How the Israeli Regime Manipulates the "Exodus" Narrative

     Advertising has been defined as the art of making corporate propaganda look like revealed Truth.  In fact, I once took a master's level course called Advertising, Public Relations, and Propaganda.  All three areas comprise a single area of psychology.  All three areas involve bypassing rational processes.  

     No matter how rational you think you are, you don't have immunity to these techniques unless you know what they are.  I'll describe a few.

     Your rational mind has a gatekeeper, so to speak.  In some ways, it's like an anti-virus program on your computer.  

     When information comes knocking at the gate of your mind, the gatekeeper determines whether the information is true and just how credible it is.  This gatekeeper either rejects the information, or it accepts it as a document file.  If it passes the gatekeeper, it may eventually become part of your brain's hard wiring; in which case, it becomes harder to delete.

     Advertising (a.k.a. propaganda) seeks to fool the gatekeeper.  Just as a computer virus may be disguised as a harmless file extension such as JPEG, advertising is often disguised as entertainment.  If it fools the gatekeeper, it doesn't go into a file folder somewhere, where it may be easily deleted; instead, it goes directly to your brain's hard wiring.

     As early as the Middle Ages, some political leaders wouldn't undertake a major initiative until a minstrel has written and popularized a song about it.  It's hard to disagree with a song that you enjoy singing; and, since it's disguised as entertainment, it bypasses the rational thinking processes.
     Actually, this phenomenon goes beyond the art of disguising propaganda as entertainment.  This technique can employ anything that is designed to mimic something that you're already conditioned to accept.

     For example, suppose you're waiting your turn at the photocopier and someone else wants to cut in ahead of everyone else.  You're conditioned to believe that he shouldn't be allowed to do this unless he can offer a good reason for it.  
     Some years ago, psychologists created an experiment with three "groups" of unsuspecting subjects.  Individuals in the first group heard, "May I get ahead of you?"  Around two thirds of the subjects allowed the intrusion.  
     The second group of subjects heard, "May I get ahead of you?  I need to make some copies."  That, of course, was not a good reason, since that's the only reason anyone would use a photocopier.  Nonetheless, it had the structure of a rational argument, and the rate of agreement jumped to three fourths.  

     The subjects in the third group heard, "May I get ahead of you?  The boss needs some copies right away."  That, of course, was a valid reason.  The rate of agreement from this group was only slightly higher than for the second group.
     The conclusion of the study was that most people spend most of their time in a state of "non-thought" and are open to suggestion if they're offered what mimics a rational argument.  I'll get back to that one later.
     Let's consider another phenomenon: That it's difficult for the average person to maintain two separate images in their minds at the same time.
     In different parts of a single survey, people heard the same question twice.  The first time, they were asked if they agreed with the statement that "abortion is a personal decision to be decided between a woman and her doctor."  The second time, the statement was, "The rights of unborn children should be protected by law."  Both statements enjoyed agreement from two thirds of the respondents.

     In a nutshell, Israeli arguments for the occupation of Palestine mimic the popular version of the Genesis narrative pertaining to God's promises to Abraham.  You can  momentarily convince a supporter of Israel that the rights of Palestinians should be protected, but it's an easily deleted file.  The popular version of the Genesis narrative is part of their hard wiring.
     The only way that it can be deleted is through reformatting the hard drive.  You do that by creating a situation in which they have to watch both images at the same time.  Some will become very angry with you, but I see no other way.
     I said I'd get back to the mimicry.  So I shall.

     The Israeli narrative of their occupation of Palestine mimics the story of Exodus, in the Old Testament.  It's attractive but false.  It justifies ethnic cleansing because it mimics the Lord's command that the inhabitants of Palestine be driven from the land.  The the book of Exodus, the Israelite religion was just getting started, and the Philistines (ancestors of today's Palestinians) were an idolatrous people who may tempt the Israelites away from the Lord.
     Judaism today is well established.  Palestinians are predominantly Muslims, who more closely adhere to the Law of Moses (they call it Sharia Law) than the Jews do.  
     Furthermore, the Lord's promise to Abraham was that Abraham would become the father of "many nations," and not just the Jews.  The Promised Land was to be inherited by Abraham's descendants.  I've seen nothing in the Bible that would exclude the descendants of Abraham's firstborn son Ishmael, who was the ancestor of Mohammad.

     The Old Testament records examples of Israel descending into idolatry and other abominations, for which they were delivered into captivity.  Each time they returned to their homeland, it was because they were repentant and they were led by righteous men.  Each time they returned, they returned as peaceful new neighbors and not as conquerors.  They didn't steal land; they paid for it.
     There are other examples of the Israeli regime using mimicry for propaganda purposes, but I'll mention only two more:.
     One isthe attempt to equate opposition to Zionism with anti-Jewishness.  Like Satan, who disguises sin as enlightenment, the Zionists apply a thin veneer of counterfeit Jewishness to camouflage their corruption.  Jesus called religious leaders of their ilk "whited sepulchers." 
     The other is the deliberate confusion of the word mine, as in "This Land is Mine."  When you say, "This teddy bear is mine," you mean that you have exclusive ownership of it; you're free to tear off its arms if you wish.  "This dog is mine," limits your actions.  "This girl is my sister," has nothing to do with ownership; it refers only to a relationship.  "My homeland" is another relationship that mustn't be confused with ownership or sovereignty. During the time of Joshua, they "took possession of the land."  Afterward, they were returnees, and there is no biblical record of force being used against Jerusalem's inhabitants.
     I mentioned the possibility of forcing a deluded supporter of Zionism to come to grips with both the myth and the reality of "modern Israel" at the same time.  Here it is:             

 "This Land is Mine" (with introduction and subtitles)
or watch it at You Tube and the following URL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abBTrbDKwBo