Home | About | Donate

The Occupation of the American Mind, Documented


The Occupation of the American Mind, Documented

Abba Solomon

Harriet Beecher Stowe is reputed — in Stowe family legend at least — to have been greeted by President Lincoln with, “Is this the little woman who made this great war?”

Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Stowe’s novel that dramatized government-sanctioned human bondage, is credited, somewhat fancifully, with moving American public opinion about slavery and helping start the U.S. Civil War.


There is a simple fact that seems to constantly escape people about the occupation and about America's wars. If it is seen then it is real and when not seen it isn't heard when pundits and commentators discuss them.

What stopped the war in Vietnam was that the carnage was inescapable. It was on the evening news while eating dinner and therefore always being talked about by people both pro and anti. War is exciting in a movie - John Wayne and all that gung ho and all - but horrific when the agony and bleakness of suffering and death was real.

The question was asked as to what would break the spell (of acceptance)? It is in fact that the occupation seen by Europeans and the rest of the world bears little resemblance to what the occupation looks like on American TV. What we see is a sympathetic portrait from the occupiers side rather than scenes of bulldozed homes, brutal mistreatment of a captive population and we are treated to an unremitting stream of excuses for it too. There are no Palestinian voices either.

It all makes for a 'settled' issue in most American minds. They are just defending themselves/right to exist message along with a firmed up uncritical stance about the settlements and facts on the ground. These are presented only as accomplished facts and not even debated. Almost as if you could ask >>> You mean settlements are illegal? You mean the extra ones not approved by the Israeli government right?

What would break the spell? Don't they have cell phone cameras in Gaza and the West Bank?


"Key is control of language, controlling thought": Yes, of course but why exactly is the US doing so?Is the US perhaps identifying with Israel? The history of the massacre of the indigenes of the US up to present the day mirror Israeli oppression and extermination of the indigenes of Palestine. Without this recognition on the part of the US citizens the plight of both the First Nations and Palestinians will remain as it is and place us all in danger.


So where are we living?-in some kind of police state mind control-Do we teach the history of native Americans in our schools? Do we teach the history of Palestine from WW1 on. If people don't understand the history how can we have a real discussion of issues.


Good points. He does make a good point about the Vietnam war being televised and that is precisely why subsequent wars were not and we have an "All volunteer" army. However, this issue of Palestine and US support of Israel goes deeper and explains all the rest as you so well explain.


You like to rant a lot. Why don't you read my post again and see what it was that I was talking about? There is a lack of coverage in American mainstream media and what coverage there is rarely presents the Palestinian side. There is far more and more objective coverage in the European press and even in Israeli press in some cases but not in the American press except for headline events and incidents but usually without context. We here at CD read vastly more background context than ever sees the light of day in most of America.

Similarly we don't see the dead and dying after drone attacks or bombings nor even get a clear picture of how many occur. It is absurd to think that heard news sticks in the minds of people if they do not have a particular stake in that issue. However film footage does which is why the Israeli soldiers try to prevent filming of the destruction etc.

You preach to the choir so much like you feel that you accomplished so much or that what you say is so new and so forth. Here on CD it is just ranting. If you went elsewhere where such statements are rarely heard then it might educate and accomplish something.

I posited a point which was not in the article but should have been. The lack of images associated with the issue - the lack of seeing the wars makes them not seen and not heard - invisible. So there isn't push back when people are told what to think. They tried that during Vietnam but people had these images in their mind that kept pushing back against the official narrative. They do not have coverage of the war now but they will embed reporters which is controlled coverage and they censor reports. It makes a very big difference.

What goes on during the occupation inside Palestine is virtually unknown by most Americans.


You may have read a little history but you are no historian. A case of hyperbole of the ego ...lol. 2500 years of history? What is that even about? 550? What is that? They look like coded references to Jews and the start of banking if you ask me but then what do I know about history... Lol.


So tell me exactly what is the 2500 and 550 dates signify in relation to your history? I prefer to be corrected when I have gotten something wrong.


"During operation Protective Shield (summer 2014)"

No, it was Operation Protective Edge and, according to the U.N., Israel killed over 500 kids, an average of 10 a day, during the 50 days it lasted.

Yet Clinton couldn't wait to swear fealty to Israel and attack the peaceful BDS movement at the AIPAC conference.

It's shocking that of all the major presidential candidates, the Jewish one is the only one who talked about Palestinian rights.

Sanders 2016.


The internet is full of images of dead Palestinian children - a search immediately revealed this:


BUT unless the official consensus manufactured by the capitalist corporate media legitimizes these horrific images, the images remain invisible - or are just dismissed as commun..er.. terrorist propaganda.

You have read Chomsky and Herman's "Manufacturing Consent" right?


I couldn't agree more. If the U.S. media showed every tenth Palestinian home being bull dozed by Israelis to settle the latest wave of new, Jewish immigrants, Americans would be less inclined to buy into the mainstream narrative. If the U.S. media showed the contrast of elegant and ostentatious homes on one side of the wall and the piles of rubble on the other side, Americans would ask questions. If interviews with the victims of Israeli violence were broadcast into every living room in America, there would be far more criticism of the illegal occupation of Palestine. The selection and rejection of images by the MSM are by design and not because our 'establishment media' are out of touch with what is happening over there.


The sad situation for the Palestinians is becoming more well known in this country. The media have dumbed down the public to what is really happening there and have upped the "poor Israel" nonsense. I don't really blame the public in this country on this subject because they have been lied to on a grand scale.
Bibi is a maniac and Hillary is his lap dog. It's a horrible situation much like South Africa during the apartheid.
I was much pleased when Bernie came out and said Palestinians need to be treated fairly and that of course would be Yuge. When you drop Israel into Palestinian land you have to know there will be fights. Then Israel thinks they are better than Palestinians and should have it all. If the U.S. doesn't stop supporting Bibi's insane aggression this will not get better.


You know there is that thing about bias and how easily a person can come to accept it as if seems normal. What does Bernie being a Jew have anything to do with anything? Do you not see the many Jewish names among the progressive writers that you read everyday on CD who are critical of the occupation and Israel? It has been a relief that bias has not been characteristic in the discussions concerning Bernie or even Israel (for the most part) here on CD's forum. Look in the mirror and ask yourself whether you are biased? Bias cheapens the debate and furthermore... Do you find yourself forgetting that many of the writers you read everyday are Jewish?


Why do people want to go there? It is dishonorable for a progressive to play that card. His religion or lack of it has nothing to do with anything.


You really want to claim that mentioning a candidate is Jewish is anti-Semitic?

I suppose you want 'Jewish' excluded when I mention Jewish Voice for Peace.

Your radar is a little too sensitive. It's getting false blips.


Yes well in answer to your question then I suppose people should go around calling Bernie - the Jewish Bernie Sanders instead of just using his name. I ask you again what does his being Jewish have to do with anything? Try thinking about it? First off it is a religion and we don't go around defining people by religion or race or ethnicity or we shouldn't. Secondly, you make that same false dichotomy connection as if being a Jew is the same as being an Israeli. I pointed out that is unfair towards the many people who are critical of Israel who also happen to be Jews. Being Jewish has nothing to do with it. Chomsky is Jewish and so are many other critics of Israeli policies and the occupation.

You might be right that my sensitivity level is set too high but obviously I don't think a person's religion should be made an issue about anything really. Why even bring it up in the first place?


You somehow seem to think that mentioning Sanders is Jewish and supports Palestinian rights, versus all the other major candidates who are swearing fealty to Israel, is somehow anti-Semitic.

You may not be aware but Israel has a relationship to Judiasm in that it has declared itself to be a Jewish state. The issue of the relationship of Jews worldwide to a Jewish homeland is thorny, but precluding a person's religion from the discussion because they're Jewish is a form of bias.

Would you say that it was bigoted to mention that someone who was very pro-Israel was an evangelical?

If not, what's the difference?


I am not going to play this game with you. You keep on twisting my words to mean something else. So we are done. Once more it is not about religion, nor race nor ethnicity. Both Hillary and Netanyahu and his ilk try to make that equation that being against Israel is being against Jews like no Jews oppose or criticize Israel. You do the same by making it about his being Jewish. If you had just had the decency to be progressive and say Sanders was the only candidate that criticizes Israel that would be something but you try to make the point that a Jew is criticizing Israel. Sanders does not define himself by his Jewish background because freedom of religion is our right so whatever religion someone is is private and irrelevant. If you can't understand the subtleties then fine but stop twisting my words to dumb them down to simplistic stuff. What is wrong with you?

That is not what I said nor what I think. I am not going to keep explaining it to you and if you want to keep things that simplistic and crude you go right ahead just remember you did what Hillary tried to do and what the hard liners try to do >>> making it seem that being Jewish is the same as being pro Israeli when of course it isn't.

We don't define people by their religious background. The subject shouldn't even have been brought up.


I thought I'd come to the comments and find some intelligent discussion, oh but what did I find? People bashing. In less than 5 years Gaza will be uninhabitable according to the U.N.. War crimes are war crimes. What has happened and is still happening in Gaza is a totally inhumane war crime. Our collective hands are dripping with blood, our american hands, yours and mine and I personally feel total shame in aiding in this genocide by our country sending money and weapons to war criminals. Maybe someday we will fight the insanities and stop fighting among ourselves, maybe, but I'm not holding my breath.


Ummm...you shouldn't follow this with a bunch of arguments that simply expand on your original point that mentioning Sanders is Jewish is anti-Semitic. What you should have done is either stopped there, or addressed what's different about mentioning someone who supports Israel is an evangelical and mentioning someone who talks about Palestinian rights is Jewish.

You seem awfully willing to fling the accusation of anti-Semitism simply because I mentioned Sanders is the only Presidential major candidate who mentioned Palestinian rights and he's Jewish.

Me, I'm more judicious in flinging what is, to me, a very serious accusation. Come to think of it, I don't recall you having any part in the hambaconeggs wars. Was that before your time or were you sitting on the sidelines?