USA vs Russia in Ukraine: The End of Pseudo-Impartial Journalism?

Since the very first Russian troops made their way into Ukraine in the early hours of February 24, the Anglo-American coverage of Europe’s latest war has been full of emotion and bias. Western correspondents on the ground in Ukraine and in newsrooms across Europe and the United States not only demonstrated extremely high levels of empathy for Ukrainian civilians suffering from Russia’s provoked aggression, but also significant sympathy even for the neonazi militias « taking up arms to protect their country against the invader».

Watching British, American, Eyuropean, Western journalists in general cover this conflict not with the « blind » objectivity that in witch Western journalism in modern times enjoy taking pride, but instead using terminology that conveys the humanity and grave reality of the situation on the ground, has been eye-opening, to say the least.

From the first few days of bombardment, Russian military campaign became invasion even before there was troops on the ground. And the screens and papers were dominated by stories underlining the bravery and steadfastness everyday Ukrainians demonstrated in the face of an all-out invasion of the devil himself and his army of the apocalypse. Gradually the term “resistance” started to be routinely used to describe Ukrainian troops, volunteers and even the neonasi militias who took up arms to « defend their homeland». Western channels and websites broadcast President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s calls for all Ukrainians – at home and abroad – to come and join the fight, and pleas for military assistance from friendly nations, without censor or critical commentary. In news reports, Russia’s so-called “special operation” has repeatedly been described as an “invasion”,  “assault” and “unprovoked aggression”. The Russian military has been condemned for “deliberately targeting civilians” and “shelling residential areas”, although it has made only a mistake. No weight at all was given to Russia’s baseless claims that “civilians were being used as shields or that the Russian population of the Donbass has been systematically aggressed by Ukrainian neonazi militias for the last eight years. No space for Russian narrative at all.

As a journalist who covers conflicts, I support the use of certain terms and terminologies in the coverage of the war in Ukraine and do think that the Ukrainian, like any other people, has the right to defend itself from foreign invasion. But I frown upon the manicheism of one and only perspective and narrative; I frown upon leaving no space for critical factual vision.

Mainly because I have long argued for journalists using language that accurately conveys the truth of a situation evolving before their eyes – language that is not restricted by a desire or a pressure to be “objective”, “balanced” and “unbiased” even in the face of imperial aggression, unprovoked military assault, invasion or war crimes.

But while I support the use of some of this language and terminology in the coverage of Russia’s invasion, I’m shocked and frustrated. For it is used only against the Russians, neglecting the war crimes committed by Ukrainian militias against the Russian population and also because when we journalists cover Israel’s recurrent unprovoked and inhuman “assaults” on Lebanon and Palestine for Western media, we ere never allowed to describe what is happening in the aggressed countries accurately. We are allowed to refer to the Israeli military as the “occupying force” only when it is inevitable in order to keep a semblance of impartiality, however, we are strictly forbidden to talk of “resistance” in what was/is occupied South Lebanon and in Palestine – which we can’t even call by its name but only by Gaza Strip and West Bank, to erase their right to citizenship in the eyes of the public, to deprive the Palestinians of any deserving identity. We must always describe any such action, I mean, of real resistance against the life long oppressor in occupied territories as “military operations against Israeli forces” – again to remain «impartial and loyal » to Western’s sacred editorial guidelines to paint Israel as victims when they are inhuman criminals and say repeat the mantra that Israel, the oppressor, the occupier, the plunder, the criminal regarding to international law, "has the right to defend itself" from the people they starve, imprison, harass, torture, plunder, and massacre once in a while when it feels like "mowing the lawn" to destroy every single public infrastructure and media outlets in the Strip, bombing appartement buildings and leaving the emprisoned population encircled by air, land and sea with nowhere to flee.

And for all these years, it was not just us journalists from the Global South (I’m a proud Brazilian) who can’t stand injustice who were scolded for being “emotive”, “partial”, or “not balanced” in our coverage of conflicts either. Whenever they tried to tell things as they are, our white, European and American colleagues too have faced accusations of bias and lack of objectivity.

In 2014, for example, veteran British journalist Jon Snow faced a barrage of criticism and even condemnation for publishing a video on the Channel 4 news website calling for Israel to end its brutal assault on Gaza and stop the indiscriminate shelling of the Strip which resulted in the deaths of many innocent children. Snow’s video went viral on social media almost instantly, and many members of the public congratulated him for accurately reporting on the consequences of Israel’s actions. It was mostly other journalists, pundits and analysts who criticised him for allegedly breaking British journalism’s « much-valued impartiality rule ».

As we watch the rolling coverage of the Ukraine war on British, American and Western channels and even in my South America that know very well what the USA did to us and of what it is capable to preserve its political dominance and plunder, and see journalists show empathy, emotion and humanity as they report on «atrocities» far less brutal behaviour than Israelis unravelling before their eyes, we should start questioning what objectivity, neutrality and impartiality really mean in journalism.

If I taught future journalists I would ask my students to do just that every year – I would try to encourage them to widen their understanding of notions that seem to be set in stone in the Anglo-American journalism culture only to serve the powerful. But as Western media has convinced the world that adhering to these “rules” is the only way to produce « quality journalism », not only students but also many seasoned professional journalists often struggle to see the problems with their commitment to what they define as “impartiality”.

However, I now hope that witnessing how differently Western media organisations that take pride in their “impartiality” cover a conflict in their own neighbourhood will encourage journalists to question their views on what constitutes “quality journalism”. In my view, it is to see journalism as a mission to inform accurately and give voice to the voiceless.

The United States has no moral grounds to dictate any journalistic principle, as the highest journalism prize is inspired by Pulitzer, the creator of what became known as « yellow journalism ». The fact is that after this war in Ukraine, Western journalists can no longer claim the higher moral ground – they can no longer claim that they are somewhat better, more professional, than journalists from any other journalist from the Global South, journalists from exploited or war-torn, occupied countries because of their “impartiality”, “neutrality” and “objectivity”.

Every single Western journalist who contributed to the coverage of the Ukraine war and used terms like “resistance”, “invasion” and “aggression” needs to stop and think why it was and is not acceptable  for us journalists to use those same terms when we were covering the massacre of the Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila in 1982, Israel’s assaults on civilians in Lebanon in 1993, 1996, 2006, and in Gaza in 2006, 2008/9, 2012, 2014, 2019 that destroyed entirely, each time, the Strip and left thousands of civilians – mostly elderds, women and children – dead, traumatised or handicapped for life.

They need to stop and question why my sympathy for the victims of war in Lebanon, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Lybia, in Syria, in Yemen, my efforts to reflect their pain and explain their struggles were/are seen as a sign of bias and unprofessionalism, but similar coverage of Ukraine today is being saluted as exemplary and humane. It is humane, but bias. <no one can convey the Russian view, the Russian side ; is it fair ? How? When the US or any other member of OTAN or Israel bomb and invade foreign nations we have to give them time to speak on TV and space in our articles, to « be impartial ».

When we speak about Lebanese and Palestinian journalists being “contextually objective” in their coverage of the Israeli assaults against their country, their people, in the past, they were told “there is no such thing as contextually objective”. But now Anglo-American-Western journalists claim to be “contextually objective” in their coverage of Ukraine – they are actually retaining their own sentiments, values and beliefs and their own audiences’ sentiments, beliefs and values in mind when reporting.

For too long, Western journalists and audiences alike viewed objectivity and impartiality as absolute concepts that can never and should never be shaped by context.

Indeed, what does it mean to be objective as a journalist while covering atrocities committed by a foreign occupier?

Until poor Ukraine and the devil Russia invader, the mantra was « bjectivity under any condition », when OTAN or Israel was involved. Show both sides. Today, I hope Western media editors will look at the coverage of Ukraine and stop to reconsider their convictions about the « main pillars of journalism » which they undisguisedly brushed off.

With all this, my aim is not to dismiss the work some Western journalists are doing in covering the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine. Excluding the racist, orientalist and degrading sentiments expressed by journalists in reference to refugees, our colleagues are doing a good job in accurately conveying the horrors of (any) war to their audiences.

I am writing this merely to call upon Western journalists to reconsider their long-claimed upper moral grip on what constitutes professional, quality journalism – objective, non-partisan, impartial coverage – now that they are reporting on atrocities and human suffering somewhere close to home with the victim being an ally of their country, and somehow forgetting to mention the part their leaders played to build up this regrettable war.

It is time we see absolute objectivity, impartiality and neutrality is not always a prerequisite to quality journalism. In fact, when dealing with atrocities and human suffering they can be an obstacle in front of good, accurate, meaningful coverage. It is time to rethink the meaning and importance of impartiality when covering human tragedy imposed by a destructive force – be it a friend or a foe.

To be accurate I must say that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is far, very far, from what the USA, the UK, OTAN, Israel have been doing for decades elsewhere where people have no blue eyes. Which does not excuse Russia, of course, however, should make us more critical about OTAN’s shameful behaviour around the world to subjugate other human beings as worth as the Ukrainians and to exploit already poor countries' natural resources, as it did and do in Iraq, Lybia, Afganistan, Palestine, and as it want to do in Iran and Russia doing all they can to overthrow Putin and the Ayatollahs. And for what? Only to plunder their countries, to take over the national business, hand them over to their own oligarchs, and afterwards, leave chaos behind.

To be clear, I abhor any form of violence - individual or institutional - and war.  I've just been trying to counterbalance Western bias coverage of this new tragedy generated in Washington. 

What Russia is doing in Ukraine is humanly deplorable and unfair for the civilians, but so is to pretend that it is Putin's fault. He is to blame for the military operation that is costing losses and lives, but as he is far from being a devil or a fool, in the rules of impartial journalism, shouldn't we leave some space on TV and in newspapers to explain why it is happening? 

Shouldn't we, "impartial journalists" also inform the public of the huge part of responsibility European - mainly UK's - and USA's governments have in Ukrainian disruption and suffering? Shouldn't we keep an eye on Ukrainian neonazi militias & foreign mercenaries (paid by whom, actually?) and report their crimes too? 

To make a long story short, shouldn't we, "impartial Western journalists" keep at least a semblance of objectivity for the sake of Journalism?

Thou Shalt not Suppress the Truth

 The 10-year campaign by the US government – Trump’s and Obama’s administrations alike – to criminalise reporting critical of its actions has failed in rather peculiar circumstances, with the unexpected decision by the court in London to reject, earlier this month, the US demand for Julian Assange ‘s extradition.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser gave as the reason for her decision Julian’s mental health and possible suicide risk, not freedom of expression or evidence of a politically inspired persecution by the Trump administration. If the judge is correct, this must be one of the very few non-political actions of the Trump era in the US.

Assange stays for the moment in the high-security Belmarsh Prison, as the US is likely to appeal against the verdict, but he can make a fresh application for bail.

Had the US succeeded in extraditing Julian Assange to face 17 charges under the Espionage Act of 1917, and one charge of computer-hacking, he could have been sentenced to 175 years in prison. His conviction would have had a devastating effect on freedom of the press, because what he was accused of doing is what every journalist and news outlet does or ought to do: find out significant information, which may or may not be labelled secret by self-interested governments, and pass it on to the public so they can reach evidence-based judgments on the world in which they live.

I followed the extradition hearings day-by-day last September, and there was nothing that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks disclosed that I and any other decent reporter would not have revealed.

It is a little too early to say whether the Assange saga, which began when WikiLeaks published a great trove of US government documents in 2010 giving an unprecedented insight into US political, military and diplomatic affairs, is finally over.

At that time, extracts from the US government files were published by The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El Pais. They were described as the greatest scoop of the century, akin to Daniel Ellsberg giving the Pentagon Papers to the press in 1971.

The most famous item was film taken by a US military helicopter in Baghdad in 2007 as it opened fire on a dozen Iraqi civilians, including two local journalists working for Reuters, killing them all. The Pentagon claimed that the targets were “terrorists” and had refused to release the video, despite a Freedom of Information Act request. I was in Baghdad at the time and the journalists there suspected what had really happened, but we could not prove it in the face of official denials.

It was the contents of the Apache helicopter video and thousands of other reports that so shocked a US military intelligence analyst called Bradley Manning, who later changed her name and legal gender to Chelsea Manning, that she handed the great cache of classified documents over to WikiLeaks.

Despite claims to the contrary, the electronic files did not contain the deepest secrets of the US government, but they did reveal what it knew about its own activities and that of its allies. This was often deeply embarrassing and wholly contrary to what American governments had been saying to their own people and the world.

A US official explained at the time that the files – 251,287 diplomatic cables, over 400,000 classified reports from the Iraq War and 90,000 from the Afghan War – were filed on a system known as Siprnet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network). This was designed to give wide access to useful information to hundreds of thousands of US government personnel. My diplomatic friend explained that with so many people able to read the files, the US government was not so naïve as to put its deepest secrets in it.

But, yes, they are. Or one can call it the arrogance of the impunity that has been protecting the USA from being formally and officially called rogue state, just like its ungodlyson Israel.

Ten years ago US and allied governments showed outrage at the disclosures. An early claim that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks had endangered the lives of US agents lost credibility when it was revealed in 2013 that a task force of 120 counterintelligence officers had failed to find a single instance of anybody who had died because of the WikiLeaks disclosures. Nevertheless, this charge was brought up against Assange by the lawyers for the US government at the extradition hearings that began last September.

The anger of the American and allied governments had little to do with the precise level of secrecy of the files that were disclosed. Many of the facts were already known or suspected by journalists. But the keeping of secrets – and their disclosure by the authorities themselves in their own interests – is an instrument of power that those possessing it will fight hard not to lose. Hence the dogged determination with which Assange has been pursued ever since.

The campaign to discredit him had much success. The newspapers that once feted him as the source of their scoops swiftly distanced themselves from him and from WikiLeaks. This had much to do with his status as a rape suspect in Sweden, though these allegations had nothing do with the extradition hearings. I have a sense that the mainline establishment newspapers that had published the files were taken aback and intimated by the explosive reaction of the American governments and its allies.

The majority of these publications consequently ignored or played down the Julian Assange extradition hearings. The challenge to the freedom of the press was self-evident, as was the danger to journalists truthfully reporting facts, any one of which might be deemed a secret by the US government. They too could have faced espionage charges on exactly the same basis as Julian Assange.

Yet much of the media remained silent or made nit-picking attacks on Julian Assange’s personality, despite the seriousness of the case. The failure of the attempt to extradite him – if confirmed on appeal – gets them off the hook and they will no longer have to take a stand. This is one of the most worrying aspect of the case – the willingness of the media to stand to one side during one of the greatest attacks on press freedom in modern history.

Yanis Varoufakis on Julian Assange’s trial

PALESTINA

On January 11, the Israeli Lod District Court ruled against a Palestinian film-maker, Mahmoud Bakri, ordering him to pay hefty compensation to an Israeli soldier who was accused, along with the Israeli military, of carrying out war crimes in April 2002, in the Palestinian Jenin refugee camp located in the northern occupied West Bank.

The case, as presented by Israeli and other media, seemed to deal with typical legal matters such as defamation of character and so on. To those familiar with the massive clash of narratives which emanated from that singular event, known to Palestinians as the ‘Jenin Massacre’, the Israeli court verdict is not only political but historical and intellectual, as well.

Bakri, a native Palestinian born in the village of Bi’ina, near the Palestinian city of Akka, now located in Israel, has been paraded repeatedly in Israeli courts and censured heavily in Israeli mainstream media simply because he dared challenge the official discourse on the violent events which transpired in the Jenin refugee camp nearly two decades ago.

Bakri’s documentary, “Jenin Jenin”, is now officially banned in Israel. The film, which was produced only months after the conclusion of this particular episode of Israeli violence, did not make many claims of its own. It largely opened up a rare space for Palestinians to convey, in their own words, what had befallen their refugee camp when large units of the Israeli army, under the protection of fighter jets and attack helicopters, pulverized much of the camp, killing scores and wounding hundreds.

To ban a film, regardless of how unacceptable it may seem from the viewpoint of the official authorities, is wholly inconsistent with any true definition of freedom of speech. But to ban “Jenin Jenin”, to indict the Palestinian filmmaker and to financially compensate those accused of carrying out war crimes, is outrageous.

The background of the Israeli decision can be understood within two contexts: one, Israel’s regime of censorship aimed at silencing any criticism of the Israeli occupation and apartheid and, two, Israel’s fear of a truly independent Palestinian narrative.

Israeli censorship dates back to the very inception of the State of Israel atop the ruins of the Palestinian homeland in 1948. The country’s founding fathers had painstakingly constructed a convenient story regarding the birth of Israel, almost entirely erasing Palestine and the Palestinians from their historical narrative. On this, late Palestinian intellectual, Edward Said, wrote in his essay, Permission to Narrate, “the Palestinian narrative has never been officially admitted to Israeli history, except as that of ‘non-Jews,’ whose inert presence in Palestine was a nuisance to be ignored or expelled.”

To ensure the erasure of the Palestinians from the official Israeli discourse, Israeli censorship has evolved to become one of the most elaborate and well-guarded schemes of its kind in the world. Its degree of sophistication and brutality has reached the extent that poets and artists can be tried in court and sentenced to prison for merely confronting Israel’s founding ideology, Zionism, or penning poems that may seem offensive to Israeli sensibilities. While Palestinians have borne the greatest brunt of the ever-vigilant Israeli censorship machine, some Israeli Jews, including human rights organizations, have also suffered the consequences.

But the case of “Jenin Jenin” is not that of routine censorship. It is a statement, a message, against those who dare give voice to oppressed Palestinians, allowing them the opportunity to speak directly to the world. These Palestinians, in the eyes of Israel, are certainly the most dangerous, as they demolish the layered, elaborate, yet fallacious official Israeli discourse, regardless of the nature, place or timing of any contested event, starting with the  ‘Catastrophe’ or Nakba of 1948.

Almost simultaneously with the release of “Jenin Jenin”, my first book, “Searching Jenin: Eyewitness Accounts of the Israeli Invasion”, was published. The book, like the documentary, aimed to counterbalance official Israeli propaganda through honest, heart-rending accounts of the survivors of the refugee camp. While Israel had no jurisdiction to ban the book, pro-Israeli media and mainstream academics either ignored it completely or ferociously attacked it.

Admittedly, the Palestinian counter-narrative to the Israeli dominant narrative, whether on the ‘Jenin Massacre’ or the Second Palestinian Intifada, was humble, largely championed through individual efforts. Still, even such modest attempts at narrating a Palestinian version were considered dangerous, vehemently rejected as irresponsible, sacrilegious or anti-Semitic.

Israel’s true power – but also Achilles heel – is its ability to design, construct and shield its own version of history, despite the fact that such history is hardly consistent with any reasonable definition of the truth. Within this modus operandi, even meager and unassuming counter-narratives are threatening, for they poke holes in an already baseless intellectual construct.

Bakri’s story of Jenin was not relentlessly attacked and eventually banned as a mere outcome of Israel’s prevailing censorship tactics, but because it dared blemish Israel’s diligently fabricated historical sequence, starting with a persecuted “people with no land” arriving at a supposed “land with no people”, where they “made the desert bloom”.

“Jenin Jenin” is a microcosm of a people’s narrative that successfully shattered Israel’s well-funded propaganda, sending a message to Palestinians everywhere that even Israel’s falsification of history can be roundly defeated.

In her seminal book, “Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples”, Linda Tuhiwai Smith brilliantly examined the relationship between history and power, where she asserted that  “history is mostly about power”.

“It is the story of the powerful and how they became powerful, and then how they use their power to keep them in positions in which they can continue to dominate others,” she wrote. It is precisely because Israel needs to maintain the current power structure that “Jenin Jenin” and other Palestinian attempts at reclaiming history have to be censored, banned and punished.

Israel’s targeting of the Palestinian narrative is not a mere official contestation of the accuracy of facts or of some kind of Israeli fear that the ‘truth’ could lead to legal accountability. Israel hardly cares about facts and, thanks to Western support, it remains immune from international prosecution. Rather, it is about erasure; erasure of history, of a homeland, of a people.

But despite their unlawful efforts, a Palestinian people with a coherent, collective narrative will always exist no matter the geography, the physical hardship and the political circumstances. This is what Israel fears most.

Check it out: https://vimeo.com/499672067 

INTERACTIVE: Palestinian Remix

Addameer

OCHA

Palestinian Center for Human Rights

B'Tselem 

International Solidarity Movement – Nonviolence. Justice. Freedom

Defense for Children 
Breaking the Silence

BRASIL

Carlos Latuff Twitter

The Intercept Brasil

AOS FATOS: As declarações de Bolsonaro, checadas

 

A Palestina e o Jornalismo

Nos últimos vinte anos têm me perguntado amiúde porque “defendo” a espinhosa causa palestina e tenho recebido vários emails com perguntas parecidas.

Na semana passada muitos demonstraram simpatia com a decisão do Brasil de reconhecer o Estado Palestino nas fronteiras anteriores a 1967. Ou seja, a que respeita a linha verde, derruba o muro da vergonha e liberta a Palestina das colônias e do exército israelense de ocupação.

Mais uma vez, tive orgulho de ser brasileira.

É claro que quem não entende a defesa dos palestinos e a decisão brasileira nunca esteve por aquelas terras santificadas e malditas.

Os que já estiveram e em vez de só subir e descer de ônibus nos lugares marcados sem deixar na Cisjordânia uma divisa ou um shekel sequer para os palestinos que cuidam dos sítios cristãos sagrados, jamais perguntaram nada parecido. Estes enxergam o que o Lula viu e que envergonha de Jimmy Carter, Henning Mankell, Desmond Tutu a nós jornalistas, aos militantes de direitos humanos, sobretudo os israelenses, e que embaraça cada dia mais os organismos internacionais que fazem as leis nas quais Israel pisa.

A resposta é simples. Fazer vista grossa e cruzar os braços é a antítese de estender a mão e de dar a outra face. O jornalismo que escolhi já na faculdade não é só o de chegar junto ou de enfocar a pontinha do iceberg, que na nossa profissão corresponde a “editar” press release sem destrinchá-lo.

Minha repulsão à barbárie começou aos 13 anos, na aula de história quando a dona Léa mostrou entre outras coisas os horrores do nazismo, de Hitler e dos campos de concentração em que homossexuais, comunistas, judeus, deficientes mentais e físicos e todos os opositores, eram tratados como lixo e depois gazeados e despejados em covas coletivas. (Com os ciganos nem se davam ao trabalho – eram fuzilados na hora. Isto ela não disse.)

Como foi possível?! Ela culpou a incipiente rede de comunicações, que se fosse como a presente isto jamais teria acontecido. Acho que nem ela acreditava no que dizia.

Até então eu ainda titubeava entre advocacia, psicologia e arqueologia. Foi aí que escolhi juntar as três matérias em uma e ser jornalista. A geopolítica veio com o estudo, o aprendizado das pessoas, dos fatos e a visão em macro da vida e do mundo.

Quanto mais conhecia a situação da Palestina, mais sabia que a questão religiosa era uma cortina de fumaça e que as gerações futuras julgariam a de agora, a nossa, e perguntariam onde estávamos quando os palestinos estavam sendo espoliados, sequestrados, torturados, ocupados, sitiados, concentrados e tratados como animais por um vizinho expansionista - como a nossa geração celebra os Justos e condena os nazistas e seus cúmplices ativos e passivos. No país abençoado por Deus, bonito por natureza e protegido pelo Cristo, tolerar ocupação e limpeza étnica é incabível.

Tenho amigos judeus e israelenses. Não sou pró-Israel e nem pró-Palestina. Sou contra a desinformação que prima e pró-informação cidadã do mundo em que vivo. E no caso da Palestina, são as leis internacionais que ditam o partido da Moral e do Direito, apesar de alguns sionistas integristas discursarem sobre o direito de Israel se proteger a qualquer preço.

Segundo as ONGs israelenses de Direitos Humanos, a melhor defesa de Israel é o respeito destas leis internacionais, o desmantelamento das colônias na Cisjordânia, a retirada do exército de ocupação e o fim dos check points nos quais os palestinos são humilhados e em que o acesso às escolas é bloqueado. Com estas medidas o país obteria a convivência pacífica com que sonha a grande maioria. Esta é a maior vantagem que levarão quando se renderem ao pragmatismo construtivo, dizem os pacifistas.

Eu não tenho mais as mesmas certezas maniqueístas da juventude. Tenho muitas dúvidas. São elas que me conduzem a cavar fundo e largo sem preconceito ou ideia pré-estabelecida e deixar o leitor tomar o seu partido. Neste blog tento informar com uma ótica humanitária e humanista em fase com a ética aprendida no curso de jornalismo, nos livros de filosofia e na convivência com seres humanos que me puxam para cima.

Por isto, antes de resolver traçar-lhes a história de Israel e da Palestina, resolvi presenteá-lo, presenteá-la, com uma pérola de reportagem.

Se puder, compre o DVD que garante remuneração ao imenso trabalho investigativo e tem legenda, que evita mal-entendido.

O documentário vem dos Estados Unidos e é considerado pelos profissionais o melhor que foi feito sobre o assunto. Não é exaustivo e nem abrange os últimos acontecimentos – bombardeio e invasão de Gaza em 2008/09 e ataque da Flotilha humanitária em maio, expansão das colônias e espoliação hídrica desenfreada, mas é o documento visual jornalístico mais completo que existe.

Occupation 101 foi feito por Sufyan Omeish e Abdallah Omeish em 2007. Ganhou vários prêmios internacionais, entre estes, da BBC, de melhor documentário.

A desinformação não é uma sina. Informar-se a fundo é importante antes de tomar partido.

Bom filme.

Site oficial de Occupation 101: http://www.occupation101.com/about.html

.