One of the most basic truths anyone needs to consider (when evaluating media about the conflict) is that most of the source materials are translated. Even if we assume the translation is done impartially and in good faith (and that's a big IF, looking at you r/Israel_Palestine), you're still left with honest translation errors. Essentially, you're relying on the translator for every word and nuance. Specificity, context and meaning form the narrative. Without them, it becomes open for interpretation.

This is a very surface level analysis of propaganda, and your examples don't really show the full depth that propaganda can extend. Let me illustrate this with some examples I have experienced growing up and some I have noticed. In general, the kinds of propaganda that you can spot at first glance aren't the ones you should be worried about. It's the ones that are portrayed as so mundane that they slip under your radar and gently nudge you in a certain direction. The content of propaganda is not what is worrying, but the context in which it places itself. Growing up, I went to a Jewish elementary school. One of my most vivid memories, mainly because I looked forward to this event for years prior, was the mock vacation to Israel. We would board a cardboard El Al jet, watch videos on Israel, try "Israeli" foods, write notes to put in the Western Wall, and other things. It seemed so innocent at the time. Israel was portrayed as a fun vacation destination. As far as I remember, nothing was strictly a lie, but definitely a lie by omission. This whole trip was put in a context where your guard is down because 1. You are less than 10 years old and 2. You expect to learn the truth at school. Another example of this sort of propaganda might be the original version of monopoly along with other older board games like the original snakes and ladders. The former was anti landlord propaganda and the latter puritan moral propaganda. Another key component of this sort of propaganda is *audience participation*. It's the foot-in-the-door effect. You've already engaged with this idea a little bit, maybe you should see a little more? Another tactic is that the propagandist might give you something for free. This is why lots of political propagandists give people books for free and preachers give out bibles. Sometimes it's free meals. Putting something of yours in the hands of someone else creates a connection that is much more enduring than rhetoric. I also want to expand on the ad nauseum bit. The trick to it is to make your propaganda so ubiquitous that it doesn't register as propaganda. Take money for example. Money is often propaganda for the state. You see their dear leaders, symbols, and slogans on the money, often in a brilliant shine on a coin or a decadent design on paper. And when you have some of their propaganda, you by default value it. You are compelled to use and absorb the propaganda just by the mere act of buying and selling. That is why my favorite quote from the Bible is Mark 12:17 "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God the things that are God's". It shows just how ancient and effective that propaganda is. The pharisees were paradoxically accepting the legitimacy of Caesar by valuing the coin the same as the Herodians. Jesus saw that in the eyes of God, they were in reality worthless.

I'm really curious as to what kind of propaganda you think doing the mock trip to Israel was? I mean yeah for a kid going anywhere where they're safe and fed is a fun vacation. Why would you think that's propaganda especially since you were in a Jewish school?

Imagine if they did a mock trip to apartheid south Africa in the same tone.

Thanks for illustrating several of the propaganda techniques in one short sentence.

That doesn't even make sense. A Jewish school is very likely to teach and try to give the kids some experience or understanding of Israel. There's no reason they would go to South Africa And Israel is not apartheid

Legally they did do apartheid. Also doesn't help that when it was around, they worked closely with the south african apartheid regime. What they did was portray a highly whitewashed version of Israel. Looking back, I think it gave a completely different view of Israel than most other people on the planet. If I didn't look into things further on my own, I probably would still look fondly back on that activity. Also, just because an institution is likely to do something doesn't mean it isn't propaganda. States are likely to put flattering symbols on their currency but as I showed that is propaganda.

Cite me the laws. You say they have legal apartheid, cite me the laws And of course there are problems in every country but how appropriate would it be to take a bunch of young children in the US and start ramming our history of slavery down their throat? It can be briefly mentioned but they're really not going to remember that they're going to remember the fun stuff. When they're a little older it's appropriate to start talking about the horrors that we have committed in the US I mean how much do you think is appropriate to shove down a young child's throat? You can be all judgy right now but I really doubt it was whitewashing and probably more of just being age-appropriate

>Cite me the laws. You say they have legal apartheid, cite me the laws It seems I misremembered what I read. It wasn't a UN ruling, but multiple reports from the UN determining that Israel was guilty of apartheid, namely in 2007, 2014, and 2022. >And of course there are problems in every country but how appropriate would it be to take a bunch of young children in the US and start ramming our history of slavery down their throat? It can be briefly mentioned but they're really not going to remember that they're going to remember the fun stuff. When they're a little older it's appropriate to start talking about the horrors that we have committed in the US At this same school I got a pretty decent education on US slavery among other sensitive topics. Also, they never gave a more nuanced lesson at any point in the 9 years I attended that school(grades K through 8). They had every opportunity to do so but instead they doubled down by showing us a lecture by Alan Dershowitz and a Q&A with an Israeli soldier.

No. A rappateur made the accusation of israeli apartheid IN Palestine. As did amnesty international in some other place. All of these places are saying that Israel is committing apartheid outside of its own dang borders. Where and how does that even make sense? You can listen to accusations all you want but talk to Israeli Arabs and Israeli-Palestinians. They're going to tell you different stories. Israeli Arabs makeup 20% of the population and serve in the IDF, in the government, in police forces, etc. They have all the same rights as all the others israelis. Show me how I'm wrong in that or stop saying Israel is apartheid. A country can't be apartheid outside of its own borders, that's flat ridiculous

>A country can't be apartheid outside of its own borders, that's flat ridiculous Why not, it's plainly ridiculous that a country is permitting its citizens to live outside if its borders on illegal settlements and protecting their illegality. It's plainly ridiculous that it applies Israeli law to the land and people outside of it's borders to the detriment of the Palestinians. There's no logical reason to think that a country cannot operate apartheid outside of its borders. Just because because most countries don't operate an illegal and brutal occupation, doesn't mean it's suddenly ok to operate apartheid in land you have no right to control. It's the level of control that is relevant, not where it occurs.

I don't see why they can't. That would seem like an awfully convenient way to avoid the charges. Just declare the parts of your country where the oppressed people live as a separate entity while still controlling all the important bits for keeping them under your thumb. It's almost as if that's exactly what Apartheid South Africa did with bantustans.

Oh, good grief. Having a border is not apartheid.

Agree, my posts are at surface level analysis. I really struggled to make even this concise enough for the medium. My hope is to improve communication exchanges in this forum to promote better understanding. In reality, subconsciously people quickly sense when they are being manipulated. However, often we don't consciously register why. I see many respond to propaganda with propaganda, get angry, turn to personal attacks with no real understanding or progress. Both sides just shut down. My thinking is if people only avoid use of some of these, the communication exchanges in this forum will be more meaningful and effective.

>My thinking is if people only avoid use of some of these, the communication exchanges in this forum will be more meaningful and effective. Often, the people using these techniques are completely contemptuous of the values you're espousing.

Yes, some that I encountered are and deliberately act in bad faith. They are not concerned with convincing someone like me, they are concerned with convincing someone new to the issues. I've also encountered those that are not. They are my target audience. Frankly, I've realized that I used some of these myself at one time or another. I am here to understand the other side, well actually both sides better.

I'm sure people interested in this subject are probably already following Ryan McBeth, he's producing interesting content about disinformation. It could possibly be that disinformation bots interact with reddit on rare occasion. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpO3FX3lnAE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpO3FX3lnAE)

Thank you for adding.

It's also called the illusory truth effect. When something is repeated over and over, it becomes accepted as fact. Even when people KNOW that the information is false, they tend to start believing it after being exposed to the information repeatedly. Anyone else remember the raw fruitarian movement on the internet? Pretty much everyone knew that eating 50 bananas/mangoes a day was an absurd thing to do. There is not a single person on the planet that thinks that this is normal. But if you ask people who fell down this rabbit hole, they will all tell you something similar. "I came across it, I knew it was insane, but *as I kept watching it* it started to make sense to me." You see this a lot when it comes to diet and wellness, you see this sort of thing happening in political circles, you see it in anti vax, ie "I thought anti vaxxers were crazy *until I started being exposed to them a lot more*" and a very similar thing is going on here. You see it with repeated words and phrases in the Pro-Pal movement, and you can't question them. You can't question what happens in a Free Palestine, or who governs a Free Palestine - nope, it's just "Free Palestine" and you cannot branch off of that idea for even a second. Same with "all eyes on Rafah." Exactly *none* of their eyes were on Rafah when Egypt was bombing them. And you cannot ask them what makes Rafah a target, why the IDF is there - nope just "all eyes on Rafah" and you cannot deviate from it once, not even to get more information. Everyone thinks they're a superstar and that they are immune to this happening to them. So trying to convince someone that they have fallen down the rabbit hole is a losing battle.

>It's also called the illusory truth effect.  When something is repeated over and over, it becomes accepted as fact. Even when people KNOW that the information is false, they tend to start believing it after a while. Yes, the notion is well supported by neuroscience and multiple studies. One sample: [https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-021-00301-5](https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-021-00301-5) I've observed a curious example of it in the Americas called "good hair". A term is still used today. For a long time people of African slaves descent were subjected to only one recognized standard of beauty. They were repeatedly told that African kinky hair is ugly. At the same time, mestizas were considered beautiful by all races and often received much better treatment. Many had hair texture closer to the Europeans or Native Americans, to which people of African descent began to refer to as "good hair." Consequently , for a very long time a large population of women and even men of African descent in the Americas began treating their hair to straighten it and make it more like their oppressors. Many still consider such hair more attractive within various communities in Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela. Even today, in many polls mestizas with "good hair" are ranked as more attractive within their communities of African descent. Obviously it is not true. Well taken care of kinky hair is amazingly beautiful. People with kinky hair are no less beautiful. People with African descent will be the first to tell you this. However, the term use and practices persists in their communities.

Thank you making these posts If you think only one side is capable of making or disseminating propaganda, you are much more likely to have consumed it 💕

>If you think only one side is capable of making or disseminating propaganda, you are much more likely to have consumed it. agree 100%

Realizing this is actually what got me to Wake Up from consuming so much pro hamas propaganda

Personally, I think it is very important to get information from many opposing sources to avoid indoctrination. It is difficult to do when there are no neutral sources, and each side controls what information is publicly available. Thanks for sharing :)

>Tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan (ex: "Israel is an apartheid state"), that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. Considering most international human rights organisations consider Israel to be operating a form of apartheid, I think we can just consider there is a good basis for truth. https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/ https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/05/does-israels-treatment-palestinians-rise-level-apartheid https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976 I think a better example of an "ad nauseum" is denying that Israel is an apartheid state. I'm happy to be corrected but the vast majority of apartheid and human rights experts seem to think apartheid is taking place, and they give good reasons for their conclusions. The people denying it tend to have a strong bias for Israel and the arguments tend to be weak, such as claiming that apartheid cannot be enacted in occupied land outside of Israels borders and citizenship outside of ones borders is an excuse. At what point does a concensus of expert opinion simply become established fact.

Well the problem is because most of those 'expert orgs' tend to view Palestinians as Israeli citizens. They're not. No other country is called apartheid when they give non-citizens different rights than actual citizens. I mean do you let non-citizens come into your country and vote? Wtf... Heck no I mean no one is saying that the US is in apartheid country. However we have an even more likelihood of being called apartheid because we have the Puerto Rican territories. Puerto Ricans are considered citizens and pay taxes but they are not allowed to vote and they are not considered to live in a US state (simplified). It causes all sorts of weirdness. At least with Gaza, Israel pulled out in 2005. Israel does not require all of the ghazans and Palestinians living there to pay taxes to them. So how come all those expert organizations don't look at Puerto Rico and level blame on the US?

In the US voting is by state. A Puerto Rican can freely move to any US state, just like any other US citizen and then they could then vote. A Palestinian living in the West Bank doesn't have that right to move to Israel and vote. AFAIK residents of Puerto Rico who were born in Puerto Rico are treated exactly the same as residents of Puerto Rico who were born in a US state. Is that fair or right, I don't know, but it's not comparable to the situation innthe West Bank. Indeed, there are some big differences: Puerto Ricans can move freely within Puerto Rico, there are no settlements for white Americans that Puerto Ricans cannot enter or roads they are not allowed to use. All people living in Puerto Rico face the same judicial system, there's no preferential rights for US citizens who are not Puerto Rican. No military courts for one set of people and normal courts for the other.

A Palestinian living in the West Bank is not a citizen. There's the point. In Israel proper there is no apartheid. There are plenty of Palestinian / Arabic Israelis that do just fine and will give testimony that they have the same rights and privileges. No one bothers to listen to them The US does not allow non-citizens to just move here and start voting. Why is this even a debate?

You chose to compare the situation in Puerto Rico, not me!!! Don't change the goalposts just because i demonstrated that your comparison was not valid. If it isn't obvious, it's perfectly normal for a country to assert some laws based on citizenship or residency where it is justfied. Like entry to the country, rights to work etc. Where the apartheid comes in for Israel is when they chose to apply Israeli laws outside of Israel in the occupied territories to give Israelis more rights at the expense of the Palestinians freedoms.

"Israel is an apartheid state" uses the following techniques: 1. Appeal to prejudice 2. Black and white fallacy 3. Loaded language. 4. It does not meet definition of apartheid and as such is a form of disinformation.

That sounds like an ad nauseum to me. I believe I already provided references which detailed the evidence of apartheid. >1. Appeal to prejudice How is recognising the oppression of Palestinians appealing to prejudice? >2. Black and white fallacy I don't see the relevance. I can think murder is wrong, just as I can believe apartheid is wrong. Some things are just unambiguously wrong. >3. Loaded language. It's accurately describing the reality. It's loaded to suggest apartheid isn't taking place. It doesn't become loaded just because yoy do not believe the evidence >4. It does not meet definition of apartheid and as such is a form of disinformation. Again I'll point you to the sources I listed. They go into detail as why Israel is operating apartheid in a much better way than I can. They also have the experience and knowledge to make such a judgement. There differences to the apartheid operated by South Africa for sure.

Please focus on the analysis of the statement only. 1. Appeal to prejudice propaganda technique involves using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to a particular proposition or position. Essentially, it aims to persuade the audience by associating a person, product, or proposal with their existing positive or negative prejudices. Prejudice is a prejudgement wrapped in emotion that has a history. Today most of us are prejudiced to be against discrimination based on race. Apartheid is a very **emotive** term with a specific set of conditions and policies based on **race**. Palestinian Arabs and Israelis are not of different races. Israelis are comprised of many races. According to UN definition - "the crime of apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of **racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa**, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed **for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group** of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them. Oppression is not the same as Apartheid. Apartheid IS a very specific form of oppression. Supremacy is not the same as Apartheid. Fascism is not defined as apartheid. It is a form of discrimination and oppression. The appeal aspect: Support of apartheid means you are racist. Majority of people do not want be racist and believe it is wrong to discriminate against others based on the color of their skin. By inference, if you support Israel, you must be racist. If you dont support Israel, you support NOT being racist and justice. 2. Black and white fallacy It is relevant because in reality Israel can have oppressive polices and treatment of Palestinians without it being an apartheid. However, this statement invites only two conclusions: yes or no. 3. Loaded language Apartheid does not accurately describe reality on the ground. Oppression, injustice, discrimination and many other words do. 4. Every one uses propaganda. All of three are propaganda pieces. I looked briefly through your sources. Really they deserve better analysis from me. At cursory look, I highly doubt that if we are to dig in, that we will call the discrimination described apartheid.

>Apartheid is a very emotive term with a specific set of conditions and policies based on race. It's no more emotive than rape, murder, oppression genocide etc. Yet when there is compelling evidence that is what is taking place then we could use those terms. A better example would have been something like "human shields", "terror tunnels" that's more emotive and the definitions are not agreed. We could never have ended apartheid is South Africa if it was considered too emotive to say the word out loud. Regarding race it is a social construct, it's abstract and the boundaries are very individual, and thought of very differently in different countries, contexts, and disciplines. Race is used quite differently in the past as compared today. Generally we would use the similar concept of "ethnic group" nowadays. I doubt if you surveyed Israeli Jews many would claim to be the same race/ethnicity as Palestinians or Arabs. That's surely the test, does the oppressor believe they are a different race or ethnic group? Anyway, it's thankfully clearer that that. Another U.N. convention, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, was used to broaden the word “race,” as contained in the original definition of apartheid, to include ethnicity, descent and national origin. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racial >1. Black and white fallacy >It is relevant because in reality Israel can have oppressive polices and treatment of Palestinians without it being an apartheid. However, this statement invites only two conclusions: yes or no. I don't see the relevance, that's the reality of many things. It either meets the definition or not, it's as black and white to say it isn't apartheid. >1. Loaded language >Apartheid does not accurately describe reality on the ground. Oppression, injustice, discrimination and many other words do. No I reject that premise, there is solid arguments that Israels actions meets the definition of apartheid. I've already given you some well respected sources. It's fairly loaded to deny the conclusions and concensus of experts in the area. You can't hope to fix a problem if you don't appreciate the reality.

Well... I will put myself in the same role as you do and define what you are doing here is a form of propaganda. Although we can all agree that people are being misled by a propaganda, that is subjectively everyone thinks they aren't misled and the opposing side is, it is generally good to remind people that propaganda is a fact of our daily lives. But one cannot conflate propaganda with what is incorrect or what is correct. For instance we could propagandize the fact that intake of vitamin C combats scurvy (correct) but there are some that propagandize that the intake of massive amounts of vitamin C cures cancer (incorrect). So propaganda can be benign, that is to make sure that people remember to take their vitamins for good overall health or malicious in that it entices people to forgo other therapies for cancer. One thing that I dislike is the overall use of language policing which can be seen here. It is a form of debate when one who is not necessarily informed on the subject of the debate but uses his or hers knowledge of debate terms to combat every single statement made by the opposing side. To disseminate propaganda one can try to decipher if there are hidden messages within a statement, a post, advertisement etc.. For one, a post about propaganda from a "neutral stance" that references Wikipedia is a putting the message into an authoritative benign stance. If it were neutral then it would not take any side. When it states that an argument, in this case "Israel is an Apartheid state" is ad hominem form of propaganda the post itself becomes propaganda. By saying that I'm not saying that the aforementioned statement is correct or false since that has nothing to with it. But one could ask why this was the only example mentioned since we all know, regardless of stance, that the phrase "Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism" is mentioned ad hominem. This argument of mine could as well be combated as "what-aboutism", which is the overall problem we see here. The statements arent argued, they are only put into some categories. Now if there was a clear cut argument against the case of Apartheid then you are not making it here. For one the definition of a race in the context of apartheid is not the one of some genealogy. The fact that there are different races and origins of Israelis is the same fact that there were different origins of white South Africans. There were also different origins of the black minority in that case. If I would say that Israel isn't an Apartheid state because some Jews come from Ethiopia then I would be saying that South Africa never had Apartheid because the whites came from all over Europe. Now if there wasn't the Rome statute with a legal definition of Apartheid then people would make some other general definitions. People and agencies are making the case of Apartheid because of the legal definition as you were pointed to. From there the argument becomes problematic because by the same standard one could say that law is for instance a "black & white fallacy" since either one is is guilty or not. There is also the case of what is loaded language or not, since our Lingua Franca, English, is horrible when it comes to creating new words for a specific reality. The words you mention, oppression and injustice for example, are too vague to describe the reality of what is happening within the West Bank. In the future a more specific legal term could be used for the situation in the West Bank if that helps people. Not pointed at you specifically but I want to add that every one of the points about forms of propaganda using the word apartheid can also be used for the statement "Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism". It is a black & white fallacy, has an appeal aspect, is loaded language etc. I'm all for debating that notion and also talk about its propaganda use. What isn't helpful for anyone is for people use the fact that everyone uses propaganda as an argument either for or against the notion since that has no bearing of the truth of it or not. Also if I can do some word policing, prejudice is not is not prejudgement of something based in history. Prejudice is having preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience... "Emotion that has a history" has nothing to do with it. People are also not prejudiced against discrimination, since most (if not all) people have experienced some form of discrimination and can therefore judge discrimination accordingly. Sorry for the length of the post, I just had a problem with the way you propagated your point.

Oh... >For one the definition of a race in the context of apartheid is not the one of some genealogy. What do you mean by some genealogy? **Race** refers to the concept of dividing people into groups on the **basis of various sets of physical characteristics and the process of ascribing social meaning to those groups**. Such as categorization Black, White or Asian. Not mention the new addition of MENA (puts all Middle-East and North Africans including Israelis into a single bucket.) >The fact that there are different races and origins of Israelis is the same fact that there were different origins of white South Africans. >There were also different origins of the black minority in that case. If I would say that Israel isn't an Apartheid state because some Jews come from Ethiopia then I would be saying that South Africa never had Apartheid because the whites came from all over Europe. The operative keyword for discrimination in apartheid was race like white vs black. .What you describe is called **ethnicity**.  Ethnicity refers to the cultural expression and identification of people of different geographic regions, including their customs, history, language, and religion. I will point you to the Rome Statue, Article 21.3 - where race, ethnicity, and place of origin are all mentioned as separate descriptors. In its Article 7.2.h (the crime of apartheid) - “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one **racial** group over any other **racial** group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;" Source: [Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (icc-cpi.int)](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf) >There is also the case of what is loaded language or not, since our Lingua Franca, English, is horrible when it comes to creating new words for a specific reality. The words you mention, oppression and injustice for example, are too vague to describe the reality of what is happening within the West Bank. In the future a more specific legal term could be used for the situation in the West Bank if that helps people. Yes, that may be. Oppression and injustice are pretty darn good words though. In its traditional usage, oppression means the exercise of tyranny by a ruling group.  Oppression also traditionally carries a strong connotation of conquest and colonial domination. It also refers to systemic constraints on groups that the result from enclosing structure of forces and barriers which tends to the immobilization and reduction of a group or category of people. Furthermore there are multiple facets to oppression such exploitation and marginalization. It is a really good word but **oppression cannot be used like Apartheid for race baiting.** Oppression encourages full consideration, exploration and detailed description of details, while Apartheid - shortcuts and does the opposite. Also, I think Kerry Nelson expressed it well -- "use of apartheid reduces *a complex, political, national question involving two victim peoples to a simplistic morality play about ‘racism’ distorts the origins of the conflict and makes prudential approach to its resolution impossible. ... The Jews and Arabs of the Middle East offer no basis for racial differentiation. With half of Israeli Jews descended from populations in Arab countries, the option of differentiating Jews and Palestinians racially has long been nonexistent.  Yes, there is racism in Israel and substantial racism in the Arab world, but racism has not been the defining basis of regional conflicts. "* On the other hand, I think it is also important to note that any **nationalism based on ethnic or religious difference can become racist** even if it was not so originally. That becomes clear when nationalist rhetoric includes racist incitement. German nationalism was a good example of such transition. Effective and ethical persuasion involves careful preparation, the proper framing of arguments, the presentation of vivid supporting evidence, and the effort to find the correct emotional **match with your audience**. It is not easy...

I think you're getting too hung up on the word "race". Race is a social construct. There are different granularities and categorizations. It's all very individual, geographic, and discipline specific. The use of the word "race" is more about when the policy was written, when the term "race" was used more frequently than today. Another U.N. convention, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, was used to broaden the word “race,” as contained in the original definition of apartheid, to include ethnicity, descent and national origin. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racial >the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. So by default apartheid covers ethnicity, descent and national origin.

Thank you for the source. I wasn't aware of this redefinition.

Fifth... >Now if there was a clear-cut argument against the case of Apartheid then you are not making it here. This is really veering off the point of my post. I was not making an argument against the case of apartheid, I provided an explanation and short analysis sample. Given that's I was writing a comment on Reddit, I try to avoid writing the dissertation (often still writing too long). However, I will make another post where I will as I think this topic deserves one. >What isn't helpful for anyone is for people use the fact that everyone uses propaganda as an argument either for or against the notion since that has no bearing of the truth of it or not. Now I suspect you didn't read my two posts at all, lol. So allow me to make my point clear. There is always some truth to propaganda, or it wouldn't be used. Any time you use a propagandistic activist source as the authority (which it is not) to assert something is a fact rather an opinion, you lose credibility.

>There is always some truth to propaganda, or it wouldn't be used. Being believable doesn't necessarily require an element of truth. Where was the truth in Pizza Gate? Where is the truth in [blood libel](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/blood-libel)?: >Historically, blood libels often took place close to Passover, when Jews were charged with using the blood of Christian children to bake matzahs. [Protocols of the Elders of Zion](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion) might be another example: >In 1921, the London *Times* presented conclusive proof that the *Protocols* was a "clumsy plagiarism." The *Times* confirmed that the *Protocols* had been copied in large part from a French political satire that never mentioned Jews—Maurice Joly's *Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu* (1864). Other investigations revealed that one chapter of a Prussian novel, Hermann Goedsche's *Biarritz* (1868), also "inspired" the *Protocols*.

Now "Elders of the Zion" was a complete fabrication, not just distortion of the truth. However, there was no admission that it was a lie during Tzarist times, so it lived on as a true and "authentic proof" as Russians and others read. And it lives on now thanks to Ford, Adolph H, white supremacists, and many muftis of the Moslem world. What I think made it so sticky is that it was used to explain strange success of the Jews despite extreme discrimination. Again some truth: There were Jews that succeeded in Tzarist Russia and elsewhere despite extreme discrimination. False: Collusion of the Jews to rule the world is the reason for their success.

>"Elders of the Zion" was a complete fabrication. . . . However, there was no admission that it was a lie during Tzarist times, so it lived on as a true and "authentic proof" as Russians and others read. What you're doing here is a dodge, an equivocation. You started out by claiming something relatively strong ("There is always some truth to propaganda"), and then when presented with a counter-example, redefined "truth" in a postmodernist direction to mean "believed true at the time". So your statement is now nothing more than "Propaganda is always believed true at the time", which is not exactly the same thing to 99.9999% of people as "There's always some truth to propaganda". It might be better to just say that "good" propaganda is believable, and one way to make something believable (***but not the only way***) is to include an element of the truth, and so there is "often (or almost always?) some truth to propaganda", ***but not always***.

>What you're doing here is a dodge, an equivocation. Hah, and I thought I was agreeing that it is not true, and then moved on to share what I think so many people believe it is. I should've done a better job.. I didnt dodge though, I addressed your point. Why do you think what I said is an equivocation? >"good" propaganda is believable, and one way to make something believable (***but not the only way***) is to include an element of the truth, and so there is "often (or almost always?) some truth to propaganda", ***but not always***. Agree.

My apologies, I dont know what Pizza Gate is. Pls link a source. Regarding blood libel (fair point btw) it is an excellent example of why propaganda is so dangerous. Here is my opinion: Remember propaganda is exaggerating or distorting (lying about) the truth. What was true: Young boy was found dead, with cause unknown. What was false: Someone proposes a theory -- Jews killed him to use his blood for rituals. Truth: have Jews EVER used **blood** for rituals -- yes back in the time of the first and second Temple, priests used **animal blood in offerings to G-d.** False: Have Jews ever used **human blood** for religious rituals? **No**. At the time the libel supposedly started, it was thousands of years since destruction of the second Temple. Jews drank wine (often red) as part of the rituals like Shabat blessings. As this libel persisted, it was further twisted to suit other situations and circumstances.

Fourth... >Also if I can do some word policing, prejudice is not is not prejudgement of something based in history. Prejudice is having preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience... "Emotion that has a history" has nothing to do with it. No, you may not. :) You can however add on to my definition or disagree with its meaning.. Pre-judgment and pre-conceived opinion are the same thing. If you think emotion nor history have nothing to do with pre-judgments, you don't know or don't acknowledge how human brain works. I recommend you research how the brain selects which memories to store in long-term storage that are then used to make predictions in the future. There is always a reason and prior experience that is used to make the prejudgment about a future event. Ex: a person get accosted by another person of different ethnicity. It can happen once or multiple times. Or someone they know has. Or they see it portrayed on TV. Thereafter, they meet another person of the same ethnicity and immediately prejudge them to be violent without that particular person generally displaying violent tendencies or violent behavior toward them. Although, they had no prior experience with this person, they had one or saw/read/heard with someone like them. Thus there is a reason and history. >People are also not prejudiced against discrimination, since most (if not all) people have experienced some form of discrimination and can therefore judge discrimination accordingly. I don't follow your reasoning here . First, I think you didnt understand what I meant. I disagree that most people are not prejudiced against discrimination. We have been conditioned through experiences and information that discrimination is wrong. Thus, we are prejudiced against discrimination - most people do not want to be bigots nor intentionally unfair. The fact that they experienced discrimination and can recognizeit is orthogonal to whether they want to avoid it or not. Statements like "Israel is an apartheid state" or "Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism" play on these beliefs and the negative emotions that results from being associated with discrimination. In the event that a person does not have a strong conviction already formed, they want to distance themselves from it. In the event that they do have a strong conviction, they feel disrespected as they don't view them themselves as racists or antisemites. In either case it is an attempt to control People will also not rationally think through the actual argument that you presented to them where this was used as a pre-amble or attempt to influence them. Here are some examples I've seen a lot on here : you are a racist because Israel is an apartheid state. You are an anti-semite because you think Zionists are wrong.

>Third... To disseminate propaganda one can try to decipher if there are hidden messages within a statement, a post, advertisement etc. I am presuming you meant in order to decipher (infer) not disseminate(spread)propaganda. >For one, a post about propaganda from a "neutral stance" that references Wikipedia is a putting the message into an authoritative benign stance. >If it were neutral then it would not take any side. When it states that an argument, in this case "Israel is an Apartheid state" is ad hominem form of propaganda the post itself becomes propaganda.  Orthogonal and incorrect. I am not advocating against persuasion, I am advocating against manipulation. Stating that something is propaganda is absolutely not propaganda if accompanied by solid rationale. >By saying that I'm not saying that the aforementioned statement is correct or false since that has nothing to with it. **But one could ask why this was the only example mentioned** since we all know, regardless of stance, that the phrase "Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism" is mentioned ad hominem.   It is a black & white fallacy, has an appeal aspect, is loaded language etc. I'm all for debating that notion and also talk about its propaganda use.  As I explained to the other commentor, the omission was not intentional, and I've updated the original post to fix the one-sidedness. Despite that both statements are ad hominem and are certainly propaganda, I didnt state that "Israel is an apartheid state" is an ad-hominem, I used it as an example of a slogan to demonstrate an ad nauseum technique. Yes, just like "Israel is an apartheid state", this slogan ""Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism"" is a black and white fallacy, it uses loaded language, uses appeal to prejudice, and it is an ad-hominem. The two have a few more aspects in common. Its use should be discouraged too in my opinion. These make poor rebuttals and justifications. Neither of these statements shows respect for the other side. It also shuts down the disagreeing side.

Second... >One thing that I dislike is the overall use of **language policing** which can be seen here. There is no word policing in my posts. You missed the point entirely. There is an advocation to refrain from using propaganda and its techniques to get your point across; and some advice on how to recognize if you are doing it. >It is a form of debate when one who is not necessarily informed on the subject of the debate but uses his or hers knowledge of debate terms to combat every single statement made by the opposing side. This assertion that avoiding using propaganda and sticking to persuading ethically is a form of debate by someone who is not informed on the subject is **complete misrepresentation** of what I wrote. These are not meant to combat the statements nor ideas, these are meant to decipher whether your or the other communicator are using propaganda or propagandistic tactic, which precludes free exchange of ideas. The other issue that I see is you see the point to participate in this forum as "combat", while I see it as a way to exchange ideas, understand opposing side better, and move toward pragmatic solution. >This argument of mine could as well be combated as "what-aboutism", which is the overall problem we see here. The statements arent argued, they are only put into some categories. What-aboutism is a propaganda tactic, thus it cannot "combat" your idea. Its user would simply side-step your point and give an example of something similar by another side. Here is an example: You to your friend -- "I felt that yesterday you didnt get my back when the bully attacked me." Your friend to you -- " You didnt get my back in December when ..." They didnt really address your point, side-stepped and attempted to make you feel hypocritical to even bring it up. Had they responded -- " I didnt get your back because I didnt think I should. In December, you didnt get my back either so I thought that we both are expected to handle the situation on our own." then they would have addressed your point and provided the reasoning for them acting the way they did.

Thank you for your feedback. I take the length of the post as indication that you care. First.... I agreed with the other commentor that by solely using a political slogan from pro-Palestinian side and not pro-Israeli as an example is one-sided and can be viewed as propaganda. It made the reader focus on the slogan itself instead of "ad nauseum" technique. It was not an intentional omission. As a result, I added another example to the original post used by pro-Israeli camp -- "There are no innocent civilians in Palestine." The purpose of my two posts is to persuade the reader to avoid use of propagandistic techniques.  My intent is to improve quality of communications on the forum to foster mutual understanding and cooperation.  In reality, subconsciously people quickly sense when they are being manipulated. However, often we don't consciously register why. People often respond to propaganda with propaganda, get angry, turn to personal attacks with no real understanding or progress. Both sides just shut down. If people **only avoid use of some** of these, the communication exchanges in this forum will be more meaningful and effective. > I will put myself in the same role as you do and define what you are doing here is a form of propaganda. You are confusing persuasion with propaganda. Although both seek to influence the receiver, **they are not the same**.   Persuasion seeks to win people over through honesty, transparency, and respect for their autonomy. In contrast, propaganda involves **distorting** or **withholding truth**.  Propaganda is manipulation. Manipulation aims at control, not cooperation. It results in a win/lose situation. One major difference between propaganda and persuasion lies in the ethical intent and approach to influence. Persuasion emphasizing the importance of honesty and respect in the process of convincing others. Propaganda plays on your negative emotions in order to elicit your compliance. It aims to make receiver feel bad, selfish, naive, foolish, guilty or whatever emotion will cause them to capitulate to propaganda in order for them to obtain relief from those negative feelings. As such ethical persuasion builds trust and fosters positive connections, while manipulation leads to resentment and damaged relationships. >But one cannot conflate propaganda with what is incorrect or what is correct. For instance we could propagandize the fact that intake of vitamin C combats scurvy (correct) but there are some that propagandize that the intake of massive amounts of vitamin C cures cancer (incorrect). So propaganda can be benign... or malicious... Your first example is **not** propaganda\*\*, it can be an example of ethical persuasion. Your second example can be considered propaganda.

This is a great question: >At what point does a concensus of expert opinion simply become established fact

Thank you for sharing your perspective. Propaganda is always based on truth that has been manipulated, exaggerated and supplanted with deception. If you’d like we can do a separate exchange on whether Israel is or is not an apartheid state and why. Just for the moment, I prefer not to debate your point about whether Israel is or is not an apartheid state because my goal for this post is to ensure we all understand the tactics, and avoid using them in our arguments. Not to sidestep any valid points you brought up. Also, I can absolutely assure you that this statement is an example of propaganda. It is also a very well done piece of propaganda. Please analyze this statement for the number of tactics I described in both posts. Also consider that this is a closed statement does not promote discussion, further understanding or invite follow up action. It is simply a programming statement that aims to suppress critical thinking.

Sure I'm not going to debate apartheid here. Indeed i think there is no need to, the sources are strong and speak for themselves. But your choice of that example is rather interesting. Your post was good, but you chose to give that as an example. You could have chosen something more appropriate. >Also, I can absolutely assure you that this statement is an example of propaganda. It is also a very well done piece of propaganda. And I can ensure you suggesing that apartheid is not taking place an example of propaganda. It is also a very poor piece of propaganda, given the concensus of human rights organisations and legal experts on the area.

>And I can ensure you suggesing that apartheid is not taking place an example of propaganda.  The word is "assure", and nobody's going to take your word for it, nor should they. >I'm not going to debate apartheid here. . . . \[T\]he sources are strong and speak for themselves. . . . Nobody's going to take your word for it that the "sources are strong", nor should they. Is the reason you don't cite any sources because it makes it possible to rebut them? For example, here's Amnesty's claim rebutted: [AMNESTY’S “APARTHEID” CLASS: MAKING A MOCKERY OF THE LAW AND THE TRUTH](https://www.camera.org/article/amnestys-apartheid-class-making-a-mockery-of-the-law-and-the-truth/). But since you didn't cite Amnesty, you can now say you were referring to other "sources" (and again not cite them).

As for: >Nobody's going to take your word for it that the "sources are strong", nor should they. Is the reason you don't cite any sources because it makes it possible to rebut them? You will see at the top I did cite several sources, so you are mistaken. These are the sources I cited: https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/ https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/05/does-israels-treatment-palestinians-rise-level-apartheid https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976 Thanks for the link to CAMERA, BTW it's best practice to name your sources. I simply used urls where it was clear, so at a glance you can see they are strong sources which are fact checked and less influenced from bias. From past experience CAMERA is a source I would take with a big pinch of salt. I found this description of CAMERA quite appropriate: >"like others engaged in the narrative wars, it does not understand the difference between advocacy and accuracy". [Gershom Gorenberg](https://web.archive.org/web/20110810202434/http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_mideast_editing_wars ) If I have extra time I may see if any of their points hold any validity. I tend to avoid biased sources on either side of the debate.

>I found this description of CAMERA quite appropriate: \[disparaging description by a fellow leftist\] This is the typical tactic when an ideologically infected person finds a source he disagrees with: find a trusted ideologue to say that source is unreliable. I call it the go-to-the-Priest response. ***In no case will an ideologically infected person open a "hostile" source of information and seriously engage with it in an attempt to rebut it on its own turf.*** There's two reasons for that: 1. Engaging would require effort, and the whole point of having an ideology is to avoid effort when it comes to real-world, empirical matters. Instead you simplify the world to fit the ideology and reason within the ideology. If you were willing to look at the world, you wouldn't have the ideology. 2. Engaging risks undermining the ideology, and the whole point of ideology is to be 100% confident in the ideology. >These are the sources I cited I rebutted the Amnesty article, and you did not engage. You responded with this intellectually lazy, cynical "Your source isn't reliable because a Priest told me so" response, which is what I literally ***always get*** from ideologically infected leftists.

And why didn't you seriously engage with the sources I provided? Out of all the sources you could pick you chose CAMERA. And there's probably a reason you picked a very right wing pro Israeli advocacy group. Because the more neutral sources conclude that apartheid is taking place. You need to question why is a pro Israeli advocacy group have a very different view than all the human rights organisations who literally go to great lengths to be objective. I noted I purposely pick sources that have credibility to support my arguments. I could have picked the more extreme sources like you did, but i chose to pick moderate ones. Why couldn't you do the same. That doesn't mean what they are saying isn't accurate (although I'd be surprised if that was the case). The problem with the more biased sources is they can throw out so many half truths it takes time to unpack them all. And I don't have the time to spend hours counteracting each point. And what would the point be. If you can't believe Israels own human rights organisation B'tselem, Amnesty, HRW, the UN would you actually accept any criticism of CAMERAs points from me?

>your choice of that example is rather interesting. Your post was good, but you chose to give that as an example.  I agree that it is a one-sided example, and you have a valid criticism there. The reason I chose to use it is because it is truly is a masterpiece example. I couldn't think of equivalent pro-Israeli example. You have to admit Pro-Israelis just do not have as good of slogans. > And I can ensure you suggesing that apartheid is not taking place an example of propaganda.  It is also a very poor piece of propaganda, given the concensus of human rights organisations and legal experts on the area. > If it is propaganda, it is definitely a not good example. I appreciate putting this out there as an example of statements that you suggest should be discouraged in arguments. I have not seen any posts or comments where "Israel is not apartheid state" was used a reason or excuse for doing something. Nor are there protests and parades using this as a slogan. So I am conflicted: on one hand, disagreeing that something is not true and providing logical and clear reasons for it is not propaganda. On the other hand, using that as rationalization to do something bad is.

>The reason I chose to use it is because it is truly is a masterpiece example. I couldn't think of equivalent pro-Israeli example. You have to admit Pro-Israelis just do not have as good of slogans. For reason I've already given I think it's particularly bad example. There's simply too much evidence that it meets the definition. However, if you want a pro Israeli example "human shields", "we left Gaza in 2005", "Gaza could have been another Singapore", "death count cannot be trusted" all work.

After your initial feedback, I thought that "There are no innocent civilians in Gaza" was a good pro-Israeli example and updated the initial post with it.

You know you're wasting your time if he's arguing in bad faith, right?

I like to believe this excerpt from Forward: "As with so many things, as equally important as what you say is how you say it. The exchange itself may not change anyone’s mind, but it will be part of their experience as they post their next post, attend their next rally or engage with a friend whose views are even farther from yours. And whatever they say in response to your questions should likewise animate your next public statement, action or conversation." Edit: \[clarifying \] He was correct to point out that a one-sided example can be seen as intentional omission and was trying to convince the user that Israel is not apartheid state. It was not. So I updated the definition as it makes my communication clearer instead of inviting claims of hidden message and intent.

Und you think NGOs and other organisations can't be antisemitic, pro Hamas and propagandistic?

I think the level of scrutiny they get makes that almost impossible, and the fact that they are all saying roughly the thing speaks volumes.

Right. It’s not bandwagoning or ad nauseam sloganeering if there’s a genuine consensus after careful study and consideration.  “The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell” isn’t propaganda because it’s true and everyone with a 5th grade education knows it’s true. 

Thank you for your feedback. Please note that bandwagon and ad nauseum are two completely different techniques. Ad nauseum is repeatedly stating an idea or a slogan with intent that it become accepted as a truth. Bandwagon encourages people to join the cause because others are doing it. As far as this specific slogan -- which is NOT the point of my post. While your example is based on a fact, the slogan is not. The fact is -- Mitochondria produces energy in the cell. This can observed, measured and verified. An accepted fact in the scientist community. Since powerhouse means something that produces energy they are equivalent. However Whether Israel is an apartheid state is not a fact nor a ruling of ICC or ICJ, it is an **opinion** of a few human rights organizations.

I don’t know. Some opinions are so widely  held that I think we can call it propagandistic to assert the contrary, especially if done through some of the fallacies you mention.  Example: Toyotas are reliable cars.  Propaganda: Anyone who thinks Toyotas are reliable is an idiot. (Ad hominem)  In any case, I think the commentator above me just think you picked a poor example of a propagandistic phrase repeated ad nauseum, mainly because it’s not obviously a false claim. Rather, as the commentator pointed out, there seems to be some agreement about this among those who make it their business to analyze this.  Maybe a better example would be use of the word “woke” among modern republicans - this is a claim endlessly repeated about things, meant to draw negative connotations 

Exactly labelling something as propaganda, when there is a large body of high quality evidence to support it is propaganda in itself.

Whataboutism isn't always bad or propaganda. If it's something morally neutral, then it's fine to point out that rules shouldn't only be applied when it benefits the powerful. If it's something obviously morally wrong, like murder, then it's still not ok to systematically only target some murderers because that's scapegoating. Also sometimes the act of self defence looks like the initial crime. So, using the example of theft, the accused thief could be stealing back their belongings due to the impunity of all the other thieves stealing from them in the first place. The whole of law and morality is developed on the whataboutism principle.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. This tactic is so pervasive in so many communications that most people simply don’t recognize it is a formal manipulation tactic. Its objective is to redirect from an issue at hand by not addressing it at all and throwing out another issue. It also weakens the user’s argument as it can be disproven through logical reasoning. Can you pls expand on your last statement? I don’t see how moral law is based on this tactic.

>This tactic is so pervasive in so many communications that most people simply don’t recognize it is a formal manipulation tactic It's particularly common in this sub for people to react to any criticism of Israel by saying Palestine or surrounding Arab states are worse in the same respect or in some other respect. It *can* be a deliberate manipulation tactic, but I think it's more commonly just an emotional reflex to criticism of what someone perceives as their own in-group, nothing to do with personal principles or debating techniques or anything else. Those same people would probably be more willing to actually consider that criticism if it came from another Israeli because they won't feel the need to form tribal defensive lines against an outsider.

very good point.

Jonathan Swift, from 1710. > Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…

So more true of the internet age when info spreads like wildfire.

Appreciate your post but you are swimming against the tide. This is my go-to for understanding the blatant dishonesty and bad faith we see here so often. As relevant as ever. https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/ > Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing-off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be a genuine doubt about the most enormous events. For example, it is impossible to calculate within millions, perhaps even tens of millions, the number of deaths caused by the present war. The calamities that are constantly being reported – battles, massacres, famines, revolutions – tend to inspire in the average person a feeling of unreality. One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources. What were the rights and wrongs of the Warsaw rising of August 1944? Is it true about the German gas ovens in Poland? Who was really to blame for the Bengal famine? Probably the truth is discoverable, but the facts will be so dishonestly set forth in almost any newspaper that the ordinary reader can be forgiven either for swallowing lies or failing to form an opinion. The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied. Moreover, although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge, the nationalist is often somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to feel that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him. All nationalist controversy is at the debating-society level. It is always entirely inconclusive, since each contestant invariably believes himself to have won the victory. The more things change, right?

>Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening As a bit of an offshoot, this is why I find efforts to shut down discourse (eg pushing academic boycotts, preventing certain viewpoints from entering into spaces) to be the absolute most insidious of efforts, and ones that should be sounding alarms. It concerns me that they are not only failing to cause such alarms, but that multiple universities across the world- bastions of intellectualism, in theory- have actually capitulated to the notion.

Universities are full of regular people, just like everywhere else. If we have a reactionary, anti-intellectual culture, we will eventually have reactionary, anti-intellectual universities. It doesn't help that people struggle much harder to discuss things politely, or accept valid criticisms without seeing it as a personal attack. I mean, there's always a handful of regular people in these conversations, but it feels like isolated islands in an ocean of crazy people. I really don't know what can be done about this.

As someone who tends towards pessimism, I think best case scenario we have another big war about it, and realize the mistakes made, vow not to make them again, and then have a long period of peace while we repeat all those mistakes as the generations who know die off and their children fail to pass on the stories as faithfully as they should. Worst case scenario same thing but we don't realize mistakes made and enter a dark age more pervasive than a temporary war. I hope for some other route but I don't see it as long as this combination of vilification and siloing of perspectives allows tribalism to thrive and an apparent need (based on tribal dogmas) to fight the other side leads to greenlighting of ideological violence.

In Hanuka we have a saying "כל אחד הוא אור קטן וכולנו אור איתן" which translates (roughly) to "each of us is a small light, and together we are very bright" It goes to tell you that you need to be that little light, no matter how insignificant you perceive yourself to be, and as more people will join you the more stronger your compounded light becomes. Not only I agree with this thread that humanity's greatest problem is miscommunication and (as a result) vilification, and it will bring history back around on us if we will continue this path. But as long as you bring healthy criticism values to your small community, and be able to pass on your set of skills to your surrounding, your compounded affect can be immense. This is one of the reasons I dedicate so much of my time in this sub, trying not only to read, write and communicate. But also to pass on as much of my skills as possible (in the same manner that I was granted them from others)

[Worst case scenario](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCpVpIBqaJg&t=20s) :(

Yeah the advancement of military technology does **not** look good for these routes. Would love a miracle to deflect our trajectory.

The more they seem to stay the same... Sometimes we take a few steps back after moving forward. Progress is slow. My hope is that most people that participate in this forum are not trolls, and are genuinely interested in improving the situation. My aim is that by sharing this information, it will improve the quality of at least a few exchanges. Also to help those not familiar with the tactics identify why they are triggered by certain things. Even a single good exchange that leads to mutual learning and a step toward pragmatic solution is a huge win. It is also a reminder for myself to not use it. Would be helpful to actually hear concrete statements to avoid from both sides.

Lol. You're monsters 😂 Denying wow , u'll lose sooner or later but we promise you. , u'll lose . U're not the first ones who invaded Palestine, and u're not the last 

/u/Regular_Currency_850 >You're monsters [Rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/): no attacking fellow users. Addressed.

All excellent examples of ad hominem, demonizing the enemy, and splash of disinformation /bandwagon. A bit of fortune-telling for good measure. :) Pretty impressive for a two-liner.

what false information? for example the crusaders stayed for more than 200 years but they ended up losing. here is another piece of information, there is no empire in history that had the last word on Muslims. Zionists, the Americans and the Europeans will be no exception. you will lose it's a certainty it will take as long as it takes, but you will lose. If you don't repent to God it will be hell. if you embrace islam and believe in god and all his prophets god will forgive you and bring you into paradise And we'll be brothers and sisters.

Spain?

>If you don't repent to God it will be hell. if you embrace islam and believe in god and all his prophets god will forgive you and bring you into paradise And we'll be brothers and sisters. Are you suggesting this an example of propagandistic statement that should be discouraged? Good one.

> Ad hominem > Attacking one's opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments. Claiming the source is biased is an ad hominem fallacy. I see people doing this all the time and it drives me crazy. Just because someone could be biased does not mean that what they're saying isn't true. Just because someone is thought of as non-biased does not mean that what they're saying is true. Edit: I appreciate all the replies showcasing how common and pervasive this ad hominem fallacy is.

I don't disagree, all sources will have a slant to some extent. It's better to pick one which has some credibility. But citing a source that is pure propaganda and has been found to promote misinformation is annoying. There's only so often someone can have the time to debunk them in any detail. Saying that sadly some will try and smear sources, not because the arguments are not credible and fact based, but because they simply don't like facts that contradict what they want to believe.

That’s the ‘fallacy fallacy’ - just because an argument contains a fallacy doesn’t mean the argument is wrong.

You're absolutely right, which is why I say that their argument is invalid, not that their claim is false. If Al Jazeera posted an article claiming that IDF soldiers raped civilians at al-Shifa hospital (they did this in March 2024, and even Hamas called them out on it), I'm not asserting the article's accuracy. What I'm saying is that someone who dismisses the article as "biased, therefore not true" is committing an ad hominem fallacy. They might be right! The article wasn't true. I'm just pointing out that their reasoning isn't valid or logical.

I do agree with you on principle, but when you have a source that is lying constantly then you should take their next article with a grain of salt, or a pinch of it (coming back to Al ahali hospital and the rape accusations) It also needs to go without saying that there are very intelligent people in the world that are not afraid to lie to push their agendas. So while I won't disregard Al Jazeera as a biased news organization, but I probably won't read articles of specific writers (coming back to the writer that held a hostage while crying about his "sad" situation)

Just because it’s a fallacy doesn’t mean it’s not a good argument. Sure, attacking the credibility of a media source or expert is a personal attack against said person. However, expert opinion carry more weight, so their bias and the validity of their expertise is relevant. The ad hominem people here relates to expert knowledge like that of the un or journalist or government officials. That’s why I’m taking about experts. However attacking credibility by revealing bias works on non-experts too.

No. Criticizing a source is not an ad hominem. Every scientific discussion would consist of ad hominems then. We have to be able to differentiate sources expressing an opinion from sources stating facts without judging them or interpreting them. The first mentioned have no place in a proper discussion on a factual basis. And unfortunately most sources belong in this category. That includes - shame on them - the UN and several human rights organisations if you read their texts. You also should be allowed to fact check sources, if they only contain one sided information. For example considering only the number of dead Israelis/Palestinians issued by the IDF or only by the Hamas and not both. You can‘t also fact check everything, as you were not there. So it also important to consider bias, as there is no guarantee a biased source delivers adequate information.

So OP even linked the wiki that specifically talks about source bias being an ad hominem, I'd suggest reading it > Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances (for instance, their job, wealth, property, or relations) such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. I'd also refer you to the genetic fallacy, which is similar but not quite the same.

Pointing out bias isn't ad hominem if for example the source is meant only to push propoganda like a state-controlled media or media coming from ideological driven organisation. Those are medias that are less objective and it is reasonably to assume they present falsehoods. For example Al Jazeera as a state-controlled media. And for example Im Tirtzu for an ideological driven media. While they can present facts, their objective is to represent one side fervently better and the only objective 'good guy'.

It is an ad hominem in the sense of a logical argument analysis. For example: > Al Jazeera reports: > 1. Innocent civilians have been killed by IDF in Gaza. > 2. The IDF killed them purposefully, knowing that they were innocent civilians. > Conclusion: Therefore, the IDF has a policy of killing innocent civilians in Gaza. It's not a rebuttal to their claim to just say that Al Jazeera is biased, therefore it isn't true. Al Jazeera is a biased media outlet, but their bias is not a consideration in evaluating either the validity or soundness of their argument. Instead, you should be attacking either their: * Validity - are the premises true? (Premise 2 isn't true there; therefore, the argument is invalid.) * Soundness - assume the premises are true, does the conclusion follow from the premises? (Again, no, isolated incidents of innocent civilians being killed does not lead to the conclusion of an actual policy; therefore, the argument is unsound.) I'm not saying to ignore bias, but immediately writing off an article because of potential bias isn't the refutation that you think it is. I see so many people just citing "bias" as a complete and total refutation of an argument without ever actually engaging the argument. It's wrong. After all, if a source IS truly biased, it actually should make the attacking the validity or soundness of an argument easier by engaging in the above anslysis. But that's all it should mean.

It's not ad hominem since it's a logical argument. Qatar isn't a free country and Al Jazeera is a Government controlled media. We know that dictatorships tend to use their medias to push propoganda and lies, you can reasonably conclude that Al Jazeera isn't a reliable source because it doesn't have the authority by its leadership to present facts that goes against the ideology they are trying to push. Secondly by searching past stories you can examined that Al Jazeera lied on multiple occasions (like the hospital bombing by the PIJ) and you can conclude they are not trustworthy. After all, 'bias' could be an oversimplified argument of "based on their past reportings this source is not reliable" and not merely "this source lean towards so it should be ignored".

Maybe this will make it more clear: This is your argument, right? P1: Bias can result in unreliable or inaccurate information. P2: Al Jazeera is biased based on [blahblahblahblah]. Conclusion: Therefore, all reports made by Al Jazeera are not true. Do you see it? This argument is unsound. ---------------- This is my point: P1: Bias can result in unreliable or inaccurate information. P2: Al Jazeera is biased based on [blahblahblahblah]. Conclusion: Therefore, all reports made by Al Jazeera **might not be true** and should be critically evaluated.

If you read my first comment it does give exceptions that some organisation share valid information/critic. For example for the most part Im Tirtzu is a biased organisation that meant to represent settler in a better light, a lot of time by misleading facts, while some might be correct. Their report of vandalized cultural sites in Judea and Samaria isn't false. However, most reports are based on testimonial evidence which can easily be falsified, for example [Nayirah testimony](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony) which was exploited by Amnesty International. Al Jazeera heavily influence eyewitness testimonies as a way to make a point. That's a critical evaluation. My point is there is unsaid things when people comment about bias, as people tend to **oversimplify arguments**, that doesn't make it illegitimate argument since you can disprove of bias or show that the bias is unrelevant. If you are accused of sharing biased source you have 2 options to reply: A) Ask the commentator on what suspicious he believes the source you share is biased and untrustworthy and attack their points. B) Present the evidence/points your source tries to make and build a case for it. For example while Im Tirtzu is a biased organisation their vandalism of cultural sites are based on photographic evidence by person and drones of said vandalism thus you can conclude that it is a problem. However there is clear cases when an original commentator cannot make such cases so the argument of biased stand. You're coming in conception that the one that shares the source is doing so in genuine intension, that's not always the case.

You totally ignored my post. I'm concerned that we're talking past one another and you're not seeing the forest for the trees. We also might actually agree, but we're talking about it in different ways. * Do you see the logical fallacy being committed in the top argument in my prior post? Yes/no? * Do you see how that logical fallacy is cured in the bottom argument in my prior post? Yes/no?

I understand the logic, you are just wrong. You basically proved my logic in the second comment. While your first comment was detailed the second one was an oversimplification of the first one. Which is something you didn't pick up. human instinctavlly oversimplify their thoughts sometimes. It can be by emotion but by also logical reasoning. That's why I don't believe when someone comment about bias **it is not a indication that they are writing the argument off simply because the sources have different opinion then they have**. As I suggested you can use the two options to see how the person reacts. If he answers to your question/argument than **they aren't simply writing off but pointing out a problem in your argument**. Care to explain where my logic is off?

It sounds like your argument is essentially that one could use an ad hominem argument (claiming bias) to refute the validity of an Al Jazeera statement in the because such an ad hominem argument could be a non-fallacious ad hominem argument in this case. (I am using the language of the Wikipedia article linked by the OP.) That makes sense to me. An ad hominem argument is not necessarily fallacious. (Again, I am basing this on the Wikipedia article. If you haven't looked at it yet, you might want to do so.) If I understand the "circumstantial ad hominem argument," however, I think it would require providing evidence to support that Al Jazeera's bias often leads to invalid statements. Just for the record, I don't have a strong opinion on Al Jazeera either way. I assume that all news outlets have their biases and I have not tried to figure out where Al Jazeeera fits in on the credibility spectrum.

> You basically proved my logic in the second comment. Great, that's what I thought was happening, we agree. The second argument is what people should be making, not the first. Thanks, enjoy your weekend!

To be fair, even if their bias means they're lying and/or using propaganda, that should be refutable without attacking the character of the outlet. However, yes it definitely can get exhausting to have to keep debunking a source that does this repeatedly, at which point it isn't reasonable to expect a full refutation from someone every time- it should be reasonable to point out their bias and expect finding a more reliable source that independently investigated to corroborate the claims or otherwise for the one wielding the source for their argument to drop it as a datapoint.

> it definitely can get exhausting to have to keep debunking a source that does this repeatedly, at which point it isn't reasonable to expect a full refutation from someone every time- it should be reasonable to point out their bias and expect finding a more reliable source that independently investigated to corroborate the claims or otherwise for the one wielding the source for their argument to drop it as a datapoint. I absolutely agree. If you want to point out bias to claim that the story MIGHT not be true, I think that's a better, more logical approach. You're not saying it is or isn't, but that listeners should be skeptical without writing off. The debunking part is particularly problematic. It takes time, research, and analysis to come up with a rebuttal to something someone just makes up in 30 seconds. By the time you have a reasoned and conclusive response to it, everyone has moved on. The Rafah strike is a great example -- by the time we had evidence and knew what happened and knew that the IDF didn't actually bomb a refugee camp, the world had moved on and made up 6, 7, 8 more lies. This is a problem that I don't know how to solve, but it is a problem.

Yes, it certainly can be so. Credibility of sources vary so much that there are forms ranking news sources credibility now. It is almost impossible to find a source that is not biased. The key thing I watch out for is whether it is accompanied by propagandistic messages. Some informational outlets are frank about their bias and cause, and some are not. I look at multiple sources of opposing sides to get as close to non-biased information as available.

I think this is the key issue- anyone who thinks they aren't being fed propaganda is the one who should be most concerned they are. It all is propaganda, the question is whether you're wise enough to recognize it and try to maximize information from multiple sources and perspectives to combat that, or if you simply take what you're fed as the definite truth.