Comments on: Goooaaaal: ‘Washington Post’ nails Israeli/American ad that paints Wall as fun n games

By: tree_

tree_ — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:45:44 +0000

The ad didn't integrate the Palestinians. They were non-existent.

By: lovelyisraelis

lovelyisraelis — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:17:54 +0000

..oh…and I agree the comparison with animals is inappropriate. One searches in vain for a means of describing the utter repulsion these in quotes "people" instill.

By: lovelyisraelis

lovelyisraelis — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:15:12 +0000

Decent Jews all left the sinking ship of Israel a long time ago. What you have there is homogenized disease. Homogenized filth.

By: Dana

Dana — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:11:15 +0000

Agreed on both animals and humans. people can be angry at the injustice and suffering inflicted upon Palestinians. People can rage about israeli callousness. But callousness – and selective indifference to the suffering of groups – are human traits. And while it may be true that [most] cats would be indifferent to the suffering of [most] dogs, that alone does not make a good analogy. After all, cats also don't care for baseball [last I heard]. lastly, one good thing about rats is that they are reputed to leave sinking ships. Maybe we should all be more observant of rats and appreciate their survival skills. They are, after all, likely to outlast us, as would cockroaches.

By: Shafiq

Shafiq — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:24:50 +0000

They start of with a presumption that the Wall is acceptable and that the Palestinians are fine with it. There was no implied statement – as Koshiro said, the Palestinians didn't exist. The wall stays and the Palestinian farmers are still unable to reach their farms. Imagine a similar commercial about the Berlin wall.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:46:42 +0000

Well, I got a different message. I think it is similar to the method of social change of disgust and rage, rather than of integration.

By: Koshiro

Koshiro — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:09:57 +0000

No there wasn't. When I saw the ad, I immediately knew how it failed in that respect ("failed" is maybe the wrong word…it's not like they tried.) There are no Palestinians. They are not heard and not seen. They're just not there. If the ad had shown people on both sides of the wall, participating in a football match, maybe they could have shown a different message. This way, the Palestinians are just blanked out.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:01:37 +0000

Horowitz is disgusted by everything. You missed the humor, the dissent about the wall, inherent in the ad. That was an implied statement that there is a possibility of natural affinity and some trust, but that the wall is an unnatural obstacle to what otherwise be possible.

By: Koshiro

Koshiro — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:25:59 +0000

Me too. (Also, I'm wondering: What's with the constant comparison to animals? Animals don't do that kind of stuff.)

By: Robert Mackey

Robert Mackey — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:02:14 +0000

Thanks for drawing attention to this in the first place -- but to be clear, that's not a Washington Post report, it is a Reuters report on the WP Web site. Here is it on Reuters.com: " target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5...