The Occupation of the American Mind

The film traces a long-running plan that began after the 1982 Lebanon crisis, showing how Israel sought to sway American opinion through targeted messaging. It introduces Frank Luntz as a key figure recruited to craft messages for a global audience of policymakers and donors who fund military actions. The narrative frames this period as the outset of a sustained strategic approach to public communications.

It explains that Luntz helped craft a global language dictionary to shape how the Israel narrative is framed in media and politics. The film suggests this toolkit influenced speech patterns, headlines, and talking points across outlets. The overall point is that messaging strategies traveled from boardrooms to newsrooms and pundit talk.

Core tactic is to present Israeli actions as self-defense, shifting emphasis to terror rather than territory. The documentary shows speakers urged to keep the narrative focused on threats to Israeli security. The approach is presented as a persistent pattern across years and outlets.

The film centers on the 2014 Gaza war, noting that Israel dropped nearly 20,000 tons of explosives over 51 days, killing more than 2,000 Palestinians and injuring tens of thousands, mostly civilians. It uses archival footage and interviews to depict the scale of devastation and its human impact. The event serves as a focal point for critiques of military action and media framing.

The conflict triggers demonstrations around the world, reflecting widespread engagement with the issue and calls for humanitarian considerations. The film situates these protests within broader debates on occupation, security, and rights. The demonstrations illustrate the international reach of the conflict's framing.

Despite mounting global protests, the United States continues to lend steadfast political and military support to Israel. The documentary contrasts public concern with official backing and aid. This juxtaposition highlights tensions between domestic sentiment and foreign policy.

The documentary argues that a saturated set of talking points was designed to persuade Americans that Palestinians deserved the blows. It examines how media coverage and public commentary can be shaped by these directives. The result is a perceived mismatch between humanitarian concerns and strategic narratives.

The film portrays critics of Israel as frequently labeled antisemitic, while opponents of the occupation are portrayed as betraying their communities. It shows how questioning Israeli actions can be framed as disloyal or unacceptable. This dynamic is presented as a recurring obstacle to open debate.

It cites moments when reporters such as Bob Simon or Mike Wallace were described as self-hating Jews for raising questions about Israeli policies on major programs like 60 Minutes. The film uses these anecdotes to illustrate the risks faced by dissenting voices in American media. The episodes underscore the atmosphere of scrutiny around coverage of Israel.

Noam Chomsky and Sut Jhally contribute critical perspectives on media, public opinion, and foreign policy. Their presence anchors the film's analysis of how narratives are constructed and challenged. The documentary relies on their insights to contextualize media power.

The film cites a CNN/ORC poll from 2014 showing about 40 percent of Americans believed Israel was using excessive force. It treats this statistic as evidence of growing public concern, even as the U.S. administration remained supportive. The data point is used to illustrate shifts in public discourse.

Throughout, the film invites viewers to examine how media framing, advocacy, and public sentiment intersect in shaping debates over occupation, security, and human rights. It asks audiences to question sources of information that translate complex events into simplified narratives. The work positions protests and media power as central to foreign policy outcomes.