In this video Ami Horowitz, who does short scam videos along the lines of “Candid Camera”—but with a political theme—approaches students at Portland State University (PSU), asking them to give money to fund Hamas attacks against schools, hospitals and cafes in a campaign to destroy Israel. In other words, he’s asking students to support terrorism. Surprisingly, many students agreed to give money for the murder of civilians. Horowitz has made a number of these videos, including one in which Yale students signed a petition to scrap the First Amendment.
Of course these videos were surely selected from a larger number in which students sloughed him off, but I’m surprised that any student was amenable to Horowitz’s pitch. Peter Boghossian, who works at PSU, has a big job ahead of him!
Now were these students approving terrorism in general, or terrorism against Israeli civilians in particular? Almost certainly the latter. If Horowitz were to say that he was a Christian anti-abortionist and, failing legal success to stop abortion, he was asking for money to send suicide bombers against abortion clinics, he would certainly not have gotten this kind of reaction.
UPDATE: A bit of digging shows that donation wasn’t rare. As The Examiner reports:
Appearing as a guest on the Sean Hannity’s radio show, Horowitz noted that he managed to raise $300 within one hour. He also claimed that at least half of the students he spoke to offered to donate financially.
Yes, this video has been shown by Fox News and touted by The National Review. It’s a sad state of affairs, but telling, when the Right publicizes stuff like this, but the Left ignores it.
h/t: Orli
Identity politics brings people together such that we can celebrate our differences!
/s
I wish these were unedited, or at least stuck with individuals from beginning to end. It’s hard to know whether the people who were supportive, and offering donation were given the same pitch including blowing up hospitals, cafe’s, and schools.
I think that every one of the 15 students Ami approached agreed to give money, so in that sense it’s unedited. I’m checking on this, and if it is true I’ll put it above the fold.
I couldn’t help but notice that virtually nothing is said by anyone but Ami, you seem alarmingly un-skeptical about this “scam video” and ready to take the word of a right wing troll.
Then you cite two unreliable right wing propaganda sources as proof-Sean Hannity (I’m flabbergasted) and the Examiner (I won’t even open that excremental site)!
It looks to me like Horowitz was giving students a remittance slip and they were doing nothing but verbally committing to give money, which I suspect was their attempt at being non-argumentative…and it deserves to be ignored!
It’s further proof that the brains of 18 to 23 year old’s are not yet fully developed and they probably should not be allowed around any sharp instruments. It is why, during the draft years, we registered for the draft at 18.
If the suggested Christian anti-abortionist idea were to be surveyed in a small town in the mid-west or south, you would get all kinds of approval and at any age limit.
I don’t think you can blame this on age; wouldn’t surprise me to get the same result from middle age liberals.
Well, the only way to get proof is to test it. But my guess is what we already know to be true. Humans in the 18 to roughly 24 age group are likely to make decisions and do things that would not take place after their brains are fully developed. Thinking it is just fine to shell out a few bucks to some stranger who is collecting money for terrorist would be one of those things.
Answer this question – what age are most of the folks who head over to Syria to fight for ISIS?
My bet is under 25.
Should they be allowed around blunt instruments, such as the ballot? This is of course Bernie’s demographic.
Yes, the catch 22 – if they are old enough to go to war then they get to vote.
“Yes, the catch 22 – if they are old enough to go to war then they get to vote.”
And if we raised the age to go to war, too few would be stupid enough to sign up.
Exactly – that 18 or 19 year old will go when you say charge. At 22 or 24 years old, not so much. Of course I’m referring to the draft days, not the completely voluntary system we have had for years now. The attitudes and motivation are different.
I don’t think it’s proof of anything except that if a motivated person says crazy things to strangers, and edits things into 5 second clips, it’s really easy to make it look like the subjects agree.
See the Acorn, Planned Parenthood and related frauds.
+1
And of course, it’s why you don’t let people vote until age 24.
Peace and Love™.
Another dubiously edited video. If he received donations, why not show people handing over money or other payment as opposed to a handful making some minor verbal commitment? Basically, you spend a lot of time watching him make outrageous statements to people who stand and watch. A handful offer some opposition to Israel, none chime in to agree with the terrorism part. Show unedited tapes or nothing can be determined from this. I know, I edit all day.
Yes. And the clips are so short. The shorter the clip, the easier it it is to totally remove context.
I know I’ve listened to people saying nonsense to me on the street or at social events. Sometimes it’s easier to nod and be pleasant and move on. I’m thinking “This person is talking crazy, confronting them will help nothing.”
Why blur the faces? I don’t think that you have a right to privacy in a public space. I suppose though, if someone retaliated against them, some liability might exist. A good public shaming might do some of these morons some good.
“Why blur the faces? I don’t think that you have a right to privacy in a public space.”
I actually give them props for that. Publicly shaming people is more of an SJW tactic.
Yeah, but what these students are doing would be a felony if it wasn’t fake.
Considering the history of right-wingers deceptively editing videos, the massive number of cuts and the lack of a single all-the-way-through interaction, and the blurring out of students’ faces meaning you can’t tell if their lips actually match the words in the audio…
I’m skeptical. I’m not THAT skeptical – you’ll get idiots signing petitions against water if you phrase it right – but there’s no way I’m going to start off by taking this video at face value.
“Considering the history of right-wingers deceptively editing videos… there’s no way I’m going to start off by taking this video at face value.”
Agreed. I’d need to see the unedited footage before drawing any conclusions. That being said I wouldn’t necessarily be shocked to find out it was an accurate portrayal.
I am curious what you doubt. That those who said they would give money did so?
I am curious, rhetorical curiosity, what other tapes you demand to see. Trump saying something you find foolish — you demand to see the originals? Because this sounds like a convenient pretext to dismiss what is an uncomfortable truth. If these were actors I will owe you an apology but right now this just looks like an excuse.
It was remarked the faces were blurred. It takes time to do that. He should do that to all n hours of tape, or release the raw footage?
When you have heavily edited footage, from a known partisan source, where the subjects remain anonymous and therefore cannot clarify their position, then yes, it’s entirely reasonable to look at complete takes with audio to confirm what was actually said.
And no, it takes very little time to blur faces.
One additional thought on the face blurring. If the video is misrepresenting what was said to the students or how they responded, and the students could be identified, they would probably have pretty good grounds for a lawsuit if some nutcase attacked them for “supporting terrorism”.
It’s funny that people don’t demand to see the unedited videos when those videos show Palestinians supposedly attacked by Israelis. Those are accepted by the Western media, and the Left, uncritically. I wonder why that is. . . .
The skepticism only comes in when the message is anti-Muslim or pro-Israel. There the fact that the Palestinian source is “partisan” is never mentioned. Have a look at this a video widely broadcast without any questioning–until a few pro-Israeli sources checked it out.
“It’s funny that people don’t demand to see the unedited videos when those videos show Palestinians supposedly attacked by Israelis. I wonder why that is.”
That may be true of some people, but it’s not true where I’m concerned. I’m extremely skeptical when claims are made that Israel is indiscriminately, or intentionally bombing civilians, or that they don’t care about collateral damage. In fact I suspect there’s never been a case where a country has been more careful in avoiding killing civilians under such circumstances.
If the video is cut to the extent this one is, you bet I’d want an uncut version before I took it at face value.
I can’t speak for others but I would absolutely want to see unedited videos to support Palestinian claims, especially if the videos in question were of a similar nature; obviously edited and intended to be provocative.
+ 1
+1
1 “heavily edited” implies cuts. We see the same person from various angles etc, allowing the the full Eisenstein technique. But what we see here are single shots excerpts.
2. The video makes no claim about the fraction who donated, so the excerpting is not in support of any such claim
3 the implicit premise of your skepticism is that there is a lot of video we don’t see. That means if. You are right that there would be a lot of work blurring faces. But look at the clip. Do you see visual clues like sun position it was assembled over many hours ? I do not.
4. What positive evidence have you?
“He should do that to all n hours of tape, or release the raw footage?”
I’d be satisfied if the raw footage were provided to news organizations. I suspect left wing news organizations would be happy if they could debunk the video based on that footage, and if they remained silent due to bias, that would speak volumes as well.
A claim that Trump has said something foolish isn’t something I generally check on, no, because Trump says idiotic things on a regular basis.
A claim that students are happy to financially support Hamas, however, requires a bit of evidence behind it. While I’m not saying the video couldn’t be 100% accurate in its representation of things, the frequency of cuts leads me to doubt that is the case, as is the lack of consistency. How many people in that video do we see him giving the Hamas/blowing things up part of the speech are also the same people willing to give money? How do we even know any of them agreed to give money, given the blurred faces and the ease of audio dubbing these days?
I’m not denying anti-Israel sentiments exist on campuses. All I’m saying is that this video is so heavily edited that it’s near-impossible for it to be reliable.
Yes, I watched the video hoping to see at least one uncut video all the way through that made a clear cut statement about what they want to do with the money. Considering the cuts, he could have been saying he was going to use the money to fund hospitals, not bomb them. I’m not saying it’s not possible, but I want to see actual uncut footage. There was one at 45 seconds in, but I can’t understand what words he is saying “attack sock or batter” or something, then mentions cafes, schools. Nor do we know what he said before that cut that might change context. Fox News and their video hit squad isn’t high on my trust index.
It’s not even difficult.
Yeah, as others have said, color me skeptical. I would want to see the unedited footage, otherwise, I cant really draw any conclusions from this, it’s too likely that it was edited somehow.
First of all, I love how they blurred the dog’s face, too.
Secondly, is that a bald spot, or was he wearing a yarmulke while pretending to represent Hamas?
I hate to be obtuse, but given the current government, isn’t this just as bad as giving money to Friends of the IDF?
http://www.fidf.org
Yes, because FIDF is all about blowing schools and cafes.
No, it’s not the same, and suggesting that it is show how distorted you are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israeli_shelling_of_UNRWA_Gaza_shelters
Also, the new defense minister has publicly declared killing all Egyptians…
When Moshe Ya’alon declares that Israel has been taken over by fascists, you know there is one hell of a problem.
Somehow, if Hamas only killed IDF soldiers, I suspect I wouldn’t hear “well, they are a resistance organization fighting against an illegal occupation, which is legal under international law”. If the IDF does it, it must be moral.
Avigdor Lieberman is going to be overseeing the IDF next week:
http://www.juancole.com/2016/05/netanyahu-appointing-lieberman.html
Somehow, radical right-wing lunatics with fantasies of “Judea and Samaria” who rant about ethnic cleansing, annexation, and murdering Arabs never quite excites the commenters on this blog…
Let’s see: In Israel, Palestinians serve in the legisture, on the Supreme Court, even the Israeli diplomatic corps, as well as all other walks of life — women Palestinians not excluded nor covered up.
In contrast, there are no Jews allowed to live in Gaza or the places governed by the PLO.
So, where’s all that ethnic cleansing I keep hearing or reading comments about?
Read their charter. They are an antisemitic Terrorist organization committed to kill any Jew.
The civilian casualties ratios in IDF operations is less than that in American military operations.
Until you compare The American forces to ISIS and the Taliban, you are a hypocrite who apply double standards.
(1) No double standards. The “Authoritarian Left” has often complained about civilian causalities and unlawful drone warfare.
I think you’ve been reading way too much Jerusalem Post. Hamas leaders have many times agreed to a two-state solution (a real one, where 100% of settlers leave the West Bank).
In terms of the “kill all Jews”, do you really think that if I was an American Jewish reporter (or doctor, lawyer, etc.) who went to Gaza, I would be murdered on the spot? If I interviewed Khaled Meshaal, he would stab me? You think if I told the local population I was gay, I would be beheaded?
If so, I suspect you haven’t met Palestinians before.
I’m worried about some people on this blog…
This should bring you up to date
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant
Hamas members are obviously a group of thugs. Also, infighting with Fatah has never helped the Palestinian cause. However, they are not al-Qaida—Hamas and Hezbollah are not concerned with Western countries.
I’m afraid the IDF is the party here who has been upholding an occupation for nearly 50 years. In terms of civilian casualty ratios, I believe that IDF has killed *far* more civilians than Hamas could dream of.
Wait: Aren’t you ignoring the Palestinian civilians that Hamas has murdered?
The “left” doesn’t demonize any other nation the way it does Israel.
I meet in a typical month more Palestinians than you ever will and I don’t share your romantic unrealistic view them.
Hamas leaders made clear that they won’t accept a Jewish state in any borders.
They hang gays, and throw political opponents from rooftops. But hey, in your parallel universe, them firing rockets at my daughter is nonviolent resistance, I guess.
> The “left” doesn’t demonize any other nation the way it does Israel.
Very simple reason: as a US taxpayer, as my government gives Israel around $3-3.5 billion every year, with Obama offering a new 10-year military package of $40 billion dollars.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/world/middleeast/30prexy.html
You get my money, you get my criticism. Deal with it.
> Hamas leaders made clear that they won’t accept a Jewish state in any borders.
This is incorrect. It has been for close to a decade now.
> them firing rockets at my daughter is nonviolent resistance, I guess.
No, it is violent resistance. And violent resistance has never helped the Palestinians. I don’t support Hamas. You would be amazed what a profoundly nuanced political opinion it is to both criticize some land-stealing Moldovan thug like Lieberman who was convicted of beating up some kid, and criticizing Hamas.
> The “left” doesn’t demonize any other nation the way it does Israel.
Very simple reason: as a US taxpayer, my government gives Israel around $3-3.5 billion every year, with Obama offering a new 10-year military package of $40 billion dollars.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/world/middleeast/30prexy.html
You get my money, you get my criticism. Deal with it.
> Hamas leaders made clear that they won’t accept a Jewish state in any borders.
This is incorrect. It has been for close to a decade now.
> them firing rockets at my daughter is nonviolent resistance, I guess.
No, it is violent resistance. And violent resistance has never helped the Palestinians. I don’t support Hamas. You would be amazed what a profoundly nuanced political opinion it is to both criticize some land-stealing Moldovan thug like Lieberman who was convicted of beating up some kid, and criticizing Hamas.
> “The “left” doesn’t demonize any other nation the way it does Israel.”
Very simple reason: as a US taxpayer, as my government gives Israel around $3-3.5 billion every year, with Obama offering a new 10-year military package of $40 billion dollars.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/world/middleeast/30prexy.html
You get my money, you get my criticism. Deal with it.
> “Hamas leaders made clear that they won’t accept a Jewish state in any borders.”
This is incorrect. It has been for close to a decade now.
> “them firing rockets at my daughter is nonviolent resistance, I guess.”
No, it is violent resistance. And violent resistance has never helped the Palestinians. I don’t support Hamas. You would be amazed what a profoundly nuanced political opinion it is to both criticize some land-stealing Moldovan thug like Lieberman who was convicted of beating up some kid, and criticizing Hamas.
If you would be so kind as to go to Gaza, posing as an obvious Jew, and film it so we can see the reactions, that would help.
I’ve got no truck with the louts and idiots who even fleetingly would consider donating to such a “cause.”
But these kind of videos have always struck me as cheap stunts. Going back to the days of Allen Funt.
As Prof Coyne already noted:
“In this video Ami Horowitz, who does short scam videos along the lines of “Candid Camera”…..”
sub
Sad
I don’t think Ami’s youtube audience understand that most of the folks in his videos don’t really understand what he’s saying and are simply going with what he leads with because they sense an authoritative and domineering figure.
By the time these young adults are old enough to hold a job, vote for president, and support themselves, yet well enough off to make it to college, they should be wary enough of strangers in general to pay attention to what Ami is saying.
Thanks for replying.
My comment was in regards to his entire channel/show.
Wariness is not character or skepticism.
I wish we could know whether any of the students realized Ami was promoting terrorism, that it is illegal to do so, and notified the police or FBI. If not, that, too, is a serious problem.