The Egyptian rage about the Israeli channel 1 film

As usual, the Israeli media and the Arab media have two completely different descriptions of the same event.

A few days ago, Mohamed Maher said:

there is some news which was spread in all the egyptian newspapers , two days ago.
it says that, the israeli "channel one", released a new documentry film, which says that in the war of 1967 , a troop had a leader called " benjamen aleaazer" (who is an israeli minister right now) killed 250 captured egyptian soldiers which were without any weapon , these soldiers were captured while they were runing away from sinai, after the israeli strike.
...
many israeli soldiers which were a part of this troop talked in this film, and they admitted the doing of such a crminal action.
"aleaazer" said that they used to fire a large number of bullets on each captured soldier to be sure that he is dead...
the film has also some documentry movie parts , which were taken in 1967, that shows these type of criminal action....
...

I assume this is a pretty accurate description of how Egytians remember the events.

Israel has a completely different story. Not having seen the film myself, I have to rely on newspaper articles and radio interviews, but it is quite clear that the Israeli version is very far from teh Egyptian view.

For starters, participants in those events totally deny killing unarmed soldiers. According to radio in interviews with people who participated in the operation, this was a combat operation, and was a battle against soldiers who still had their guns. I heard in those interviews that Israeli soldiers who participated in the operation have some moral reservations about the action, because they had an unfair advantage in the battles, and because the battles took place after victory had been declared. The Egyptian soldiers still had their weapons, but the Israeli operations were carried out during the day, when the Egyptian soldiers were in hiding.

Here's a paragraph from an article in Ha'aretz about the film:

In the end, Sayeret Shaked has no cause to glory in the operation, but it is not a matter of killing prisoners, as was claimed by the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram after the film was broadcast. It was a revenge action, an organized hunt of helpless soldiers who had no chance of fleeing from the firepower of the Israeli fighters who were assaulting them from the air. It was not "fair play," but it is doubtful that the action falls into the category of war crimes, as defined by law.

The article also quotes what the Israeli soldiers actually said in the film, including mentions that the Egyptian soldiers were armed at the time.

I also happened to hear a radio interview with a former Israeli ambassador to Egypt. He complained that as an ambassador he tried many times to go on Egyptian TV / radio - but was never allowed there. He said that he did manage to get a few newspaper interviews, but that they always distorted his words.


Why is this happenning? Why are the Israeli and Arab versions of the same event always so different? I can think of three possible explanations:

• Option 1: Arabs are saints. Israelis are evil. Arabs always tell the truth, and Israelis always lie and distort reality.
• Option 2: Israelis are saints. Arabs are evil. Israelis always tell the truth, and Arabs always lie and distort reality.
• Option 3: Arabs are human and Israelis are human. Arabs think that they are saints and that Israelis are evil. Israelis think that they are saints and that Arabs are evil. When Israelis speak - Arabs think Israelis are lying to cover up crimes. When Arabs speak - Israelis think this is anti-Israeli propaganda. Neither side is willing to accept that no one here is a saint. No one likes to belong to a group which is not "Just" or "Moral". People defend their own side, and try to prove that the other side is evil. It is so difficult to accept that your own side is also wrong, that people find it much easier to believe that the other side has evil intentions and is twisting the facts. As a result, both sides see the other as evil or crazy, and the words and actions of one side are constantly misunderstood by the other (e.g., the Al-Aqsa events).

Any other explanations anyone?

-IB.

ben eliezer

I've added a link to "Track co.mments"

I hope this will make it easier to follow up on the discussions that emerge in the comments section of many posts.

I've never used this service before, so I'll be happy to hear from you if it is indeed useful...

-I.B.

It's not our existence - it's the way our existence is perceived by the other side

To answer Abe's question:

you also wrote: "..it's not our existence - it's the way our existence is perceived by the other side..."

i don't understand the difference

When I say "how our existence is percieved", I am talking about how Arabs interpret our actions. The problem is usually not the actions themselves, but the perceived intent of those actions.

This is perfectly human. Imagine your own reaction towards a person who has killed in self defence. Now imagine your attitude towards a psychopathic murderer. Both have done the same, but from a different motive. Our attitude is based on how we interpret the *intentions* behind the actions. What would you do if someone you know to be a psychopathic murderer was to get close to anything dear to you?

Arab attitude towards us is shaped by their perception of our intentions and our motives.

Arabs hate us because they believe our purpose is to kill them all and destroy Islam. They see us as heartless murderers - not as regular humans fighting for their existence. A huge number of Arabs seriously believe that we are as bad as the Nazis - or even worse. Every action of ours is automatically interpreted as part of a vicious plot.

We think Arabs hate us because they are evil. But in fact, they hate us because they see themselves as the good guys, and us as the evil ones.

The Al-Aqsa events: a very predictable misunderstanding

I'm not surprized by the Al-Aqsa events. Not by the stupidity displayed by the Israeli government, not by the Arab hysteria, and not by the dismissal of these riots by most Israelis as "a bunch of fanatics spreading ridiculous antisemitic propaganda".


Many Israeli governmental institutions see themselves as the responsible protectors of civilization and Jewish heritage.



In the eyes of the Arab world, we Israelis are perceived as vicious murderers, who are plotting to destroy Islam. Therefore, anything we do that is even slightly related to Muslim holy sites will immediately cause an hysteria about our intentions. It is only natural for this to cause panic and riots.




In the eyes of the Israeli right wing, Arabs are perceived as terrorists who are plotting to destroy Israel. The Israeli left wing may not agree that ALL Arabs are like this, but they do agree that SOME Arabs are like this. Any Arab violence is immediately attributed to the intention to destroy Israel. Any claims voiced by the worried Arabs that "Israel is plotting to destroy Al-Aqsa" sound so ridiculous to Israelis, that they are immediately discounted as senseless propaganda.




And so, once again, a stupid and inconsiderate action of some office in the Israeli government is perceived by Arabs as warmongering, thereby causing Arab panic and violence, which is in turn interpreted by the Israeli public as proof that Arabs are terrorists.

The right-wing paradox

The Isreali right wing thinks Arabs hate Israel and want to destroy us. The left wing would rather ignore this.

What the right wing doesn't understand, though, is that we should not only defend ourselves from those who hate us: we must also fight the hatered itself.

הטעות של מדינת ישראל היא שאנחנו נלחמים רק בשונאינו - במקום להילחם גם בשינאה עצמה

The paradox is that by fighting those who hate us, we increase the hatered.