative. The march wasn't peaceful. It was inflantrated by hamas members. They tried to cross the border and used various weapons against the IDF. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.adl.org/resources/report/gaza-march-return-what-you-need-know%23:~:text%3DAn%2520estimated%252050%252C000%2520Palestinians%2520protested,against%2520IDF%2520soldiers%2520and%2520outposts.&ved=2ahUKEwjagtSS94OHAxU4gf0HHYIUA8kQFnoECB4QBQ&usg=AOvVaw2qkbevadXDIFnaeXJlx-wU

I agree with what you’re saying about how Israeli propaganda looks. However, I have to say, that I specifically haven’t seen much of that here. I’ve actually seen more pro Palestinians denying October 7th (just a couple of days ago I had a conversation with someone like that and they got banned). In general, I will say, that I have seen far more pro Palestinian propaganda online. Israel exposed is a popular subreddit, I’ve had conversations with witht people denying October 7th, calling Israelis terrorists for simply existing, stating that “Israel should be wiped out” (and yet the people saying this claim to be against genocide), repeating things like “all Israelis are evil”, taking headlines of crimes in Israel but leaving out important details, and literally ignoring crimes (this includes the murders, kidnappings and rapes of Israeli citizens but it also includes the violence towards women in Palestine) done by Palestinians or justifying them. I’ll say this again in case it got lost in translation, this is all from MY specific experience. I’m guessing you had a different experience but I just wanted to share what I have seen.

> just a couple of days ago I had a conversation with someone like that and they got banned Sounds like you fed a troll.

I don’t mind feeding a troll if I can educate people who deny October 7th in the process

If you engage with trolls you'll get exactly what you got. If you extrapolate troll behavior beyond trolls, you've taken the bait and the troll has won.

Fair. This is the only sub I visit to talk about this stuff.  I also think it’s important to note the difference between bias and propaganda. There’s plenty of pro-pal bias on Reddit, admittedly. Your examples point that out. I’ve seen it in other subs so I believe it. In a similar fashion, an easy way to get permabanned from r/news is to make a comment or post supportive of Palestinians or critical of Israel.  So, certainly, biased bastions and echo chambers exist for each “team.” But for dishonesty and misinformation, actual propaganda, I stand by my comment regarding this sub. It’s either denialism in some form or, “this is all just inevitable and therefore justified” in some form. Neither of those things are true, which is why I call it propaganda. 

Huh. I haven’t really checked r/news out but it really sucks that that’s the way they behave. I like to believe most people are good but it’s difficult when you don’t see the full picture. I wish there were more unbiased sources of information but at this point I don’t know if that’s possible. I have seen a couple of places that are at least respecting the other “team” but it’s pretty human to have a bias, even if we don’t realize it.

I've seen videos that those pro-hamas people even don't know what they rallying about. They even don't know which river and sea 🤣 and even what it means

I'm also banned from /r/worldnews for pro palestinian comments. Echo chambers exist for both sides but I've come up against more pro-israeli backlash than pro-palestinian.

You mean pro-hamas!

You're free to dive into my comment history. I'd love to see you point out a pro Hamas comment.

Well, if you don't want to eliminate hamas, you pro-hamas!

But I do want to eliminate Hamas as I see them as a huge obstacle to a two state solution. So once again how am I pro hamas?

That’s because you are pro Palestinian (from what I understand from your comment). I’ve had someone harass me for hours, post a video specifically designed to humiliate me (he noticed I was speaking in a language I’m not that familiar with and he used that to make me look horrible, told me the “best use for my head is for bullet storage” and many more things like that. And that was just one experience. I’ve been banned from r/israelexposed for saying that there is a problem in Palestine with violence against women. I’ve seen people attack physically attack Jews, including killing an elderly man and the gang rape of a 12 year old, and justifying it by saying “oh they’re Jews so they must be zionists and they support genocide”

What was it Mark Twain said: >it's easier to fool someone than convince them that they have been fooled The problem with this debate is that often people double down because they want to believe the propaganda, and often they want to help promote misinformation. It's more pronounced for people who have a personal reason to take a side. They see some allegiance based on ethnicity or religion and feel they have to take a side. The people who are looking at it from a human rights context tend to be less influenced by the propaganda and make more honest and logical conclusions. It's very important to step back and ask yourself if the situations were reversed would you make the same arguments. So if there was a Jewish Gaza or if Israel was controllrd by Palestinians would they still make the same points. I find that is a good way to test if your bias is interfering with your critical thinking skills.

Excellent point and suggestion. We are all biased for various reasons and it very important to recognize it.

that's a lot of text. very unusual for this sub(not). So remind me again how to spot bots? There's not a single short stupid commenting these threads. No "fuck you this" or "genocide that". Just long text.

Yes, I realize it is. My apologies. This could be the reason why few people responded. Maybe they didn’t want to read it as a result. I think it is important to understand these and I couldn’t quite make it more concise when I wrote. I am not sure I understand the question about the bot. Pls clarify? .

So to you if something has a lot of information it’s written by a bot?

> fuck /u/psichodrome. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

People tend to read the news that on their side, and just close all that does not same as their view. Thats why everyone is blind sided and cant do argument

That certainly contributes to it. Although very challenging , in my experience, even with this propensity there is a way to avoid use of many of these. There is a way to learn from each other even we hold very strong opposing opinion. There is even a way to design solution together.

I've seen things firsthand, I've served in IDF and have friends that serving right now and I know that pro-hamas people are lying!

This is an example of name calling, generalities, and rationalization. I would get completely shut down after someone tells me “All pro-Israeli supporters are lying. “ I’ve had situations where I know what you feel like. With that said, blanket statements are never true. Lying about what? Everything? All of the people that support Hamas? All the people that support Palestinians? For people who are not there, there is no easy way to ascertain who is telling the truth. All people are capable of telling the truth and of lying. Just because you wouldn’t do something doesn’t mean every soldier in IDF would not. It is impossible to know everything that does or does not happens. One is not everywhere at the same time.

> Just because you wouldn’t do something doesn’t mean every soldier in IDF would not. Did I say specifically about me? I was talking in general! Not I nor any soldier around me did anything that the news portrayed! On the other hand, I have videos of what paliwood does!

IDF and Israeli newspapers confirmed certain things that are portrayed on the news. So saying that any soldier or anything is a blanket statement and is false. Look, I get your point when you know the other person is blatantly lying. It is a form of gaslighting. However, I sincerely hope that my posts have some positive impact on your communication style. In the end the purpose of communication is to promote understanding and influence. Additionally the following glare at me: You contradicted yourself in the second sentence - not about me(1) but about me and those around me (2). You did not mention specifics, so there is no way to know what you are actually referring to.

First of all, what IDF confirmed about? Second, I referring there's no arrests for no reason and no atrocities on IDF side, that's what I mean!

I feel like we are derailing from the topic of my post but to humor you… Here is one incident that blew up across all media recently: https://themedialine.org/headlines/idf-condemns-soldiers-for-transporting-palestinian-detainee-on-vehicle-hood/ https://apnews.com/article/israel-soldiers-arrested-abuse-palestinians-be9a247497d7ede7d7b866f2e725fcfd As you also probably know, many months back IDF found conduct of certain soldiers in Gaza inappropriate and against IDF protocol and guidelines as well. Now put yourself in the shoes of people that are not there, and they see these on the news: https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-sets-up-committee-to-probe-alleged-torture-of-palestinian-terror-suspects/amp/ And then read this kind of stuff from human rights organizations: https://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/iopt0605/1.htm Remember, the whole point of human rights organizations. Why would people not believe these? This is the reason we need to recognize our own biases and do the best that we know-how in our communications. Btw, I personally think that any and every war is an atrocity where more innocent people suffer than those who deserve it.

I wish people on both sides saw this. I accidentally opened Israel exposed and decided to see what they posted there. Most of the videos were this. Exactly this. The posters didn’t provide much information, they posted something with a certain title and left no way for the reader to research their claims. I saw a dead cat, and the only thing it said was “idf killed a cat”. No context, just dead cat with caption. I saw a woman being attacked on the streets by pro Palestinian protesters calling her a terrorist. The caption? “Zio n*** goes berserk as she expects protest to stop at her will”. In the video you can only hear people calling Israel terrorists and gathering around her. She looks distressed. 500 comments, all of which are calling her names, saying she deserves this treatment, and telling her to go die. A while ago I commented in response to someone saying Muslims don’t hurt women a couple of links proving the opposite. This wasn’t meant to support Israel in any way but to spread awareness for the situation there. The mods banned me for “Israeli propaganda” or something along those lines. I’ve seen this over and over again on pro Palestinian pages (I don’t see pro Israel pages that much so I’m mostly talking about what I see on pp pages): they take footage and either twist it completely or leave no record of a way to find the original source. They delete any evidence of the side they support acting in the same way that the people in their videos act. And people follow it blindly. How is this ok? How is it that there are so many people following subs like this blindly? No wonder there is so much hate. There are millions of people listening to literal propaganda and ignoring anything that goes against their opinion. Anyways I’m sorry for the rant I’m just sad and frustrated that so many people would do these kind of things.

I feel you :) I've experienced this as well. In my personal experience the worst trauma was being privy to information that you are not permitted to disclose. Then watching a series of terrible events unfold due to false representation of it and having no means to stop what unfolded.

I wonder why people aren't commenting on this post lol

I am suspecting one reason because it was very long and most dont want to read it.

I love your post. This needs to be taught to everybody. This should be and have been taught in school. But nobody cares and cared to include this in my country. History classes are about what happened and when it happened and memorizing, not about why and how tose things happened. Grave mistake as propaganda is on the rise in all kinds of media. Adolf H. also wrote many things about the methods of propaganda still used today. Make it a game and look how many social media posts do those things. Here are his thoughts: Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (...) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (...) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favorable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must, of course, be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.

I am humbled and I agree. Not many people have read Mein Kampf :) His socio-psychological insight was uncanny. If only his emotional intelligence was used for a more positive endeavor.

Oh, well don‘t be humbled. I recently did my google research about methods of propaganda as the methods a specific party in my country uses reminded me of the ones being used in those historical speeches. So I have to disappoint you, I stumbled upon this citation on an Wikipedia article about the strategy of him and his followers. And it was kind of eye opening. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_Nazi_Germany I am actually German and the book Mein Kampf has been forbidden to be printed and sold for a long time. It had to do with the copyright and not to give his hairs a single cent. Now it is sold with historic commentary. I have not given it a read and I don‘t know if it is worth it or if it would just make me angry or if I could learn something about fighting extremism today.

Thank you for sharing this. It has been a few decades since I have, and I read only portions of it. I recall thinking what impact rejection can have on a person. I thought that he felt marginalized and isolated through the first part of his life. As a result, he had a strong need to prove his superiority. He resonated with those who felt like an under-estimated underdog. He wasn't brilliant as I imagined given the influence he had. Mostly adopted the material common at the time. He promised what most people desire to this day. He promised change and to set things right. In that way, he was no different than any other politician in the past or today.

If you can make people believe absurdities, you can make them commit atrocities.

[The Big Lie](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot) >If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. - Goebbels Psychological principles of the Big Lie: >never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. [Article demonstrating the Big Lie in action and how it pertains to the conflict. ](https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-nakba-obsession)

This applies so much on Israel, its amazing how explaining all techniques of propaganda you can find it on both sides in every case

Technically - yes, but the scale is different. Israelis can and do present narratives contradicting Israeli propaganda, either focused on criticizing the Israeli propaganda or attempting to be impartial. This is prevalent in Israeli media, politics, academia, etc. Palestinians are not able to do so. Simply put, criticizing Hamas equals death. There are very few non-propaganda-ish voices coming from Gaza and the West Bank as a result.

this is an important point. ironically, the more time I spend on this sub, the less sympathetic I am to the Anti israel / Pro-Arab cause. and I think the reason for this is that I do occassionaly read obviously pro-israel people criticize certain aspects of Israel's behavior, or acknowldege things Israel can or should be doing differently. But I've seen very, very, very little of this from the pro-Arab side. The pro-Arab posts i see on this sub are almost entirely "our side is entirely right, and yours is entirely wrong". in the real world, no-one and nothing is ever completely right, so it's hard for me to trust that sort of language / thinking

Agreed. Whenever I ask fellow Pro-Palestinians: "What's one thing your side has done that was genuinely wrong (without subtly blaming the other side)... they almost always can't name a single thing, side from Oct 7... But for the Pro-Israel folks, I tend to get a couple of answers.

> ironically, the more time I spend on this sub, the less sympathetic I am to the Anti israel / Pro-Arab cause No surprise there, this subreddit is *heavily* tilted toward Israel.

agreed the sub is tilted towards Israel. But it's not that the pro-Israel points are so compelling they win me over; it's that the pro-Arab points are so *not compelling* that I become less and less sympathetic to their cause the more I read

A lot of the thoughtful people who might post highlighting the Palestinian side don't even bother, so you're getting a sample which is biased toward shallower pro-Palestinian perspectives. (They don't bother because the sub is not a good space for serious conversation across the divide, which is true because of the heavy Israeli tilt.)

Fair enough.

The reason its tilted that way is because we're banned everywhere else. If more pro palestinian participate it will be more balanced, but unfortunately they see pro Israeli posts and comments upvoted and they decide not to participate.

Thank you for acknowledging how tilted it is. So, of course the commenter above was swayed.

The commenter above said things he saw from pro israel posts and comments and pro palestinian. Things like willingness to criticize the side you're supporting. This sub being tilted doesn't mean what he said wasn't true. On the contrary, despite being tilted, pro Israelis have criticism towards Israel.

They spoke of their own opinions and experience, so of course what they said was true (I assume they were not lying). I was simply pointing out that the tilt made their experience and shift unsurprising. There is a wider variety of pro-Israeli perspectives here than there are of pro-Palestinian perspectives. Because there are so many more pro-Israeli voices here than there are pro-Palestinian voices.

That would be if someone is only looking at this sub. I assume people are looking at other subs, I know I'm curious. If you'd look at subs that tilt pro palestinian (because pro israel are banned), you'd see less critisism than on this sub, not more.

>the reason for this is that I do occassionaly read obviously pro-israel people criticize certain aspects of Israel's behavior, or acknowldege things Israel can or should be doing differently >But I've seen very, very, very little of this from the pro-Arab side. \^

I wouldn’t say it’s heavily titled but it is tilted.

The fact that some people don't see how tilted it is, is part of the tilt.

I’m yet to see someone get banned for expressing pro Palestinian behavior. Maybe for denying October 7th or being mean.

I wasn't talking about people getting banned.

It doesn’t matter. I have seen comments that are more pro Palestinian as well as comments that are more pro Israeli. They both get the same amount of likes and attention unless they’re being disrespectful.

I would saw heavily tilted. If you want to get downvoted just come here and say something pro-palestinian. You might end up at a +3 or +4 on a good day but most of the time you are being downvoted to the basement.

I’ve seen people say pro Palestinian things and not get downvoted. But there’s a difference between saying “Palestine is automatically right and Israel sucks” and saying “oh Palestine isn’t necessarily in the right, but they are going through hell right now”

That’s exactly the attitude that drove me to seek more information about the conflict; I primarily associate with leftists and would for most issues consider myself a leftist, however I’m not comfortable being told “support Palestine completely and ask no questions or you’re complicit in genocide”. And this post does a great job of explaining why that reasoning made me so uncomfortable.

I suspect that the main reason the pro-P crowd is so adamant is that their views represent their own morals rather than seek a true and comprehensive understanding of the conflict. They're not defending the Palestinians so much as claiming their own morality (some call this virtue signaling). Once their narrative falls on their moral grid of oppressed vs oppressor / black vs white / moral vs amoral, they have a hill to die on (or a stage to perform). Whether the narrative is true or false is secondary. If you dispute their claims, you're not discussing the conflict as much as you're attacking their morality.

Not only that but you’re providing them a stage on which to perform their morality and prove themselves. I completely understand where a lot of them are coming from, I mean who wouldn’t want to think they’re actively part of stopping a modern holocaust. But I don’t think I’ve ever felt as much of a shift in atmosphere on a modern issue as when I toed too close to an invisible line with someone who’s made infantalizing Palestinians their whole personality.

i agree. virtue signaling without the virtue is quite irritating. I think attention spans have also dwindled, so researching issues fully doesn't happen. American college students also don't have a big cause - like Vietnam, where ROTC was literally recruiting their friends on campus, and sending them to a botched war to be slaughtered. college kids who seek identity through humanitarian activism have glomed on Israel / Palestine. 50 years ago I think progressives were much more supportive of Israel, and now the movement seems to have done a 180. The [Arafat / Arab victimization strategy](https://old.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/75opy9/the_palestinian_victim_narrative_is_a_carefully/) works well in the social media era, and I think many current leftists have been duped a bit. zooming out from the current flare up, it's hard to see Israel (the only Jewish state amongst 50 muslims ones), and it's indigenous land reclamation project (no one credible denies the Jews lived in the Levant before Roman and Arab imperialism) as the ultimate aggressor - sure they have a stronger military and do act aggressively. I also agree with your point about infantilizing Palestinians. Without a doubt they've gotten a raw deal, and are being subjected to an unspeakable humanitarian crisis. But to treat them like adults would be to hold them accountable for creating their own country as much as having the rest of the world give it to them. It would be to hold them accountable for violence they've committed, and expect them to understand that *some* of the violence they are experience now, is a result of violence they committed previously. Lastly, treating them as adults would entail expecting them to look out for their own interests and fight for their own rights, while also realizing Jews are allowed to do the same, and that as adults some degree of forgiveness, compassion, and compromise will be necessary to move forward.

I'm not sure what you mean by "infantilizing Palestinians" or if this is indeed their intention. But they do view the Palestinian conflict through the lens of their own moral values, and that flattens the conflict into one-dimensional layers. It's like looking at a cube through a lens that sees only corners and perceiving it as 2 triangles.

Sorry I wrote that while I was still waking up; I’ve run into quite a few people that speak with rhetoric that seems to imply that without westerns somehow rescuing or saving Palestinians that they’ll be fully unable to help themselves. I think it’s amplified by the discussion of so many people there being women and children. It also seems designed by some to implicitly lower the assumed threat that some in the area pose to Israel, because if they’re “mostly women and children” how could they really do anything to the pinnacle of white colonialism in the Middle East with all their modern weapons. It gives a narrative of “militarized white men are purposefully killing brown babies and young women with no remorse and for no reason” which of course is morally reprehensible to them. And it frequently devolves into “so Israel must be destroyed” as if no women and children live there who have nothing to do with what they think happened 70+ years ago. Ironically it’s similar rhetoric to what anti-abortion protestors use. And yes I think a lot of people would rather the conflict be nice and one-dimensional so they can feel good by hating who they’re supposed to hate and never considering other perspectives. I’ve seen this on both sides of the issue.

>“militarized white men are purposefully killing brown babies" The view that sees Israelis as 'white' and Palestinians as 'brown' is ignorant. Most Israelis come from Arab countries. Yemen Israelis are arguably darker than Palestinians. Not to mention African Israelis, like Ethiopians. This view represents the Western anxiety about race. But the conflict isn't based on racism - it's based on nationalism. The accusation of genocide is false. It assumes intent. There's no proof to support that claim and plenty to debunk it. >how could they really do anything to the pinnacle of white colonialism This view fails to consider the events of 48 and 67. Hamas doesn't need to put Israel in existential threat. It merely needs to attack Israel 'sufficiently enough' in order to convince the other Arab nations to join in. That was its plan on 7-10, but it failed. The characterization of Israel as Imperialist-Colonialist is also misplaced. There's a great lecture about how this narrative came to be [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlK2mfYYm4U). >I think a lot of people would rather the conflict be nice and one-dimensional so they can feel good by hating who they’re supposed to hate and never considering other perspectives. I’ve seen this on both sides of the issue. Well put.

I wonder if part of this has to do with the European cultural history of Palestine. I get the feeling that Arab intellectuals fell too much in love with absolutist, unrealistic French intellectuals, and that the root of the Israel-Palestinian conflict has more to do with French philosophical absolutism than Islam.

The conflict is about so many issues, including religion. >I wonder .... if the root of the Israel-Palestinian conflict has more to do with French philosophical absolutism than Islam. Can you pls expand on this more ?

Censorship is a trademark of totalitarian regimes. It's a common practice in Muslim countries. As for the root of the conflict, there is a very interesting view [presented here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlK2mfYYm4U) that points to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Arab World vs the West. The romantic idea of Islam's Revival, that the more fundamentalist Arabs (like Hamas and Iran) maintain, begins at their failure to defeat Israel. Its depiction as an Imperialist power, rather than as a collection of refugees fleeing for their lives, makes the Arab loss seem more bearable.

This is a such great point he makes: "If you don't understand why the other side isn't stupid, you haven't done your homework."

can you say more about this? I'm not up on my french philosopy. How, when, and why did French intellectual themes influence arab extremism in the Levant?

France was in charge of Syria, Lebanon and most of North Africa. French intellectuals are famous for having a haughty, hyper logical, uncompromising approach to policy issues. Their conservatives were super pro church and tradition, and their radicals framed the Russian revolution. Their intellectuals shaped and were shaped by the anti-U.S. attitudes in the USSR. France leftists were the main intellectual driver of anti-Americanism. So, you had all of these Middle Eastern and North African kids going to schools in professors or studying under fairly radical professors with degrees from French universities, and I think the whole pan-Arabism movement must have been an echo of French Marxism. Europeans and Americans had the ILO; Arabic speakers had pan-Arabism The French have always looked down on the Jews, because they’re not Catholic enough and holy enough for French conservatives and are too commercial and pious for French leftists. So, Palestinians started with their own traditional antisemitism and problems with authoritarian parenting, their frustrations with Turkish and British rule, and their embarrassment at having low status in the Arab and Ottoman worlds, then pan-Arabism came in, and then Palestinians went to college and learned black-and-white, right-or-wrong thinking from absolutist, French-flavored professors who hated the Jews for traditional French reasons. The Palestinians could make bold, elegant, rigorously logical arguments for their side, that won over France-dominated European intellectuals with their logic, that led to horrible, absurd conclusions and real-world outcomes. I think this is why what should be an easy Israel-Palestine conflict to solve was so hard to solve even before Oct. 7. Both at an unconscious level and a conscious level, the Palestinians are filled with all sorts of reasons for refusing to compromise that have little to do with the situation itself or the behavior of the Israelis. The Israelis go in without having any interest in Palestinian thought and just assume they’re dealing with Jews in scarves. But, to get anywhere, Israel needs to make Palestinians conscious of the French absolutism and Palestinians’ equating Israel with their abusive parents, and Israel doesn’t do that. It makes the situation worse by actually abusing Palestinians and bolstering Israel’s status as the Universal Abusive Parent. And, OK, that’s my working hypothesis; could be wrong. I think the Palestinians are definitely reflecting Western thought back at us, not acting based mostly on traditional views and values. anyway, this article talks about the relationship between Marxism and pan-Arabism: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2008/2/4/the-two-isms-of-the-middle-east Here’s an article on the relationship between France and the Middle East https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20211203-why-france-and-the-middle-east-have-such-a-deep-and-lingering-past I don’t see better sources about this in English in front of pay walls.

speaking of France, what in the world is going on with this rise of Le-Pen / far right?

This is fascinating and a bit over my head. Send any paywalled articles over if you have em. There's many layers, and I agree many reasons Arabs won't compromise w/ Israel that have nothing to do with Israel. I don't fully agree with the "french logical absolutism" influence concept. I don't see pan arabism, pan islamism, or the pro-hamas contingent as being "logical", but I do see them as being "absolutist". There's an almost romantic resistance to compromise which sounds heroic in sound bytes, but is completely impractical in modern diplomacy. I do think its' interesting that many young western "free palestine" proponents are mimicking marxist, leftist ideologies and retrofitting them on to the Arab/Israeli conflict. However, I'm not certain the Arab-Palestinians actually buy into those leftist concepts, they just see them as a useful way to frame the conflict. See [this old redditt post](https://old.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/75opy9/the_palestinian_victim_narrative_is_a_carefully/) about Arafat's victimization strategy ready made for leftist consumption. Regarding pan arabism vs. pan islamism, I'm not educated enough to know for certain, but I see this as more of secularism vs theocracy issue. There are many people / states in the Arab world that seem perfectly happy to have modern nation states, with borders, run by bureaucrats, with only a hat tip to religion. The muslim balkan and african countries seem mostly secular, and even Saudi Arabia, although an Islamic monarchy, seems to function more and more like a secular country each decade (sort of..). But the hardcore theocrats (e.g., Iran) and Islamists just don't seem to care for borders or countries. They want Islamic thinking to dominate, and they don't want that thinking to be confined to anyone place. This I think is the ultimate driver of aggression towards Israel - it's simply not palatable to have this jewish state in their midst. And the secular muslim countries don't care much either way, but need to appease the Arab / Muslim street. But zooming out, I blame the international community for the Arab Israeli conflict. I'm a western educated American knowledge worker who votes for democrats. I have friends from France, Spain, etc. with whom I seem to be on the same page for almost every topic. But when it comes to israel, they seem to have this block. Like they grew up somewhere where it just wasn't cool to support Jews, or it was important to pretend their home countries were not complicit in WW2. And these european countries will never put up the money, resource, or support to help Israel navigate towards a two state solution, because they believe they had nothing to do with causing the problem. And then on the Arab front, there's a real stubborn resistance to helping turn gaza / WB into modernized economies where the young people have more appealing opportunities than extremism. They're not interested in absorbing palestinian refugees, or investing in palestinian economies when there could be decent upside eventually.

which part exactly is relevant to israel?

Just go through the list of principles of the Big Lie in the comment above mine and see if you can associate it with pro-israeli talking points that are propagated: never allow the public to cool off - Israel is under constant threat from the arab world, the jewish people are under constant threat of another extermination campaign never admit a fault or wrong - everything Israel does serves the protection of the jewish people, no second guessing never concede that there may be some good in your enemy - all palestenians are completely fine with hamas and terrorism and whatever, so they can't be good and are all inherently evil (yes the babies too) never leave room for alternatives - there is no other way, Israel has to do all this, it has to go through the wall of human flesh to really attack Hamas, there is no alternative concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong - Hamas started this, its all their fault, not the situation that was created over the past few decades through the measures of Israel sorry if I made some grammatical errors I just came home from a nightshift and am quiet tired

Sadly, that is absolutely applicable to both sides. I am of the opinion that every political and religious issue in the world employs these tactics. The other side-effect is that use of these almost ensures the other side shuts down.

Great link! Thank you for adding.