These images may be enhancing the realness of military violence, but they are also coded to be received in the same vein as movies, as videogames. They allow the IDF to control the narrative of the attacks; the IDF can retroactively write the script of the invasion.
Joe is absolutely correct that the IDF is attempting to control the narrative of their attacks. The IDF YouTube channel is clearly propaganda in the sense that it is entirely one-sided and can be misleading. But I wonder whether, as Joe says, these videos are to be received and processed like video games and movies. Take this video for example:
As video games have evolved most game makers have taken the opportunity of newer, better technologies as a challenge to improve the realism of their games. Note Call of Duty 4. If you follow that link to the game’s Wikipedia page and glance at the “Story” section you will find a long convoluted tale involving decades of complex international relations and leaders with conflicting interests. While in the past it may have been unclear what was the conflict between Megaman and Doc Wily (imagine the “Grendel” of the Megaman series where you play as one of Wily’s robots attempting to infiltrate Dr. Light’s lab where Light is attempting to finally complete his robo-terrorist Megaman). In the present games have tapped into the motivations behind real world conflicts.
That is exactly what the IDF YouTube channel lacks. The videos have a journalistic feel, as though these are “pure” documents where “the facts speak for themselves.” However, the juxtaposition with contemporary video games makes it all the more clear the videos are propaganda. We know from Call of Duty 4 if someone is going through all the trouble to commit the acts documented by the IDF, they must have some motivation. Israel does not share that motivation with us, they can’t, and this is why their coverage of the war has to be propaganda. If in the IDF YouTube channel or the Israeli consulate’s Twitter feed there was any acknowledgment that Hamas believes their actions to be somehow justified, that would appear to be sympathizing with the enemy you are slaughtering. It would open up the door to the idea that perhaps Israel has taken the wrong course of action. The IDF YouTube channel fails to pass the sniff test of a present-day video game.
We live in a truly absurd age, if you require evidence of this notice that the Israel Defense Forces media & PR wing has setup a YouTube channel to share videos of the IDF’s air attacks in Gaza. Anyone want to join me on a trip to Montparnasse Cemetery for a seance with the spirit of Jean Baudrillard?
In the last year we have seen a rise in “citizen based journalism,” but it is strange (though unsurprising) to see a nation’s military attempt to usurp media coverage of their tactics with video recorded during missions. It is even more strange that the IDF’s idea of justifying or explaining their actions is to provide the world with video of who they are blowing up as those people are being blown up. Yet I must admit, it worked. The first thought that came to mind when I saw what appeared to be Hamas operatives loading and transporting rockets was “Yeah, maybe someone should blow those guys up.” Allow me to say that I am not voicing support for Israel’s actions, just that on the shallowest cognitive level, maybe more visceral than cognitive (maybe visceral, then cognitive?), the IDF’s videos were effective.
Among the interesting ironies here: in a culture that has trended towards fantasy, digital existence and detachment from basic human experiences, here YouTube is allowing the violence in our world to be made more real rather than less. These videos are not the sort of images one would typically find in war coverage on the world news. And to further entangle things some of the IDF’s videos have been taken down, most likely due to graphic content but YouTube policy is not to offer comment on why particular videos were removed from the site. According to the IDF’s brief statement on their YouTube channel’s home page YouTube has allowed some of the censored videos to be accessible again.
I would also like to add that despite my claim about these videos enhancing the realness of military violence I am not wholly uncritically accepting these videos as the real of the Gaza attacks. If the IDF has say, videos of two different bombings. One video is clearly targeting Hamas operatives while the other is more ambiguous, targeting Palestinians believed to be Hamas operatives but not engaged in suspicious activity and possibly innocent civilians. I realize these two theoretical videos would not have an equal likelihood of making it to YouTube.
