Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Israel mounts PR campaign to blame Hamas for Gaza destruction

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 05:42 PM
Original message
Israel mounts PR campaign to blame Hamas for Gaza destruction
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/israel-gaza...
Israel has mounted a public relations campaign to convince international hearts and minds that Hamas is to blame for the death and destruction they are seeing on their television screens.

Stung by the wave of international criticism earlier this year when Israel invaded Gaza to stop militants firing rockets, in an operation dwarfed by its current attack, Israel decided to go on the offensive.

"In the past our prime minister received phone calls from high-ranking officials and politicians. When he said, 'Surely you understand about the rocket fire', they said, 'What are you talking about?'" foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said.

So, while the military marshalled its forces, the foreign ministry honed its message and amassed its staff, ready for Saturday's attack. Israeli diplomats were recalled from holidays and ordered back to work and in the rocket-bombarded southern Israeli town of Sderot, on Gaza's northern perimeter, it opened a multilingual media centre to brief foreign journalists....


PR campaigns do not help. Shaking my head here. It isn't helping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Blame those lily-white innocent lambs? How is that even possible?
All Hamas desires is peace and brotherhood and, oh yes, the land of Israel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Personally I'd like accurate news stories, not PR crap.
Both sides have serious problems. But I would like to see real news, not PR/spun bs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Watch it, your racism is showing!
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. My Question:
After Mumbai's Attacks all the media could ask was "Is this India's 9/11?"

The same goes for the 7/7 attacks in London, and the Madrid train bombings.

But, when more innoncents die in Gaza than in Mumbai, I have yet to hear one person ask: "Is this Gaza's 9/11?"

"Is this Gaza's 9/11?" When the US was hit, when London, Madrid and Mumbai were hit, each of the attackers believed themselves to be acting in retaliation. They saw themselves in the right. How is this different? Because it was an act by a military?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Perhaps because it is military, rather like military elsewhere in the world.
When will Iraq's "9/11" be, for instance. I think because it is military but I am sure some would say because it has been continuous (A attacks B, B attacks A, A attacks B, etc). I am sure others would say more, but I won't.

One stage in a war does not = a terrorist attack. (cue each side that will accuse the other side of being the terrorists, I see it as an ongoing war and wish like hell it would stop)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Exactly my point.
It perpetuates itself, and all have "God on their side".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Veritas_et_Aequitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. That would be my understanding of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamuti Lotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well, the PR campaign is also out in force here
And one could say that it is a doing a fantastic job -- check nearly any thread (the attention to enveloping detail is somehow inspiring), and you can find a number of (oft-repeated) justifications and praise for the assault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. 2 conflicting view in this post...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vegasaurus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. Praise and justification are not the same
I find that response was justified (although I think this bombing campaign was too severe).

Israel cannot continue to live with rockets and mortars on a daily basis, and Hamas had been warned repeatedly to stop, and even had borders closed.

They refused to stop firing rockets.

I do not (nor have I seen on DU) praise for the military action.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. Spinning violence is still violence, to most people.
But Israel is up for big irony distain here too. Just like military-state propaganda was outlawed in the USA by the warning example of Germany's 1930's regime's useage, Israel has come full circle as the oppressor by appealing to authoritarian/conservative emotions in the media and by censorship.

Good thing that we are so vigilant here in the USA. And we set the fine example for Israel too, does our MSM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
10. well, i disagree about the premise of PR campaigns not helping
I think they help to a great degree. Ultimately, though, the sucess of their PR campaign will hinge on how many casualties there are. If the numbers grow to 400, 500 dead, then it will be very difficult for Israel to sucessfully convince the world that this wasn't overreach.

Hamas is a horrible organization, and yes they're bent on the destruction of Israel, but in my mind, this is like carpet bombing Compton to get rid of the crypts and the bloods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. How do PR campaigns help? serious question. Not just this, but ever?
I don't see manipulating people being a positive thing in the long run. How do you see PR campaigns helping? Serious question here, and not talking about I/P issues but just in general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. PR campaigns
obviously help. The simplest explanation is that if they didn't, there wouldn't be any.

The reason they help is because, in the case of this -- or any incident which could negatively impact the person or entity using the PR -- it quells dissent and negative reaction.

Its not necessarily an instrument for building support, just suppressing opposition.

Israel, in this instance, doesn't need the world to cheer them on, they just need the world to not put forth a concensus to stop them from doing what they believe is their right to self defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. PR campaign may help 1 side. I mean it doesn't help the whole situation, help both sides.
A PR campaign may help 1 side, but overall, I don't think they help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. well, i don't think that's the point of PR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. What do you think the point of PR is?
I am not snarking, but wanting to know. I think PR is manipulate others into feeling a certain way about something. To spin what is going on to show one (or more) of the parties (sides) in a more positive light.

It seems you are saying that with your post upthread: "The reason they help is because, in the case of this -- or any incident which could negatively impact the person or entity using the PR -- it quells dissent and negative reaction.

Its not necessarily an instrument for building support, just suppressing opposition."

Manipulating opinion seems to be the point, whether building positive feelings or suppressing/quelling negative ones.

Or, do you mean that PR campaigns are not to help both sides, are in agreement with me. You don't think the point of PR is: "A PR campaign may help 1 side, but overall, I don't think they help". YOu are agreeing that the point is not to help overall? (Double negative going on there)

my head is confused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. PR, as far as I understand it
it just supposed to help the side that's employing it. Both sides can use PR, but all PR is not created equal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Thanks, that is what I had worked my way around to figuring, but then
I was thoroughly confused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Exactly, and targeting civilians is outlawed by the UN.
But they've got might on their side, and in the UN?

Most religions agree though, it just ain't right to kill non-combatants for peace's sake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Any evidence that civilians are being targeted or attacked indiscriminately
Edited on Sun Dec-28-08 07:29 PM by HardcoreProgressive
Note that both Israeli and Palestinian media have state that the IAF is attacking Hamas facilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. depends on your definition of indiscriminately
targeting a facility in a highly-populated civilian area could be considered indiscriminate, since it's bound to kill civilians. Even the smartest of smart bombs can't avoid that.

the only true way to avoid killing large numbers of civilians would be for Israel to order every woman and child out of Gaza and then go in with ground troops and make mass arrests or have a huge shootout.

...which, granted, isn't the smartest option for Israel, which is why that's likely not going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. If we do it, it is not indiscriminate.
If they do it, it is indiscriminate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. I concur in part
The issue actually would be the use human shields. The fault would like with the country who put a military target next to the hospital etc.

Given the nature of the air strikes, it quite foreseeable that the IAF could justify every place it hit. With that war crimes are off the table.

There is some evidence that *someone* ordered civilians to clear away from Hamas buildings. Not clear enough when and who. Waiting for that to sort out before I post it here.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. well, considering Gaza is very small
like, 1/4 the size of Long Island, I'd imagine that there's not a lot of room for Hamas to put it's facilities that aren't near a hospital or a school or something. Plus its dense population makes it doubly likely that civilians would be injured or killed in an ariel raid.

Which, IMO, means that Israel obviously has tough choices when dealing with them. My problem with this is that they did it in the last few days of the Bush administration, who they knew was just going to sit back and take a hands-off approach to peace talks, unlike the Clinton administration, who basically worked until the last moments to try to hammer out a deal.

Israel *could* have waited until Obama and his team took office to let them weigh in on any plans. IMO, that would have been the responsible thing to do. Since Hamas' rocket attacks were more of a nuissance than an actual threat, I don't see any reason they couldn't have done this.

I'm sure Obama doesn't appreciate Israel doing this three weeks before he's sworn in. Or maybe they were just making sure his hands were tied before he took office, limiting his options with how to deal with any peace proposal he may have had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. I do not know you, but thank you for your posts.
You point out good things, have good ideas. I wonder if this was related to the switching of bush/Obama as far as timing goes, or was coincidental. I could see it both ways, but think the tying hands idea sounds logical. I am sure Obama doesn't appreciate the timing.

Doing it now means they have a month before a USA administration will be dealing with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Let's see, x number of attacks yields y number of civilians killed.
And to continue attacking with the expectation of 0 civilian causalities?

Military planners consider it collateral damage and figure it into scenarios or attack plans. Get the estimates from the planners if you can, and if you please. What are the odds?

What were the estimates for the civilian causalities in Iraq for the US operations? Why didn't we even count causalities, bad PR?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rundownman Donating Member (102 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
24. Shouldn't be too hard...... considering
most owners of media outlets are supporters of zionism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
25. On September 1, 1939, Hitler told the Reichstag that Germany was defending herself against...
a Polish attack.

On September 1, 1939, Hitler told the Nazi Reichstag that Poland had tried to invade Germany, and the Wehrmacht was returning fire since 5:45 AM.

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/poland.htm

American author Theodore White was a foreign correspondent in England at the time. In his recollections on the war, he said that the terms Germany had demanded from Poland had seemed very reasonable, and there were hopes that war could be avoided.

The truth, as we all by now, is that the terms that Germany had publicly announced it demanded from Poland were not the actual terms demanded from the Polish government. There was no way that Poland could accede to those demands. We also know that Germany had agreed to divide Poland up with the USSR. Lastly, we know that Hitler's speech to the Reichstag was nothing but bullshit.

Lesson #1: Governments lie all the time.

Lesson #2: The more bad things that governments do, the more they lie about them.

Lesson #3: Lessons 1 & 2 apply to Israel and to the US. There is no such thing as Israeli or American Exceptionalism (another lie!).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 30th 2014, 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC