Saturday, October 29, 2016


An  irritating phenomena of our political life is the manner in which politicians wrongly invoke the so called sub judice rule to avoid accountability. Time and again a case of putting a square peg into a round hole....
Read through the article below, what level of priority to allow a sub judice interpretation, especially on matters of public important and the well being of a nation......carry on reading...I don't mentioned name..ha..ha...stupid..

  Image result for sub judice stupid ruling cartoon


One of the most irritating phenomena of our political life is the manner in which politicians wrongly invoke the so called sub judice rule to avoid accountability. Because they do not want to answer difficult questions or deal with politically awkward issues, such politicians invoke a rule that only exists in their imagination.
Is it possible that such politicians do not know that the rule has been substantially changed by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to bring it in line with the values and norms enshrined in our democratic Constitution? Or are they cynically invoking a non-existent rule knowing full well that the rule does not exist in the form that they pretend that it does?
The latest culprit is the Minister of Police, who invoked the rule in response to the Human Rights Commission’s (HRC) findings and remedial order in the case of Mr Chumani Maxwele, the jogger who is alleged to have given President Zuma’s motorcade the middle finger. The HRC found that the Special Protection Unit had violated several of Mr Maxwele’s rights and called on the Minister, on behalf of the members involved, to apologise to Mr Maxwele and to take steps to ensure that the SAPS acts in terms of the Constitution and the Law.
Reacting to the HRC’s findings, the Minister’s spokesman claimed that because Mr Maxwele had instituted civil proceedings against the SAPS the sub judice rule applied. The SAPS had accordingly refused to participate in the investigation and would not abide by the HRC’s ruling.
Now, it is an established rule of the common law that the proper administration of justice may not be prejudiced or interfered with and that to do so constitutes the offence of contempt of court. As the SCA has found, the sub judice rule is important as the integrity of the judicial process is an essential component of the rule of law. If the rule of law is itself eroded through compromising the integrity of the judicial process then all constitutional rights and freedoms are also compromised.
The crime of contempt of court thus includes contempt ex facie curiae (out of court) and this entails, first, cases where publication of an opinion will violate the dignity, repute or authority of the court (either by criticizing or insulting a particular judicial officer or the judicial system as a whole) and, second, statements which prejudice the administration of justice in pending proceedings. It is this latter aspect that has become known as the sub judice rule.
But in the Midi Television case the SCA stated that the broad scope of this rule which was in force in the pre-democratic era has been severely curtailed by the Constitution. In that case, dealing with the sub judice rule in the context of pre-publication censorship, Nugent JA, writing for a full bench of five judges, summarised the new position as follows:
[A] publication will be unlawful, and thus susceptible to being prohibited, only if the prejudice that the publication might cause to the administration of justice is demonstrable and substantial and there is a real risk that the prejudice will occur if publication takes place. Mere conjecture or speculation that prejudice might occur will not be enough. Even then publication will not be unlawful unless a court is satisfied that the disadvantage of curtailing the free flow of information outweighs its advantage. In making that evaluation it is not only the interests of those who are associated with the publication that need to be brought to account but, more important, the interests of every person in having access to information. Applying the ordinary principles that come into play when a final interdict is sought, if a risk of that kind is clearly established, and it cannot be prevented from occurring by other means, a ban on publication that is confined in scope and in content and in duration to what is necessary to avoid the risk might be considered.
If one applies these basic principles to the case at hand, it must be clear that the sub judicerule is not applicable here. The Minister would have to convince us that there would be a demonstrable and substantial prejudice to the administration of justice if he apologised to Mr Maxwele as requested by the HRC. He will further have to show that it would not be in the interest of society as a whole to obey the request of a Chapter 9 body because the risk to the administration of justice would far outweigh the harm done to the credibility and the dignity of the Chapter 9 institution.
This will obviously be impossible to show. Given the fact that section 181 of the Constitution states that other organs of state – including ministers – through legislative and other measures, must assist and protect these institutions to ensure the independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness of these institutions, I cannot think of an example where the Minister would be allowed by the sub judice rule to ignore the HRC and to refuse to institute the remedial action proposed by it in a certain case.
Besides, how the minister could possibly argue that complying with the findings of the HRC – which dealt with the violation of Mr Maxwele’s constitutionally guaranteed rights to human dignity, to freedom and security of the person, to privacy, to freedom of expression and peaceful/unarmed demonstration – could possibly influence the parallel civil proceedings – which deals with a civil claim against the Police – is hard to fathom.
The HRC has already published a finding in which it concluded that Mr Maxwele’s rights have been infringed. Nothing the Minister can do or say will change that. A court dealing with the civil claim of Mr Maxwele will not be swayed by the finding of the HRC as it will have to hear the evidence presented to it and make its own finding on whether damages should be paid.
The fact that the HRC has found that Mr Maxwele’s rights have been infringed can also not be tendered in the civil case as proof that Mr Maxwele is entitled to be compensated financially as a result of any damages suffered. The two issues are therefore entirely different enquiries, and no substantial prejudice to the civil trial can possibly arise through the correct exercise of its rights jurisdiction by the Human Rights Commission.

The Occupation of the American Mind - RAI with Pink Floyd's Roger Waters (3/3) - Part 3

On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, legendary musician Roger Waters and producer Sut Jhally say Rachel Maddow and most liberal media express one-sided support for Israel, while Bernie Sanders has staked out a more balanced position

JAY: Welcome back to Reality Asserts Itself on The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay, in Baltimore. We're continuing our discussion with Roger Waters and Sut Jhally. We're talking about the new film "The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States." And you're really going to...I'm not going to introduce the guys again, because you really should go back and watch this from the beginning, cause I think it's a fascinating interview.
We're going to start off showing a clip. The importance of the next clip that we're going to show you is that even some of the most liberal, major media commentators [inaud.] buy in to the same narrative. Israel's the victim. And [they] seem very reluctant. And some of these people should know better, or really do know better and don't want to say so, including Rachel Maddow. 
So here's a clip from the film.
[CLIP 1]
JAY: So, that was Rachel Maddow, essentially doing the same thing as the rest of major media, including...whether it's FOX or NBC, or so on. Roger you wanted to say something about the clip?
WATERS: Well, yeah. It's a thing, as well, about the mainstream media, is that if you don't tow the party line, if you don't follow the line, and very particularly on Israel, you will be fired. You will lose your job. So, it's no huge surprise that everybody takes the same line, and says the same thing. Because, people care about their salary at the end of the day. And people can be bought, and people can be sold. That is the nature of life in this country. And it's really sad.
JAY: I mean, it's interesting...
WATERS: You know, if you ask, even if you are in the press corps at the white house, if you ask difficult questions you don't get asked to ask a question again. Or, you will not be invited, or you will not be on Air Force One, flying off somewhere to cover a trip.
JAY: Yeah, we saw what happened to Helen Thomas...
WATERS: You have to say the right things, or you won't be invited.
JAY: Yeah. Helen Thomas, I don't think it's mentioned in your film, but it's a very good example of what happens to a journalist, who is a veteran White House journalist, in the front row because of her seniority. And they hound her out of the press corps for asking exactly the kind of challenging questions that Roger is talking about.
JHALLY: Yeah. I would say, on the one hand, there's the "control the narrative." At the same time, there's a culture of intimidation. So people are just scared to even ask basic questions around us, because they know what happens when you do. When you try and humanize the Palestinians, in any way, you're immediately shut down.
In the film, we have the example of Iman Weldon, who was an NBC reporter. Who was playing soccer with four kids on the beach in Gaza. And just before they were killed by a missile. And when he posted the reaction of the parents to the loss of their kids, NBCs reaction was to pull him out of Gaza. I mean, that becomes...when reporters see that...when reporters see what happens when you try and do the job of journalism....I mean, essentially American media have given up journalism, when it comes to this issue. They've just given up trying to be journalists.
JAY: I critiqued Sanders, for being part of that Senate vote, that Israel has the right to defend itself. But, on the other hand, what he did say when he spoke recently about his Middle East policy, and actually said there's such a thing as Palestinian rights, which is ridiculous that that should be a thing. The media reported on it, and then completely moved on, as if he kind of never said it. But it did show that the sky did not fall when Sanders said that. It's not like...I don't think there's any evidence that he lost electoral support, even in New York State. Maybe some in some....I don't think orthodox were probably voting for him anyway.
JHALLY: I think that Bernie Sanders moment was an incredible moment, when he said that during the debate. In part of what he said, even though it was very minor, you know, he framed it by saying "Of course, Israel has a right to defend itself. Of course." You know, and then he said a small part about Palestinian rights. But I think the most radical part, or the most interesting part of that, was the people in the audience cheering, which is an indication that something is happening. There is some crack among certain segments of the population, around this issue.
JAY: Well, let’s show another clip from the film, which is just about this, which is in fact how the narrative is changing. And let me declare a conflict of interest, at the beginning of this, because in this clip...I think it's in the clip, but in the film, at any rate, there's a mention of media outlets, which are not following the official narrative here. And the Real News is mentioned as one. But, at any rate, here's the clip.
[CLIP 2]
JAY: So, Sut, the landscape is changing. As powerful as this media campaign has been, there are church organizations at the national level supporting Boycott Divestment Sanctions against Israel...major unions have adopted this, certainly on campuses...student bodies. It's in spite of tremendous pressure. Being called, essentially, an anti-Semite. People are seeing past this. The mood seems to be changing.
JHALLY: Well, I think it's changing on the margins, and important places in the margins. So, it's not a totally blanket thing anymore. There are places young people, church groups, community groups...I think the new Black Lives Matter movement are seeing the connections between police violence in the cities here and military violence against Palestinians. So, I think those connections are starting to be made. They are being made on the margins. And, I think what we have to do now is to take those cracks and make them a flood.
JAY: You know, there's an important one, and it's in your film...I guess it's in the clip...one of the activists in Ferguson says, you know, "from Ferguson to Palestine, we're fighting for freedom." Well, we see that in Baltimore. You know, Baltimore is a city that is 65% African American, and the link between the black activists in Baltimore feeling very...a real kinship with the struggle in Palestine. It's quite strong. In fact, more with Palestine than, perhaps, anything else going on in the world.
WATERS: Alright, this is a small thing, but I was at a movie premiere a couple of weeks ago. It was miles ahead...I like the movie. It's about Miles Davis, but anyway, when they finish talking to Don Cheadle and...who else was in it. I can't remember now. But, a couple of reporters came over to me. One was from People magazine, and one was from New York Daily News. Neither of which publications I expect much sympathy from...really interesting. 
A couple of years ago, or three, or whatever, they might have asked me this question, "Why are you an anti-Semite?" That's what they would have said to me then. "Why are you so anti-Semitic?" Now, they say to me, and they both asked me the same question, they said, "How do you feel, when people accuse you of being an anti-Semite?" Now, that is a huge shift. It may sound subtle, but it's not. It opens up the question of whether I am anti-Semitic, or not. Which is a question that you couldn't even approach two or three years ago. It was just assumed that I was, because, you know, the [inaud.], you know, organization in Los Angeles had said I was. So, therefore I must be.
I think it's really interesting the way, even in People magazine and the Daily News, the attitude is just changing a little bit. I'm so excited by it. It's so exciting to be here now, and watch this thing turning around. Because the momentum is changing. The students and the churches and the people in Baltimore and Black Lives Matter, joining together with their brothers and sisters in Palestine. And so, it's becoming...the movement is spreading. We care about Black Lives Matter movement as much as we care about BDS. It's all fundamentally important, because it's all about the fact that all human beings...and there is no us and them, we are only us. And all of our lives matter. And once we can din that to people’s hearts, we will be unstoppable as a movement. And I look forward to that time. And it's coming soon. I believe that. 
Sorry. I digress. 
JAY: No, not at all. 
Sut, talk a little bit more about how you're going to get this film out.
JHALLY: Yeah. I think Roger's absolutely correct. You know, I mean, and it's not just accidental. It's not just that it happened out of nowhere. It's been the end result of a long period of activism by many, many people over the years. But, I think we are now starting to see some daylight in small places. And, I think what we now need to do is we now need resources, to get people to think clearly about these things even more, so that they can talk about these issues in a knowledgeable way. 
I think, on the one thing that's warranted with our film...I don't think many people would be shocked to think that we're in the middle of a propaganda campaign by Israel. You know, you look at the media...I mean, people are really frustrated. I know people are throwing things at their televisions during the last Gaza war. What the film does, and I think this is very very powerful, what the film does is answer the question "Why?" And it gives people a way to peak behind the propaganda, and to see how it is being put in place.  And once you know how something has been put in place, you can start to take it apart. That's the value of doing this kind of work, which is why we hope the film will be shown, especially in community screenings, and community settings, where you can have discussion around it. We have a whole strategy to make sure that it's shown on as many campuses as possible.
If you're a professor, or if you're a graduate student, or if you're an undergraduate, get your library to buy, so it becomes part of the permanent collection. Organize a screening on campus. If you're a church group, or if you're a community group, organize a screening, so that people can have a chance to come together to talk about this. Because, I think the time is right. As Roger said, I don't think there's ever been a time like this. And the question is, do we take advantage of it? And do we have the resources to move things forward?
JAY: Right.
JHALLY: So it is...it's a very very hopeful period. And I hope the film will be part of that movement.
JAY: Roger did you want to have a final word?
WATERS: Yeah. Hear, hear!
JAY: Hear, hear.
WATERS: I agree with everything that Sut's saying. And I think it is an exciting time. And we shall overcome. You know, we are all in this together, and the more connections that human beings make with one another, and recognize that one man’s predicament is all of our predicaments. 
You know, I made a speech...they showed my movie in Tunisia, in Carthage, a few months ago, "The Wall" movie. And Tunisia is a very very important country to us now, because out of the Arab Spring where there was popular uprising by people all over that part of the Arab World, the Tunisians were then faced with whether to fall back into either a tyrannical rule by the army, or some other tyrant, having gotten rid of the Ben Ali family. They, as a collective, decided that they would not descend into civil war and conflict, and then another autocratic thing...that they would talk to one another. So, the national court in Tunisia, that was made up of the labor unions, a board of industry, human rights groups, and the law community, a community of lawyers. They formed a quartet, and they got together and they thrashed out a constitution, and they stuck to it. So, we're now three years later, and they have a constitutional democracy, where they talk to one another. You know, it's a secular government, with an Islamist opposition, and they don't just talk at one another. They talk to one another, and they listen to one another. And they figure out and they hammer out policy. And obviously, there are still problems in Tunisia, but what a shining beacon of light that is. Not just for the rest of the region of North Africa and the Middle East, but for the whole world. That this small country, eleven million souls, all together, is providing an example that we would all do well to follow. Where speech is free, and where everything isn't just bought and sold. So, it's a great example.
JAY: One more time. So where can people see the film?
JHALLY: People can see the film at www.occupationmovie.com. And they can stream it there or they can buy a DVD to screen, as well.
JAY: Ok. Thanks very much Sut. Thank you Roger.
WATERS: Thank you for having us on.
JAY: I hope we can do this again. And we're going to end by showing a couple more clips from the film, but thank you for joining us on Reality Asserts Itself on the Real News Network.
JAY: Another way you can get to the film streaming, which is, I think, five bucks to watch the film, or you can buy a DVD, is on the Real News home page. You'll see a copy of this movie poster. If you click on it, it will take you to the page where you can get to the film


DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.


The Occupation of American Mind by Israel-Zionist Part 2

JAY: Welcome back to Reality Asserts Itself on The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay, continuing our discussion with Sut Jhally and Roger Waters about the new film "The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States."
As I mentioned in the first section, Sut Jhally is the executive producer of this film, and has produced many such documentaries. And Roger Waters is the co-founder or founder of Pink Floyd, and one of their lead vocalists, and principle songwriters, and has become a real activist advocating for Palestinian human rights.
So I'm going to show another clip from the film, and then we're going to talk about just how this narrative Israel...of the victims, and all Palestinian resistance, is terrorism, how that becomes the predominant narrative. So we're going to roll that clip now.
JAY: So Sut, the point you're making here, is that this is no accident. This is a very calculated PR plan, the way Proctor and Gamble rolls out a new toothpaste, which I guess with even some of the same kind of methodology and technology. Talk about how this developed.
JHALLY: Well, the start of the modern campaign, we can trace back to 1982. And, in fact, American audiences will be stunned at the kind of coverage that the American networks gave to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It was incredibly critical. And showed the horror of both the invasion and then the slaughter at the camps of Shabra and Shatilla. And Israel was horrified at the kind of real journalism taking place. They essentially said "we can't let this happen again." And so, they set about with the very calculated, coordinated campaign, which they called the Hasbara project, that was going to be designed to control the discourse in the United States. And there was a conference that took place in 1984, in which they called together, or gather together many many people, experts in public relations, in advertising, in communications, to come up with a strategy.
JAY: Ok, lets roll a clip from the film, which is about exactly this conference.
[CLIP 2]
JAY: So Roger, talk a bit about the clip we just saw, and why you think this campaign has been so successful.
WATERS: Well that's a very interesting point. Why it's been so successful. Because it's so transparent. And any rational man would think "this cannot possibly work." But unfortunately, there's a lot of precedent for this, this particular technique. You know, if you tell the big lie often enough and loud enough, people will believe it. And, you know, as it's explained in this thing, in that clip, this has been used to sell soap powder, or shampoo, or motorcars often in the past, and it's used now to sell policy.
Sut is exactly right, that everything changed in '82, after the invasion of Lebanon. So, I think it's about getting spokespeople, as well, particularly politicians, to repeat the mantra. And this is one of the problems. That the fact that Congress is for sale in this country, particularly after Citizens United. That the disasterous ratification of that bill by your Supreme Court, which means effectively that members of Congress, in both the Senate and the House, are for sale. You can buy them. And we all know that. Everybody knows it. But it's kind of something that people prefer not to talk about. Because, if you had owned up to it, you would need to start looking at the whole way that your society works, and politics in the United States in a grown up and rational way, which would be very very difficult, based, as the whole thing is, on commerce.
I know I'm rambling, but, you know, it's a complex issue. So, if we get back to Hasbara, they have discovered that they can do it. They can operate policies that are murderous, and genocidal. And operate apartheids, which is a dirty word. Here, particularly, but all over the world it's a dirty word. And recognized, that apartheid is unforgivable and indefensible. And yet, the Israelis operated in the territory that they occupied in 1967, and nobody says boo, here. And you're asking the question, well why does nobody say boo? Why is there no response to any of this? And I think Sut can answer that question much better than I can, because, I confess, I'm flabbergasted and flummoxed whenever I come up against this question. Because, their answers are so clearly a tissue of untruth, that for us, we the people, that we the people cannot see through it. And there are still large numbers of us, support Israeli policy. It's very hard to penetrate.
Ask Sut. He'll tell you.
JAY: Well, he's here. I'll ask him. And not only do you find this, you know, support for Israel, even in the midst of an attack on Gaza. And I should point out, even a Bernie Sanders, who took, you know, recently, a much more balanced and complex view of how America should approach the question. But even Sanders voted for the resolution, saying Israel had a right to defend itself at the time they're bombing Gaza. So, even in the Democratic party, you have people with relatively progressive ideas, that opposed the war in Iraq and other things...and here, I'm not isolating Sanders, there's others, certainly, far more in this way. But they see Israel as this sort of outpost of civilization or something. And surrounded by, you know, the forces of anarchy and chaos, and they kind of really internalize that.
WATERS: That's why the right to defend itself is part of the Frank Luntz mantra, because it covers a multitude of sins with one simple phrase, that sounds on the face of it defensible. But, defending a country like Israel by operating a collective, murderous, genocidal policy upon a neighboring people, who are entirely under your control, is not defense. It is aggressive beyond all imagination. This is the slaughter of people locked up in a concrete pen, and kept there with guns, tanks, planes, ships, navies, machine guns. They are contained in a prison. It is exactly as if they were all in prison. And then, if some of them resist, if some of them say...and I'm not defending the use of Kassim rockets to fire into farmland in Israel, which is where they go. They do not rain down on cities. There has never been any raining down of rockets. And certainly, they have caused almost no casualties. The fatalities caused by rockets, fired by Hamas or whoever else in Gaza, are tiny, certainly by comparison, with the loss of life Israel causes with its hugely sophisticated weaponry, when they attack the [inaud.] population.
So it's not defense. It has nothing to do with defense. That is the propaganda. That is Hasbara that is repeated. And Obama said it repeatedly. Hillary Clinton says it. Every politician, even Sanders as you say, he's said it, because it's something that you have to say. It's obligatory. You say, Israel has the right. Of course Israel has the right to defend itself. All states have the right to defend themselves. People who don't have a right to defend themselves is, of course, the Palestinian people, because they don't have a state. They are a stateless people. They are an inconvenience on the land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean. And that is what this is about. This is what Sut and I are working for. We believe that these people should have rights like everybody else does. None of us, for a second, live under a situation where we had no civil right, no rights to our own religion, to anything. No vote. Nothing. Where we were considered second class citizens. We would resist.
Now they, to their eternal credit, have resisted, by and large, in peaceful ways. And they've done it as much as they can, but you can only push people so far. And they will respond. And they have a moral, and legal, right to respond.
JAY: Right. Sut, there's been a particular war, in this PR war, on American University campuses. And, it's interesting that as the BDS movement has grown, but it certainly predates the BDS movement, it's been considered a very serious front of struggle for this PR campaign. Talk a bit about that.
JHALLY: I mean, the PR campaign is based around...I mean, the film was called "The Occupation of the American Mind," and they've managed to occupy the American media, so this narrative is everywhere. And they've managed, also, to occupy the American Congress. So they've taken over the media and politics, and the culture in general. The one place they haven't is the universities, where there actually is some diversity of thinking around this.
JAY: Okay. Just before you go further, who's they?
JHALLY: Sorry, this is the Israeli PR campaign.
JAY: Which means the Israeli state. Some major funders in the United States. Himan Siban, Sheldon Adelson, and some others.
JHALLY: And also the American government itself. I mean, this is not Israel controlling a government that wants to do something else. The reason it's worked so well is that the interests of the American government are very congruent with the interest of the Israeli state as well, which is why it's worked so well.
JAY: Cause this is the narrative of the President, of the State Department.
JHALLY: Yeah, so this is not just an Israeli narrative. It becomes an American narrative as well.
JAY: Yeah. I want to talk about the campuses.
JHALLY: But the campuses, I mean, I think it's very significant. It's the one place where there is any diversity of thinking around these issues. And so, now of course, the Israeli PR campaign has turned its focus there. And it's become, I mean, I think it's almost the last stage where this battle will be fought.
But I think it's significant when Americans, American students actually have a choice. When American students actually have some...they have different perspectives. It's not surprising then that their opinion changes. And that is what the PR campaign is scared of.
PR always has two aspects. One is, control the narrative. And the other one is, maintain a monopoly. Make sure there's no counter-narrative. And on the universities you're starting to have a counter-narrative, and a very effective counter-narrative. And, you know, billionaires, like Sheldon Adelson are now starting to put lots of money into making sure that that alternative voice is wrapped up very quickly.
JAY: Right.
JHALLY: The way it's being done is through...I mean, they're scared stiff of BDS.
JAY: Boycott Divestment Sanctions.
JHALLY: Yeah, because it's actually...it's an effective story that's being told. And so, what they're trying to do on American campuses is call BDS, hate speech. And try to ban it on that basis. We're in the middle of that. I mean, where we'll end up on it will depend upon how we struggle against it.
JAY: And there's places in Canada, and even in Europe, in certain places where this whole idea of BDS is so equated with hatespeech that they're trying to make it illegal. Advocating for it.
Roger, one of the things that seems to me helps drive this thing...this thing being that critiquing Israel is anti-semitic, it's anti-Jewish, which is at the core of, you could say, this PR campaign. And one of the reasons why people can see images of children dying, and images of the war, and somehow get their head around "Oh yeah. It's collateral damage. And it's really these peoples fault, because they hate Jews." One of the reasons that works is that there is a kernel of truth, in the sense that while not all critique of Israel is anti-semitic, some is. And there's certainly a deep routed history of hating Jews. Of course, this is more European phenomena, than an Arab phenomena, but for a lot of people, they don't get...because of the cultural history of Juden-haus, that what's going on is not that. But isn't that an important piece of this?
WATERS: Well, I think it's a great tragedy for the Jewish people, and for the Jewish religion, that it is conflated in peoples minds with the policies of the government of Israel, and it's policies, colonization, and it's annexation of land that does not belong to it. The illegal occupation, occupation, occupation, occupation. That is the most important word in all of these conversations.
But I wanted to pick up on something that Sut said, which was that...the needs of the American government are in some way aligned with the goals and needs of the state of Israel. I don't necessarily agree with that, Sut. And I certainly don't think that the needs and goals of the American people are in line with the goals of the state of Israel. I think they conflict, hugely, because American support for the goals of the state of Israel goes a long way towards creating, not just an image, but a description of the United States of America, as an oppressor of the people of the Middle East. And in consequence, it creates a lot of [ ] towards this country, the United States of America, in that region as a whole. So, I think that the unthinking, and automatic support of the state of Israel, in its policies, vis-a-vis its surroundings, is actually bad for the people of the United States of America. It makes it harder for them to be respected, taken seriously...except it is a partner to conversations that may find more edifying ways of conflict resolution than dropping bombs on one another, which, routinely, the United States does as well, as we know, with the drone policies. So, I think it's actually very very harmful to the potential that the Unites States might have, to regain some of its position politically.
JHALLY: And there's certainly recognition of that among American elites. That this policy is resulting in blowback. I mean, the answer to the question, "Why do they hate us?" well, one of the reasons is because of the unconditional support of Israel. So even people like David Petraeus, you know, when he was in power, he was saying what the counter, you know, what the effects of this was, in terms of how America was being held. However, you know, on the one hand you have that, but until that outweighs the strategic value that the U.S has in supporting Israel in the Middle East...and the Nixon administration called it "a cop on the beat," you know, and to protect its strategic interests. Until that outweighs those strategic interests, it's not going to make a difference.
But there are, I mean, Roger's absolutely right...there are I think more and more, even American elites, who are starting to look at, you know, what are the costs of this type of support. The moment those costs have not outweighed what the benefits are...
JAY: Well, I think you're kind of really agreeing, because it's about whose national interests. The elites national interests and the American peoples national interests are more often than not, not the same national interests.
WATERS: What is super important is the issue of the campuses. There is now, because of the apartheid in the occupied territories, there is now a real ground swell of a genuine protest movement taking place, in the young people on the campuses. And a lot of these young people, one has to say, are young Jewish people, who care about their heritage. They care about their religion. They care about their own ethical standards. And they can see that they are being associated with a tyrannical regime...right-wing tyrannical regime that is running this small state in the Middle East...and they don't like it. They do not want their name taken in vain like that. So this is so important what is going on. It's on the campuses of the universities in North America, both in Canada and the United States, but it's also in the churches, which slowly but surely there is a creeping resistance to the slaughter. And more and more churches are gathering together in their annual [inaud.] and divesting from companies that support the settlements and the occupation. Companies like Motorola, and Caterpillar, and the rest of them, and G4, and so on and so forth. So, this movement is gaining momentum. There are many many people. And this is an iceberg. Just the tip of it is showing above the surface, but the reason Sheldon Adelson, HIam Sabam are pouring money to try and make this protest movement illegal, is because they can see how fast it's growing. And it's growing because the protestors are right. They have right on their side. The treatment of the Palestinian people is deeply unjust, and appalling. And the fact that we're not allowed to see Sut's film, because it shows how we're not allowed to see that part of the narrative...I'm just so glad that the Real News is taking the time and the trouble to expose this to people, because it's fundamentally important to all of our humanity, all of our humanity. Not just the students, God bless them, who are protesting on the campuses, but all of them.
JAY: So Sut, tell us one more time. As we know you can't see this on Netflix, at least not yet. Maybe if everybody writes Netflix and screams that we want it...that's an idea. For now, where do people see the film?
JHALLY: They can see it at www.occupationmovie.com. And you can stream it there, and you can buy the DVD as well. And one of the strategies that we have, I mean, we want as many people to see it as possible, I mean, we wish we could give it away, and it would be available for free...
JAY: It cost a lot of money to make this.
JHALLY: Oh, it cost us over a half million dollars to make this film. And trying to get it out...we knew it was going to be a struggle. We didn't actually realize it was going to be as much of a struggle as it has been. We thought we would be blanketed from the mainstream media, just because of what the movie is about.
JAY: But, you're not getting in...I've seen the film, as people who watch the Real News, they know I'm a documentary filmmaker. That's really my background. And this is a good film, but you're not getting into film festivals.
JHALLY: No, no. We're not getting into any American film festivals. We're getting into some foreign film festivals.
JAY: Or Canadian.
JHALLY: No, we're being blanketed in every single film festival that we've...we applied to North American film festivals.
JAY: Yeah, I mean I just found out. I mean, I started the hotdocs film festival, and I just found out. I'm not involved anymore in a day to day way...I just found out hotdocs didn't accept it....which.....Anyway, if you're in the Baltimore area, anywhere around, sometime in the next couple of months, we're going to screen the film. And, actually, I hope Roger and Sut might even be able to come here for the screening.
But, at any rate, we're going to continue this discussion. And please join us for the next part of our interview with Roger Waters and Sut Jhally, on the Real News Network.