It is for me an example of how difficult dialogue among those with varying degrees of religious belief and those with little or none. What is important and completely obvious to me is either missed, ignored or deemed insignificant by DQ.

Critics writing specifically about inaccuracies and biases are shrugged off as over-reactions by those with their own biases.

Is it bias to be sensitive to continued criticisms and incorrect assumptions fed by decades of anti-Semitic propaganda? To DQ, “Intifada, in Arabic, it means ‘shaking off.’ And beginning in September 2000, Palestinians turned increasingly to suicide bombs in the Second Intifada to shake off Israeli occupation and strike at the Jewish state.” is “hardly the “poisonous Arab propaganda” Avrech claims.” On that point we differ.

The entire statement he quotes is arguably false regardless of the translation of “intifada.” Is it bias because I have a dog in the fight and continually see such statements taken as reasonable statements of fact by those with only a passing interest.

What “occupation” were the Arabs “shaking off?” Arafat’s PLO was formed in 1964, while Jordan “occupied” the palestinian lands of Judea and Samaria. Then as now “occupied” has a different meaning depending on who and when you talk to them… especially among the Arabs… but the constant propaganda, especially since Oslo, has created a narrative in the West that Gaza and the West Bank are universally recognized and palestinian land… It’s as misleading now as it was in 1964.

The frame of reference for DQ and other intelligent folks “with no dog in the fight” is largely set by those with an interest. We Jews are extremely sensitive to the change in the palestinian narrative that has occurred which gives us a “reality” with no basis in history. The more Jews attempted to be reasonable during the time this narrative evolved, the more they were vilified and the stronger the Arab narrative took route. Arab violence only fed the seeds planted by their propaganda.

From the formation of the PLO through the 6 day war, through the days of the first sky-jackings, through the Munich Olympics, and the Yom Kippur War… the Arab violence, coupled with sympathetic journalists have given the Arabs a defacto country, with no one capable of running it… and they’ve successfully blamed the Jews…. Yeah I’m biased… but it sure would be nice if all those unbiased folks had the interest of someone with a dog in the fight to be knowledgeable on the history and the facts.

Let there be a dialogue… a debate… on the meaning of “occupation” and the actual legal status of the disputed territories… Even those of us with religious beliefs can look at facts and history while leaving our religious biases at the door. But to see powerful media perpetuate a deceptive narrative IS offensive… and yes it IS poisonous Arab propaganda. If the propaganda leads DQ and other intelligent people to adopt even a portion of a deceptive narrative as truth, which by DQ’s comments it appears he has, then the propaganda is poisonous and Amanpour’s efforts to perpetuate it need to be criticized.

Her series was a far cry from the “We report, You decide” that DQ watched. Had she found the crazed warriors her show would have been farce. Instead she made a pretty effective piece of propaganda. To DQ she was fair, as fair as she could be, her perspective, to him was reasonable and balanced… But because my biases show me that the foundation for her perspective is built of deception… it is EXACTLY that DQ sees it as reasonable that I see it as poisonous. “She could have done far worse,” is no comfort.

I see dangerous propaganda, while an intelligent man with no dog in the fight sees a reasonable report, even balanced. It is very very disheartening.

Good propaganda is never presented as a hatchet job, Don. You should know that by now.

The study of the art of propaganda is not the same as the study of hatchet jobs. Or what you would most likely associate with hatchet jobs.

The problem with the propaganda of the Left is not that it is unreasonable or reasonable. The problem is that propaganda is designed to convince you of something. Depending upon that something, great harm may be inflicted or great harm averted. You don’t analyze the purpose at work here, Don, because I tend to think you don’t factor in a person’s intentions and the intentions of people you don’t see nearly as well as you do concerning the factoring in of facts or small tidbits of information.