Black Markets Bringing Us Together

Hey yall,

Well, I was beginning to regret choosing the theme of black markets in our discussion, because I presumed that most of the relevant articles would be about Opium in Afghanistan.  Well, this one is too, but it gets a little bit more interesting than that.  It seems that Iranian officials have said that they would be willing to cooperate on the recently intensified drug war in Afghanistan.  In fact, the last time that our two nations cooperated was in the immediate aftermath of the ouster of the Taliban way back when you guys were in Junior High.  Seems a lot longer ago if you think about it that way.

Arab Ani-Semetic Cartoons

Attached to the link are many more cartoons from across the Middle East. Anti Defamation League is a group that wants to stop defamation of Jews, it compiled quite a few cartoons in response to the latest Gazan war. This site is of course, quite biased but at some point, it also shows that these points exist. Arabs while probably not as extreme as these images, still find some truth to them.

I found it very interesting to note how much imagery was used about America, and the power dynamics between America and Israel. Some of the cartoons point to an American enabler, others point to Israel running the bigger picture. This difference in opinion shows that perhaps there is some confusion about who is leading who into these conflicts. Like Control Room where the Arabs will connect with American troops storming Iraq with Israel, this is similar in nature.

The big point the ADL wanted to make was how the Arabs think that the Jews are the Nazis and feel the shock and horror of that heresy. I think I remember reading somewhere in the readings that someone questioned why given what Israel has gone through that they are putting this on the Palestinians. It is hard to say how strong the correlation between Nazi and Israel that the Arabs see given the biased tone. Yet, at least half the cartoons suggest that they think that Israel has major blood on its hands. They are the monstrous giant face taking down the little, beaten, poor, decrepit Palestinian. The sense of scale in these pictures seem to relate to the power associated with each.

The security council picture in the blog (the guy with his hands tied and blindfolded) represents how Arabs feel that the UN does not have the power or the observations to see what is going on or who to blame (Israel, of course). At least to me that is partly true since the US does have veto power and not a lot has been accomplished by the UN to pressure Israel to do things since the US has their back.

How are these different than the Western ones? Are these representative of the Middle East? Is the Israeli-Nazi connection totally blasphemous or somewhat valid?

There's nothing quite like good 'ole American war profiteering

CLICK HERE FOR THE ARTICLE
This is in part a response to Alia's earlier entry on white phosphorus, as well as a larger discussion piece.
AMNESTY International, in a report issued on the recent conflict in Gaza, has claimed that white phophorus shells manufactured in the U.S. were by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in the 3-week war. According to an article published in The Times,

Amnesty said that they had found shells with the marking PB-91K018-035, a lot number which indicates that they were assembled by Pine Bluff Arsenal (PB) in October 1991. [...] In another instance, Amnesty said that it found fragments of an AGM114 Hellfire missile, made by the Florida-based Hellfire Systems, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, that had been fired at an ambulance, killing three Palestinian paramedics and a boy in Gaza City on January 4

As the United States begins to engage with Arab countries in the Middle East, as well as Israel and the Palestinian Fatah Party, it becomes more and more problematic that the U.S. has provided Israel with a wide array of armaments. It becomes harder and harder to claim that one is trying to resolve a conflict in a bipartisan, peaceful manner when the same country citing the need for diplomacy is at the same time providing the arms for the conflict. For years, the U.S. has provided Israel with guns for their army.
Can the U.S. continue to support Israel with weapons while sustaining a message of peace and reconciliation in the region? In light of its being at least indirectly responsible for human rights violations, should the United States be the leading negotiator in the region? Finally, should the U.S. continue to provide military, or for that matter, any support to Israel?

Gaza Family Sues Israel

CLICK HERE FOR THE ARTICLE
According Al Jazeera, a family in the Gaza strip is suing the Israeli government, naming Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak as defendants. The lawsuit seeks $200 million for criminal negligence, after 29 members of the family died in the Gaza attacks. And yet, an Israeli spokesman claimed that the deaths were the responsibility of Hamas, who "used civilians as human shields."
For me, I found this an interesting piece of news, especially since this is not the first time Palestinians who were harmed in conflicts have filed lawsuits against the Israeli government, only to be turned away by the Israeli courts.
Although this is reported by Al Jazeera, which is more for an Arab audience, the reports of negligence in the case of this one family have been at elast partially corroborated by the U.N. and several other sources. One thing that I noticed when reading the article is that there is no mention of whether this family is in any way connected with Hamas. It seems like Israel has a special interest in this family, and I'd be curious to know why that is exactly.
One question here is whether or not Palestinians have the right to sue Israel. Many would say that since the Palestinians have their own elected officials, they should take up grievances with them, rather than Israel. Personally, I believe that the family is totally within their rights as citizens of Israel to file a lawsuit against the government.
The other, and I think more important, question, is whether or not Israel is indeed responsible for the deaths of Palestinians, and whether Hamas is in any way responsible, as the spokesman claims it is. Although it cannot be denied that there is a guerilla aspect to Hamas, I think the tactics used in Gaza by Israel are evident that this was not just a campaign to weaken Hamas, but to weaken moral support for the party as well. The use of white phosphorus that was mentioned earlier points towards a larger disregard for civilian casualties, and indeed, something to the extent of criminal negligence.
So, my questions to you guys are: Should the Israeli courts acknowledge the lawsuit? Will doing so possibly legitimate the Israeli attacks in Gaza (i.e., will this signal that Israel is indeed concerned about civilians in Gaza) or will it serve to legitimate Palestinians in Gaza as citizens with legitimate grievances?

Woah. George Galloway?

SO, this is certainly something worth blogging about!

...

Firebrand MP George Galloway (a british lawmaker!) on Tuesday donated thousands of dollars and dozens of vehicles to the Hamas-run government in the Gaza Strip after arriving in an aid convoy.
"We are giving you now 100 vehicles and all of their contents, and we make no apology for what I am about to say. We are giving them to the elected government of Palestine," Galloway said at a press conference in Gaza City.
Galloway said he personally would be donating three cars and 25,000 pounds to Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya as he dared the West to try to prosecute him for aiding what it considers a terror group.
"I say now to the British and European governments, if you want to take me to court, I promise you there is no jury in all of Britain who will convict me. They will convict you."
Galloway made the announcement at an outdoor conference in the presence of several senior Hamas officials, and his words were greeted by shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" (God is Great).
Israel and Egypt have sealed Gaza off to all but limited humanitarian aid since Hamas seized power in June 2007 after a week of bloody street battles with forces loyal to the Western-backed Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas.
Despite Hamas' victory in 2006 parliamentary elections, Israel, the European Union and the United States consider the movement a terrorist organisation and have no direct contacts with the group.
After arriving in Gaza on Monday, Galloway protested Israel's "genocidal aggression" against Gaza, referring to a massive 22-day Israeli offensive launched in December that killed more than 1,300 Palestinians.
The military offensive was aimed at halting Palestinian rocket attacks on southern Israel, which have continued despite a January 18 ceasefire.
The convoy set out from London last month but was temporarily halted in Egypt when Cairo learned it was also bearing non-medical aid destined for the impoverished coastal territory's 1.5 million residents.
The convoy included 12 ambulances and a fire engine and carried aid worth more than one million pounds. Is there any way medicine, ambulances, or fire engines could be used by Hamas for 'evil'?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506899,00.html

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/tibet.html

And, in order to pose supplemental questions...

With respect to my previous posting on how Hamas's control over the region might be one of the only ways to get the infrastructure restabilized, how do you precieve Galloway's words/actions? Is rebuilding Gaza infer a collaboration with Hamas? If not, then with whom? They are the democratically elected representative... how do we console this fear?

Audio Media: Pros and Cons

Given all the political cartoon, news, and youtube videos thus produced by this lovely blog, we forget one media source; audio. I found a personal story of those returning to Gaza. I would recommend listening to it versus reading the transcript. Audio news provides something different than literature news in the fact that you get to hear voices and the surroundings. It engages different senses for us to experience that place.

Audio media seems to be more descriptive. There is more emphasis on trying to describe the place, people, and actions of what is going on in the area. With other sources, it is more dry or even unexplained since viewers are allowed to judge what is going on. Yet this type of journalism tries to be objective even though they must relate more to the listener. At the same time, you get to hear first hand about what people say. Hearing people's voices in this media is interesting since you feel more connected to that area, and even when the Israeli airplanes fly overhead, you feel much closer to it since that is the only sense you have to use.

As to geography and audio media, I feel as if there is another transported suspended place where it takes place. This place is limited to second hand knowledge. What is presented to you, you cannot see, you must create that space for yourself. The grave, for instance, I pictured something a bit different than what is actually there. The interpretations are different for each person. The place you create is much different than that may exist.

In some ways, it is another representation of the Middle East. Given these descriptions A, B, and C, your mind will think this. Yet, how does that stereotype or not stereotype the people that live there? It really begs the question if what we hear is "accurate" to reality. You think destroyed ruins, crap all over, crumbled buildings, people crying, distaught, angry such as the last woman at the end. Yet, what I have described seems accurate enough, but it doesn't fully reach the picture. Is there any type of media that encapsulates reality? Or are all media types going to inherently give flaws?

The Wall

I'll admit it: before taking this class, I had only the vaguest conception of the "security fence" (otherwise advertised as the "Terror Prevention Fence") that has bulldozed its way through the West Bank. I heard it mentioned in passing on the news, but I had no idea of its scale and the impact it would have on the Palestinian territory it dissected.

I went in search of some in-depth information at typical American news sites like msnbc, cnn, and fox, but uncovered few references and no video material on the subject. I headed over to youtube, where I located a large number of independent short films critiquing the construction of the wall. If anyone has 25 minutes to spare, I would encourage them to watch "The Dividing Wall" by Journeyman Pictures, an independent British distributor of documentaries and news footage. A few interesting moments in the film relating to place/spacings:

• The Israeli government has placed the charred remnants of a bus ruined in a terrorist attack right next to a section of the wall. By moving the bus to this spot, they are emphasizing (in a visually shocking way) the link between this wall and civilian security: a permanent physical reminder that this is all that separates us from the terrorists who wish to penetrate our territory and kill our people.
• The personal stories documented in the film betray the arbitrariness of the wall's route and the negative effect its course has had on the Palestinian population. The wall cuts through an old woman's garden, harming the ecology of the area and forcing her to live on food donations. It separates one business owner from the nursery he operates and relies on for income. It physically (and hence socially) isolates one family's home from the rest of their village, holding them prisoner between the towering wall on one side and the security fence that surrounds a nearby Jewish settlement. All this shows the financial, social, and emotional toll of dividing the Palestinian landscape.
  
• At the conclusion of the film, one Palestinian says that "the time of walls has long gone" and that "they should build relationships and bridges to enhance co-operation and love among people instead of building a wall". In theory, I agree that the era of building walls should be over, but I wonder if that is the modern reality. The idea of physical barriers seems to still be current in American politics (e.g. blocking off the border with Mexico). Virtual barriers have become trendy in certain totalitarian regimes (e.g. China denying their citizens access to blogging sites where they might connect and communicate with the rest of the world). Bureaucratic barriers make it increasingly difficult to get visas to many countries, while some countries discourage the presence of foreigners through their legal codes (e.g. Turkmenistan refusing to allow foreigners to own property).
  

I also found this interesting news piece from English-language al-Jazeera:



This story talks about a Palestinian organization called "Peace and Freedom Youth Forum" that has teamed up with a Dutch advertising group to create the "Send a Message" site. Here, for the price of 30 euros, anyone in the world can have a message graffiti'd onto an area of the security wall. The message can be one of love, humor, hope, solidarity -- but it may not contain any offensive remarks or incitement of hatred. The effort is described by the members of the Youth Forum as an alternative (i.e. non-violent) form of resistance against the wall and the occupation in general. Their goal is to take this physical barrier, originally intended to keep people apart, and use it as a way to connect Palestinians and people across the globe. The majority of the proceeds go to communities whose agricultural and commercial activity has been damaged by the construction of the wall.

I have not heard anything about this project in the Western media. I suppose you could say it doesn't fit into the typical narrative on Palestine, which usually depicts Palestinians as a pulsating, screaming, flag-waving mob with a penchant for suicide bombings. Pacifism has never been associated with Palestine, but this story and even the story above prove that at least some Palestinians yearn for peaceful and productive ways to solve their problems. I would say that this story not only provides a counter-narrative, but it also plays effectively on the historical memory of Western audiences by using common imagery to unite two places separated by time and space. Seeing this huge graffiti-covered wall splitting a once-united territory, I could not help but think of the Berlin Wall and all of its troubling connotations (e.g. artificial/arbitrary division, brutal enforcement of separation/containment, inequality of living conditions)...although specific political circumstances may vary, the nature and aftereffects of "wall-building" seem unfortunately universal.

Israeli Kids Get Rocket-Proofed Indoor Playground

I found this story on the website of Newsweek-International Edition.

There are a couple of things I found interesting about this article. I couldn't help but notice that the playground is located in the same town that received a visit from Joe the Plumber/Reporter.
I also noticed how the story focused on the physical and emotional toll of the children of Sderot and the extra precautions they have to take. The lede of this story was set up in a way with the goal to bring shock-value to the reader.

"(SDEROT, Israel) Brightly painted walls surround a mini-soccer field, video games, a climbing wall and play areas. The converted warehouse also has a new thick concrete roof, a half dozen shelters and an alert system to give a 15-second warning of incoming rockets. The children of Sderot finally have a safe place to play."

By juxtaposing the fun aspect of the playground with the security measures, the writer forces the reader to envision a sort of military base(obviously without weapons training) for children, and then unveiling in the last sentence that this is a playground, the writer tries to engage the reader's emotions.
The writer then goes on to tell of the tramatization of almost everyone in the village of Sderot after suffering many Palestinian rocket attacks.

"Eight Sderot residents have been killed, hundreds wounded and nearly everyone in the working-class town of 24,000 has been traumatized by the frequent wail of sirens and explosions of the thousands of rockets that have hit over the past eight years.

Dozens of rockets have come down just since Israel's January offensive in Gaza ended. On Tuesday, Israeli aircraft hit a militant rocket squad in northern Gaza, wounding three, just after they fired rockets at Israel."

Even without any statistics, the reader can easily get the impression that Palestinians are the main agressors. It is easy to miss that an Israeli aircraft wounded three in just one day. The toll on Israel is lumped together into eight years. I also found it intresting that the writer felt it was important to mention that this Israeli airstrike was in response of rockets that were fired into Israel.
The article goes on to say that the playground, which cost $5 million, was funded by the US branch of Jewish National Fund.
While I am glad that the Israeli children of Sderot now have a safe place to play, it concerns me how one-sided this article was. I understand that this is not a "hard-hitting" news piece- it is more like a feature. However, the writer failed to mention if there was anything being done for Palestinian children, and barely mentioned Palestinian losses.
The article achieved it's goal of showing something most people take for granted- a playground- a luxury in war-torn Israel. However, by not including anything about Palestinian children, one can assume that Palestinian children do not even have this luxury. While it is nice to know that now the children in Sderot can play in safety, the more important part of this story, in my opinion, is neglected- that the Palestinian children cannot.

Closed Zone

Looking through Le Monde for a french, sympathetic view, I found this video. It was made recently due to the war by a nonprofit peace group. I wanted to note closures and borders from the symbolism of the video.

They made the closures of hands, that of a distinct strong male hand that is hampering the character of getting out of Gaza. It is perhaps saying that the IDF and/or the Israeli government, the male power symbols, are not letting them out. No matter where he is trying to go to, the sea, Israel, the Rafah (Eygptian-Palestinian border) crossing, he is stopped. He tries to tussle with the hands but they are firmly not letting him pass. It is a human border imposing on a preceived sub-human (animated). The jarring 3D image of the hands allowed the viewer to think about reality and the strength of the borders that one wouldn't of seen on a 2D line on a map. In one images, there are the colors of the Egpytian flag putting a border at the Rafah crossing then the Israeli hand also stops him again. This represents more than one nation affecting the borders of Gaza.

Another thing one should note is the cookie cutter shape that Gaza took. It seems to say that the authoratative hand made it without any reason or rhyme. The land's shape has nothing to do with those who live there.

All of these symbols seems to point a helpless Gazan at the hands of others. Is this true or is this just one representation?

Chinese Empathy for Gaza

Coming from first generation Chinese background, my parents have very different views of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that I do. They side mostly completely with Gaza and refer to the conflict as America AND Israel against Palestine. They are mostly influenced by the Chinese satellite TV (CCTV and Hong Kong TVB) due to their wariness of American media. This, in my view, has influenced their views about the latest Gaza war. Likes the Irish Protestants/Catholics, my parents and therefore the Chinese identify with the "Other" and the Americans (puppeting Israel) are the mighty, unjust giants.

I tried to find media sources by first seaching CCTV in English but none of the video links worked on multiple computers on campus. Trying Chinese news in English, I found an interesting news article titled "Elderly woman dies of heart attack as Israel strikes S Gaza" It was interesting to see this was made news given everything else going on at the time. Yet, at the same time, it says quite a bit about the personal experience and how to get people to empathize with people just like them. Elders are given a lot of respect in Chinese culture, to have some white, aggressive place attack your home and indirectly killing someone of importance is going to raise Chinese emotions. They say nothing about Israeli elderly women, as if they are doing well.

The sensationalism is noteworthy because it also indirectly "others" the Americans. By demonstrating the might of the Israelis on an 70 year old woman, they are showing a ruthless America soon to be after any country unlike them. Much like we characterize a homogenous Middle East and every country (except for Israel) there is out to get us and our space.

Boycotts Mar UN Racism Conference

When this story ran about a week ago, the US, Canada, and Israel boycotted the UN conference on racism, called Durban II, over wording in a draft resolution. The US claims that the text in the draft unfairly singles out Israel. The US walked out of a UN racism conference in 2001 in Durban because the resolution linked Zionism to racism . Since this story ran, Italy has also declare that they, too, will boycott the conference.
The guests on the video discuss whether the conference has become "politically hijacked." I do not believe that the language of the draft resolution was the only reason the US boycotted the conference. I have a hard time envisioning the US boycotting the conference on behalf of a nation it did not have strong ties to. While I agree that if the document was anti-Semetic, like the US says it was, it should be revised, I do not think that was the only reason the US is boycotting. I think the US is also boycotting to remain political allies with Israel.

An Irish Perspective

Just recently, I completed an undergrad dissertation on the "Peoples Perception of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" here at National University Of Ireland Galway. This work entailed the research of a select student body on how their perception of the conflict was influenced by the media and specifically images that are readily available throughout the web. What became known was not surprising, the main themes were Identity Placement, Law and Order, Resonance with Northern Ireland and the Threat of Violence.
Where I think this fits into the dialogue of this blog is that from an Irish perspective, the respondents always located themselves to the Israel/Palestine debate. The focus group commented on the images of the conflict and what they meant to them, the consensus was such that tagging the inhabitants of the photo's with an identity/ethnicity was more important than looking objectively at the image. This is akin with our history of Northern Ireland and the formation of our present state, being premised as either Nationalist or Unionist, Catholic or Protestant, Irish or British. The perspective of my group was shaped by there local understanding of conflict.
The correlations of Israel/Palestine's plight and such with Ireland is significant. One such example today is a contentious soccer match played perennially in the Scottish soccer league between Rangers (Protestant/British Identity) and Celtic (Catholic/Irish identity). Both are Glasgow club's where during derby matches, the Celtic supporters sometimes hold up Palestininan flags in solidarity as they feel a connection with the struggle and quest of Palestinian self determination just like the war of independence quest here throughou the 700 hundred years of external rule. There is an Irish predisposition to support the Palestinian cause evidenced by a very active and well known organisation known as the Irish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (www.ipsc.ie), while an Israeli one either does not exist or is not known among popular knowledge. See blog link in relation to Irish Trade Union stance (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9586.shtml). This is a sentiment very much evident among an Irish perspective even if its not known or invoked consciously.
Of course there are exceptions to prove the rule and I am not advocating this as a blanket consensus of the Irish corpus of society. Its just an observation, Indeed a quick database search for the last year of the leading Irish broad sheet paper the Irish Times priorotised Israel headline coverage over Palestine headline coverage by 166 to 1 mention. However in the Irish case its emotions, sentiments and knowledge of conflict connection which I believe are more important than the descriptive discourse the media use in the portrayal of the saga. The picture of injured children in war torn area's always receive's precedence for which I think is linked to the believed conscience of the people.
There is no doubt that instance's of perspective differ depending on the geographical location of the person. Here among the student body of our small university it is clear there is a more concerted effort to proposition the cause of the Palestinian perspective, from the media analysis, I do not think they are the defining feature as to why.

Exclusion in the Media

I remember cruising the al-Jazeera English web site a few months ago, and finding a story that I was shocked not to have read in the Western media. Immediately following the shoe-throwing incident that you may all remember during a Bush press conference in Baghdad, the 'attacker' was imprisoned and allegedly tortured, breaking a bone during his stay in prison. That same day the story did receive some media coverage on CNN and Fox, but the story was very different. What was being reported was that the assailant had written a letter to the President asking for his forgiveness and pardon. Both stories are probably true, but how is it that such a development could have been totally overlooked in the Western media? I have developed a general impression of al-Jazeera being a less biased source of news than many American sources, CNN being the one that I use the most often. I find that foreign sources, such as the BBC and al-Jazeera have excellent US coverage, and international coverage that far outshines our domestic media.

Today I found myself on the VOA web site, the electronic incarnation of Radio Free Europe, which was founded in part by Dewitt Wallace. Obviously, this source shows a heavy pro-US bias, as it is funded and administered by the Federal Government with a recent focus on targeting Afghani, Iranian and Iraqi audiences. One of the top stories on the front page detailed the admission by a UN official that many of those employed by UNRWA schools in Gaza are members of Hamas. (click the post title for the article) The Unites States alone provides about one hundred million dollars per year in funding to the UNRWA, a substantial source of income for those living in the region. Following up, I performed a search on al-Jazeera and Google news to find coverage of the event from other media sources. To my surprise, I wasn't able to find anything about the issue in any foreign or US source. The only place that I was able to find a reference to the incident was on an Israeli web site, Aish.com. (I can't get the link thingie to work, so here's the url: http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/mediaobjectivity/UNRWAs_Hamas_Employees.asp)

A few years ago I got my news exclusively from one or two sources, mostly CNN and MSNBC. I always had an assumption that the news was the news, and that any reputable media outlet provides a different version of the same truth. I've wised up a little bit since, but I have still yet to find any single news source that has broad enough coverage of the Middle East to be individually sufficient. I don't think there is one. I suppose that inherent in any media group is a shared perspective, and inherent in a particular perspective is the exclusion of others.

Internet Usage Statistics and the Developing World

Probably ten or fifteen times a day, each one of us utilizes a service like Google or Yahoo, which relies heavily on user input, as well as enormous quantities of usage statistics to make an automated educated guess as to the content that you are seeking. Further, many of these sites allow you to specify information about your geographical location and your areas of interest to provide better results, such as local news and focused sports coverage. Not only has the usage of these services increased, with people now using custom news feeds and homepages such as iGoogle, but the search engine and its services has started to find its way into places where you wouldn't expect it. Google now performs the search function for the Macalester web page and Macalester e-mail runs through the G-Mail system, for instance.

Because Internet services rely so heavily on user statistics, and because Internet access and usage varies so greatly around the world, I would expect the Internet to have an inherent bias against certain users. I investigated rates of Internet usage around the world, and I found some startling differences. (click on the post title for the usage statis) Internet penetration in the United States is almost 75%, versus just under eight percent for Arab countries. Even more shocking is the variance among these states. Although no Arab country comes even close to the North American rates of penetration, more affluent countries score much higher than the global average, with Kuwait scoring a 25% rate and the UAE scoring 35%, for instance. These countries tend to house most of the Arab media outlets that I have encountered in my surfing and that have been mentioned so far in the course. On the other hand, the West Bank comes in at only 8%, while only 0.13% of Iraqis are users, the lowest rate among Arab countries. These low usage rates seem to correlate with a lack of prominent media outlets for these countries.

It makes sense that the Arab countries with the most internal conflict and poverty would have the lowest rates of usage, and that less domestic investment would lead to fewer well-funded news agencies. That's the thing with the Internet, though. It doesn't take much to create an Internet wildfire. Take the Huffington Post or Craig's List, for example. Both of these were started by individuals with minimal capitol investment. If these web titans can be created by ordinary people with laptops and dedication, why isn't the same possible, albeit to a lesser extent, in these countries? That's where I think the Internet's inherent geographic bias comes in. Less users in these countries leads to low rates of representation in usage statistics. Without some critical mass of users scattered around the globe, Arab sources that could best benefit from Internet exposure are being left in the dust.

On a more positive note, Internet usage has grown much more rapidly in Arab countries than in North America in recent years. Although most of the growth in the region has occurred in more affluent states, usage grew by almost 200% in Iraq and 600% in Palestine between 2000 and 2007.

I can't help but think: 'What can I do about this?' That's the other thing about the Internet. It's very democratic. The more we access these sources, the more that others will be exposed to them. A few months ago I started visiting al-Jazeera regularly, and now it is my primary source of both domestic and international news. Perhaps if I keep at it, my choice will slowly work its way through the circuits and algorithms in a server in California, and be manifest as an Internet search result for somebody in a far off land. That's subtle change.

Joe the Plumber Does Israel

I remember seeing a tidbit on the Daily Show about Joe Wurzelbacher's ground-breaking reporting from Israel during the most recent clashes in Gaza. If that name sounds eerily familiar, it's because of his brief stint in the spotlight during the presidential campaign as “Joe the Plumber.”

To Americans, he was portrayed as the symbol of the downtrodden middle-class everyman. On camera during the interview, as he was escorted by Israeli public and military officials through the city of Sderot, he wore a gray “Springfield” tee-shirt. Perhaps this shirt was in reference to beautiful Springfield, Ohio, (I have family there) or perhaps it was in reference to generic small-town America as a whole (a la The Simpsons).

He interviews the mayor of the town, which saw the brunt of the Hamas bombardment due to its close proximity to Gaza, as he tours buildings that were struck by missiles. He speaks to one man whose living room had recently been decimated by a rocket. Joe mentions stories of children that have reverted to bed-wetting since the attacks as the camera pans to the resident's former toilet, shattered and blown into the side yard. It's all sort of strange.

Joe the plumber doesn't seem very well suited as a war correspondent, but one thing that he does accomplish in the segment is establish a symbolic link between Israel and the Middle-Americans that he claims to represent. He mingles with the teachers at a school that was nearly struck by a rocket and refers to one victim as “brother.” Through the window of a passing car, the camera shows a western-looking town that could just easily be mistaken for small-town America. It pans toward young Jewish schoolboys investigating the scene of the explosion. It is difficult not to be moved by the segment, which so deliberately tugs at the heartstrings. As you might expect, there is no mention of the people of Gaza, which lies less than a mile to the west, other than in reference to the rockets. At one point he goads the mayor, asking “How do people like that make you feel?”

As I watched the segment, I couldn't help but imagine what would have unfolded if Joe was a few minutes' walk to the West, across the wall and into Gaza. Would he have sympathized with the people? Would he suggest, as he did in this piece, that perhaps people would be more sympathetic and less quick to criticize if they understood what life is like in the war-torn area? Could he have established such connections between the small-town American way of life and that of the Palestinians? I can't begin to imagine. I'm still wondering how he ended up in Israel.

CAIRtv: CNN: Israel Broke Gaza Cease-Fire

Given the tone of the blog and the bewilderment that US news organizations are so blatantly pro-Israel, this CNN clip was a surprise. Rick Sanchez was trying to claim that maybe not is all and well with what is told to us and that perhaps the Palestinian legislator had truth between his total blame of Israel. After presenting this information to a fellow CNN reporter Jim Clancy, Clancy tries to give the normal, familiar Western point of view in which Israelis had a right to go attack and struggled almost not to say "pre-emptive".

It was refreshing to note a big organization not following script. Yet, in the bigger context, does this mean anything? Obviously, even though there were other media references to maybe find fault in Israel, the US generally ignored it. The whole clip brings up questions about what is blame and fault about the conflict. News organizations want to be "objective" about who is to blame for things; making things black and white for viewers yet at the end of at segment, Sanchez even admits to the America wanting to know "who is right" without taking in the subtleties.

In deeply invested, emotionally charged, historically unlineated situations, who is right? It does not seem that there can be a right and wrong. Americans want to know the answer to the question though. I think that is part of the reason why we side so heavily with one side and not the other; Israel gave their side with convincing evidence to make it seem they are right. Palestinians never got into the fray in the right manner to influence their "right" and ended up being "wrong".

I was suspicious given the apparent edits made by this clip and did some quick research. It is put up by CAIR which stands for Council for American Islamic Relations. I did a quick search for the organization. CAIR’s website is very clean and gives a good image of the organization with tons of quotes from US congressmen giving their support. While searching for them on Google News, they seem to have a dual identity; that of an activist group on the behalf of Muslims and that of a hated, biased group by more conservation sections of the media.

One Blogger writes:

Many will say this is extreme, yet this scenario is exactly what the Council of American and Islamic Relations (CAIR) prescribes to do during their monthly board meetings. CAIR has people assigned to dig up dirt on anyone who publicly opposes them. Win the PR campaign and you win the war.

Does this tactic work? It has for years, but I played the same game with CAIR as they have with others. The only difference is that by my rules you obtain the truth. CAIR ignores the truth. I got “into their minds” by using their own tactics against them. Ultimately they made serious mistakes. It will cost them and they know it. I have encouraged CAIR to sue me, but they will not. Why? Because they know I have evidence mounting against them every day. They have no idea who within CAIR has or is continuing to assist me in obtaining inside intelligence. By my making a statement like I have in this paragraph against CAIR, you can be assured I have first-hand intelligence proving this if and when the time comes.

There is even a thing called "CAIR Watch" out there. I am wondering if these right wingers have any truth in them as well. Given the clip, it was very well done to give a certain message: Look! Even CNN thinks that Israel is wrong! CAIR does know how to do PR. The clip was effective and to the point. Yet, does that make them a terrorist supporting group? If this was any other ethnic group, would there be this intense loathing for that organization?

I do not think if there was an CAAR (Council for American Asian Relations) that there would be the same suspicions as there is for CAIR. It makes me think if there are different types of "Othering" and emotional responses to various types. It seems like Islam is very contentious and seen as a violent threat while other groups are not as hostile and "mangeable".

Morality and War in Gaza from the Israeli Perspective

here is the link or click on the title (video is fuzzy for a few seconds): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seoAh8yJKLw

With the humanitarian uproar following the Gaza strike, one must wonder where the Israeli/Jewish moral tradition stands on this issue. This post acknowledges the Israeli's conflict with morality and war in Gaza; Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman analyses the justification for the Israeli strike:

There are two kinds of wars:

• A war of self-defense

  • Israel claims their war falls into this category because of the rockets Hamas had been launching into Southern Israel

  • is a moral war

• A war of agression

  • is an immoral war

The issue with the war in Gaza:

• although it is a moral war, the question is whether it can be fought on moral terms

• A war can only be fought on moral terms when those attacked are "those who actively engage in threatening you or your society" (do not involve the civilian population).

The great challenge:

• with Hamas, it is "impossible to surgically attack the combatants alone"

• Dr. Hartman notes that Hamas uses the population as a human shield

Reaction to this challenge:

• Dr. Hartman acknowledges that these casualties are unacceptable and challenges the "Israeli moral story and moral vision".

• I'd like to note that popular, anti-Israel comparisons between their war activities in Gaza and Nazi war activities (or other undesired metaphors) may strike at the heart of this insecurity. Can they now claim a moral high ground? Following the Gaza strike, have they lost their moral credibility?

Dr. Hartman concludes by saying that the war on Gaza is a war of self-defense (and thus a moral war). Although there is difficulty in fighting this war on moral terms, Israelis still have a right to protect itself. At the end, Dr. Hartman summarizes it as a battle against the immoral (terrorists), where those with moral standards must be able to survive. That civilians must be involved is "the tragedy of terrorism".

Rebuilding Gaza

The question of how to rebuild Gaza holds an obvious amount of complexity and political tension. Looking into information on donors and the international community's commitment to it, it seems that many countries have the means and will to undertake the project, but are still unclear how the planned and funded reconstruction will come to fruition.

As of yet, International donors have pledged 4.5 billion dollars to rebuild the Gaza strip and prop up the Palestinian Authority as a whole. The money (to be spent over the next two years) is intended to repair the damage caused by the Israeli offensive against Hamas militants. According to Egyptian organizers of the fundraising event, "the outcome exceeded their expectations." Leading up to the conference, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas requested three billion dollars in order to make adequate reparations. From the 70 or so countries that made donations to the fund, Saudi Arabia, the United States and the EU promised the most money. Donors insisted that the funds were not to be channelled through Hamas...

However, the United Nations and aid agencies have made frequent statements stating that rebuilding the coastal enclave would be a daunting task so long as border crossings with battered Gaza remained as closed and tight as they are currently. "The situation at the border crossings is intolerable. Aid workers do not have access. Essential commodities cannot get in," UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon told donors at a conference on Gaza in the Egyptian resort of Sharm El-Sheikh.

Bringing it all back home, an article from the Jerusalem post states...

"US President Barack Obama and the European Union favour channelling aid through the PA - although the European Commission Representative in Jerusalem, Christian Berger, said the EU was waiting to see the outcome of Egyptian-brokered reconciliation talks between the Palestinian factions. "

In the meantime, International agencies are still assessing the scale of the destruction in preparation for a drive for reconstruction pledges, possibly through the use of NGO's.
But with the international community refusing to deal directly with Hamas, the militant group which controls Gaza, how is the money able to be spent? Whom does the 'international community' direct the multiple-billions to, and who will be heading these initiatives? Palestinians? Humanitarian Aid workers? Israel? I'm not insinuating that the money be filtered throough Hamas, just that this political hairball will be down a lot of throats until it comes close to a solution; which, as usual, seems like a long and difficult hall.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5832431.ece

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/03/20093262554962541.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/gaza-aid-conference-donor_n_171035.html

A few videos on the topic can be found in the links below...

http://palestinianpundit.blogspot.com/2009/03/al-jazeera-video-focus-on-gaza.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HISSZ_puckc&feature=PlayList&p=BFB9DD480AE51572&index=4

Before You Boycott Israel

I found this video on YouTube elaborating the accomplishments of the Jewish and of Israel. It describes how boycotting Israel would be nearly impossible because so many things that people use daily incorporates innovations produced by the Jewish nation, such as computer chips and certain medicines.
It is impossible to miss the sarcasm in the narrator's voice as he describes how to effectively boycott Israel to show lack of support. In addition to the sarcasm, the narrator paints Israel as a Western state essential to civilized living. In the end especially, it shows Israel as the victim of terrorists (while it doesn't specifically say Palestinians) and anti-Israel groups.
The disrespectful discourse on the comment board shows how there is clearly more opinions than the one shown in the video. I find the comments particularly interesting. The majority of them do not reference the video at all, but rather attack Islam and Muslim culture. However, there are some extremely hateful comments about Israel and the Jewish faith. As I am writing this, a particularly hateful one was posted by the user "WeKnowz."
The reaction the the video, in my view, is more powerful than the actual video. It shows how radical some people are about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Although it is uncertain whether these users would be saying such things if they could not do so anonymously, it is a bit of a shock to see how much hate some people have toward another group. Although I am certainly aware that it exists, I was still startled when I read some of the comments.

Here is the link- I was having major issues embedding it or doing anything else that made sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saeky9I5T9c&feature=channel

Othering the Muslim World

Whilst searching for media for this project, I couldn't help but notice the overwhelming number of Orientalist, and sometimes overtly racist, depictions of Muslims and the Arab world in general. Take these two cartoons. Not only are Arabs and Muslims depicted as violent, barbaric people, but cartoons of this nature have largely gone unnoticed. The cartoons in large part center around depictions of Muslims as bearded, turban-wearing, and somewhat less-than-human, buffoons. In the first cartoon I've posted, members of the Hamas party are depicted as gray-bearded rats that need to be exterminated by Israel, while in the second, Muslims are depicted as barbaric, demented, and, to an extent, mentally challenged (the caption reads "Abdul always knew how to impress the ladies").
It's also key to note that the cartoonist, like many others, has incorrectly depicted the stereotypical Muslim wearing a turban— barely any Muslim men wear a headpiece that looks like this, and yet it is possibly the most embedded symbol in Western depictions of Muslims. Furthermore, there is something very troublesome about mass media infantilizing a serious issue, like the Muslim world's anger with Dutch cartoonists depicting Mohammed, especially when it serves to propagate these types of representations. So, with that, here's a starting question for this post: Why don't we as a society take more issue with these representations?

Question of war crimes in Gaza

As I was mind-sifting through topics to blog about, I thought about a news blurb I saw briefly when I was in Israel... The question of White Phosphorus shells (a chemical weapon that would be absolutley illegal to use in densely populated Gaza although not illegal in itself in war times in order to smokescreen moving troops) being used repeatedly was briefed by BBC news beginning in mid-January.

As I was watching, I really was in disbelief that Israel could be using the substance, especially amidst so many claims of their overly violent offensive in Gaza over those 21 days.

However, I haven't heard much about this massive breach of international code since. Now, looking in to a variety of news and news-related sites and blogs, it has in fact been getting a lot of attention from both the Arab and Euro-Americans.

An article on Amnesty Internation position states that " In response to the claims ... relating to the use of phosphorus weapons, and in order to remove any ambiguity, an investigative team has been established in southern command to look into the issue," the Israeli army said.In response to Amnesty's accusations, a military spokesman said on Monday the army "uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."Amnesty is not the first group to accuse Israel of using white phosphorus -- Human Rights Watch made the accusation on Jan. 10, in the midst of the fighting, and the United Nations also said it believed the munition had been used.

However, Amnesty's accusations were made on the basis of an on-the-ground study by a British weapons expert following the ceasefire put into force by Israel and Hamas on Sunday.Weapons expert Chris Cobb-Smith, who visited Gaza as part of a four-person Amnesty team, said he had found widespread evidence of the use of the incendiary material."We saw streets and alleyways littered with evidence of the use of white phosphorus, including still-burning wedges and the remnants of the shells and canisters fired by the Israeli army," he said in a statement.

As an interesting rebuke to these inflammatory accusations Israel's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, said on Monday she was "at peace" with the actions Israel had taken during the conflict, but also said the nation should be prepared to fend off international accusations of war crimes.

My question is how involved will the US be on these claims, and what will their position obviously suggest? Especially since the US has been accused of using the same white phosphorus in the same illegal method in Fallujah, how tightly bound can we be to Israel's action when they have been decidedly criminal at times?(http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/americas/us/war_crimes_fallujah.html)

Bringing in the media aspect, why is this not being more heavily reported? And, is this a US media phenomenon, or as with so many war crimes is this simply not the time to bring it to the table in any too-open forum?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11935

The Voice of Hamas Outside the Middle East

Scanning such major Western news outlets as CNN, MSNBC,
and the BBC, I could find plenty of articles mentioning Hamas. One article cites Secretary of State Hillary Clinton describing Hamas as "not only a terrorist organization but...increasingly a client of Iran". Another article will mention Obama's unwillingness to deal with Hamas, even if they did send him a personal letter. But one thing you will rarely hear in the West is the voice of Hamas itself. The only recent articles I could find quoting Hamas officials were simply about the announcement of ceasefires . Since three of the four members of the so-called "Quartet" of intl. mediators (the U.S., E.U., and U.N.) refuse to communicate with Hamas "terrorists", it seems that the Western public is also not allowed to access their point of view.

So I was curious to know if it would be any different with Russia, the one member of the Quartet that does maintain ties with Hamas. Here is some of the evidence I found that Hamas is treated differently in the Russian media (which is mostly state-controlled, by the way, and falls into line with govt. policy). For example, this new article from RIA Novosti ("Russian Information Agency News", one of if not the biggest news source in the country) talks about how Hamas officials have called on the Intl. Criminal Court to issue an order for the arrest of Israeli leaders like Shimon Peres, Ekhud Barak, Ekhud Olmert, and Benjamin Netanyahu (all this comes on the heels of the ICC's indictment of Sudan's president for crimes against humanity). Unfortunately, there isn't an English version of the article, but I'll translate the heart of it:

"In an announcement, Hamas said that the ICC should issue an order for the arrest not of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, but for the leaders of Israel, guilty of crimes against the nations of Palestine and Lebanon...During the recent war with Israel, 1300 people, including a few hundred children, were killed in Hamas-controlled Gaza. About 1400 people, the majority of them peaceful civilians, became victims of Israel's war in Lebanon in the summer of 2006. According to Hamas, the 'unjust' decision of the ICC...is yet more evidence that 'with every day the UN is increasingly turning into a tool in the hands of strong states, primarily the U.S.' and serves their interest 'at the cost of weak nations'...."

Here is another article, concerning the recent intl. conference on foreign aid and the reconstruction of Gaza (to which Hamas was not invited). Translated excerpt:

"...'Ignoring the legal power that exists in Gaza [i.e. Hamas] may be seen as a deliberate frustration of the efforts at reconstructing the region,' said official Hamas representative Fauzi Barkhum, whose words were broadcast by the Arab media. According to him, Palestinians consider the aid a humanitarian action and ask that politicization of the question be avoided...In the opinion of observers, the beginning of work on Gaza's reconstruction could get held up, despite all the international efforts, because of the Israeli blockade of the enclave and internal Palestinian antagonisms. ...According to Makhmud Abbas, the international aid should be put at the disposal of the Palestinian Admin. on the West Bank. At the same time, representatives of Hamas believe that the intl. aid should be given directly to those who are governing Gaza..."

At first, I was totally perplexed why Russia would recognize Hamas as a legitimate force in Palestine since they have the same negative discourse about "Islamic terrorism" that we have (recall the protracted debacle with guerilla separatists in Chechnya). Perhaps this is part of Russia's attempt to re-assert its role as a world superpower and a counter-point to the influence of America and her Western allies? Or maybe it's part of a practical solution, as Russian officials claim: "the reconstruction of Palestinian unity is necessary in order to decide urgent questions regarding the overcoming of the destructive consequences of the recent bloodshed in Gaza and, above all, for the attainment of a lasting truce."

Regardless of the motive, articles like these show that currently Hamas is not dismissed (and hence silenced) as a terrorist organization in Russia; nor is the "Arab media" spurned as a tool of the terrorists--it is cited as a source like any other. I would hardly argue that Russia's media is free and progressive, but here is at least a willingness to listen to "the other side" (officially, Russia supports Abbas's regime) and report their point of view to non-Middle Eastern audiences.

BBC News: Gaza homes destruction 'wanton'

While I was looking at the BBC News today, I noticed this article and the accompanying audio slideshow. I felt that, in many ways, it connects well with Rhiannon's post on "who teaches Palestinians to hate" and the "creation" of "terrorists."

The article cites an Amnesty International report that argues that Israel is breaking international law with the destruction of Palestinian homes. The Israelis countered, saying that the destruction was in accordance with international law and the destruction was necessary because of "operational needs." This is contradicted within the article by the citing of Breaking the Silence, which includes testimonies of Israeli soldiers, and the statements that many of the destructions were not necessary and taken out without an immediate threat. In many cases, according to the Amnesty International group, the destruction occured after the Israeli military controlled the area. This, coupled with the fact that few of the homes had legitimate reason to be destroyed (ie, booby trapped, hiding militants, etc), the destruction was "wanton." The Israeli Defense Forces countered the arguments, stating that the terrorist organizations "operated from within the civilian population, using them as a cover and made cynical use of the IDF's strict rules of engagement, opening fire from within civilian population centres, mosques, schools, hospitals and even private residences of citizens in the Gaza Strip... The IDF emphasises that the terrorist organisation, Hamas, and its infrastructure were the target of Operation Cast Lead, and not the civilian population in Gaza." That, however, is difficult for the civilians, and their families, physically, emotionally or psychologically hurt by the destruction caused by the Israeli military.

The audio slideshow focuses on a specific family who's house and livelihood were destroyed by the Israeli Defense Forces. The pictures show the destruction of the house while the audio includes the father's commentary on how everything was destroyed when the house was attacked. He couldn't understand why his house was targeted. He had built the house for his wife and seven children to have someplace to be safe. Now that haven is gone and there is no way to rebuild because there is nothing left in Gaza. One of the most poignant comments he makes is, "I hope there will be a future, but I don't see any future." In many ways, these articles connect to Rhiannon's post on the creation of terrorists through, in part, personal experiences and hatred of "the enemy." The idea of losing one's home through a military attack (natural disaster, possibly, military attack no) is often unfathomable in the West/United States but is seemingly common in the Occupied Territories/Palestine. And the West wonders why the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is still so heated and so contested.

After reading the article, I went to the websites of CNN and MSNBC to see if they had reported anything similar to the BBC article citing the Amnesty International findings (that being, the destruction of Palestinian homes or even listing the attacks on Palestinian civilians). Neither sited listed anything. Both, however, listed stories of the Palestinian driver in Jerusalem that drove a construction vehicle into a bus and police car on Thursday. They also listed the missile strikes on a town in southern Israel that prompted retaliation in Gaza. Thus, Israel is defending itself against hostile, barbarous, stubborn Arab neighbors with no emphasis on the other side of the story. The Palestinians are lumped as a single entity, one identified as the terrorist Hamas organization.

Who teaches Palestinian children to hate?

If one were to peruse the Palestinian Media Watch website, one would get the impression that there is no worse place on earth than Palestine for a child to grow up in. Not because the site reveals anything about the dispossession or impoverishment of the population or Israeli attacks on "terrorists" that kill children in the process. No, Palestine is a terrible place for children because there is no corner of youth life that is free from the cult of hatred and terrorism: it infects music videos, cartoons, even children's books. All this is scrupulously documented on the website.

Such is the influence of this media watchdog, that its director Itamar Marcus (an Israeli) presented a report in 2007 to the U.S. Senate on the dangerous ideology of Palestinian textbooks (non-acceptance of the existence of the Israeli State, Holocaust denial, criticism of America). In 2003, he talked at a Senate hearing about media clips and summer camps directed at Palestinian children that extolled the greatness of martyrdom. Here is an excerpt featuring two prominent American senators as well as a Palestinian representative (emphasis is mine):

Sen. Arlen Specter: “This hearing has been scheduled as promptly as we could, because of our views that these films ought to be known by the people of the United States. ...The characterization at the end [of the film] about [the PA as] child abusers is a vast understatement. They’re civilization abusers. The children are their means to destroy civilization.”

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: “With the testimony and the documentary evidence concerning the glorification of suicide killers and the incitement of young people to aspire to that position, will the Palestinian Authority direct the PATV to remove any reference to martyrdom, Shahada and the glorification of suicide bombers from the television?”

Hassan Abdel Rahman: “I understand that you want to focus on this issue, but I personally, honestly, cannot separate this from the wider context.”

Let me first of all say that I am not denying the glorification of violence and extreme anti-Israeli sentiment to be found in Palestine. It certainly exists, it is frightening, and it is detrimental to the peace process. What troubles me with this site is that Palestinians are being presented to American (and other Anglophone) audiences as hateful enemies of "civilization" without 1.) any positive counter-images, and 2.) any context provided for the virulence of Palestinian anger against Israelis.

The way that historical context is passed over can also be seen in the mission statement of Teach Kids Peace (which is sponsored by so-called HonestReporting.com, a site that attacks anti-Israeli biases in the media):

"As terrorism stands at the center of world challenges for the 21st century, Teach Kids Peace maintains that reforming education is the most important and often most ignored key to eliminating terror. Terrorists are not born, they're taught. September 11 and other attacks were only possible through years of indoctrination in schools, media, and mosques. Hateful teachings produce hateful actions. Stopping incitement is the only way to stop terror."

It's an interesting proposition. I believe there is truth in the statement that "Terrorists are not born, they're taught," but I also believe that it ignores the importance of personal experience in developing hateful ideologies and a willingness to commit suicide missions for a cause. If these personal grievances did not exist, there would be nothing for these "inciters" to play off of. If large proportions of Palestinians had not undergone the experience of being kicked out of their homes, of being deprived of their ancestral homeland, of living in poverty with limited educational and professional opportunities, of being humiliated at hundreds of check points, of losing friends and relatives in attacks by the Israeli military, of having the little land allowed them invaded by illegal Israeli settlers...Yes, we could try to censor spiteful and violent rhetoric, but will that also suppress the deep-rooted frustration that fuels this rhetoric? In my opinion, stopping incitement is merely one step in stopping terror. It will have no long-term effect if you do nothing to correct the broader political and socioeconomic problems that are breeding this conflict in the first place. It is easier to blame Palestinian violence on hate-mongers, but the Israeli government has to accept some responsibility for this so-called "culture of hate and death".

Maybe this is cynical of me, but I can't help but wonder if this is entirely about Western grown-ups being concerned for the welfare of Palestinian children. Intentional or not, there is an underlying political message here. A dichotomy has been set up between Palestinians as the monopolists of hate/violence/barbarism and Israelis as representatives of peace/civilization. Not only could this dichotomy be construed as racist, but it sidelines a long history of generalized anti-Palestinian violence and rhetoric by Israelis. By portraying the Palestinian Authority as a supporter of extremism and terrorism in media/educational resources, and by ignoring the historical and current causes of Palestinian frustration, these sites can effectively delegitimize the Palestinian cause in the eyes of American and other audiences.

Why are the Arab nations depicted as neutral?

The text underneath the comic strip claims that: "the onslaught of the Gaza Strip is strikingly similar to the German blitz in the initial stage of the Second World War."

This first cartoon is contentious and challenges the Jewish moral high ground. However, I'd like to discuss a different aspect of the scene:

In the first cartoon, the Arab world, the world, and America are depicted as watching it happen (America is standing next to the Israeli soldier as if encouraging him). What caught my interest was the complacent depiction of the Arab world.

In the second cartoon, the person representing the Arab world had money covering his eyes and mouth during the onslaught (as in see no evil, speak no evil) while standing next to Uncle Sam:

My question is about the Arab nations: According to these cartoons, they are not intervening. What reasons may Arab countries have for being neutral or "hear no evil, speak no evil"? It may be interesting to also consider their past policies.

Achmed the Dead Terrorist; does this depict a Western bias?

"Achmed the Dead Terrorist"

This is a lengthy link to a comic skit by one Jeff Dunham. He's a fairly popular guy who skilfully works with puppets.

This isn't a media specific to the Gaza conflict, but I feel this representation helps to reinforce American perception and reaction to the conflict:

This representation of the of the Arab terrorist reinforces the pro-Israel stance in the American mind set. It's easier to sympathize with Israel because, as in "Achmed the Dead Terrorist", we see the Arab as the dangerous "other".

In our mind-set, there's little difference between Achmed and the Palestinians. We (Americans) see that they are both Muslim; we see that they have both committed terrorist acts. Although Israel has committed terrorism at the state level, we tend to side with it. Perhaps that is because we compare Israel to the United States, and we see the Jewish people as peaceable and reasonable (like our perceived notion of "us"). Overall there is much more we know about Jews than we actually know about Muslims.

The audience seemed to turn sour when Achmed started saying derogatory jokes about Jews. Would it be O.K. if positions were reversed, and instead the puppet was a generalized, derogatory representation of someone who identified as Jewish?

Political Cartoons

I found these two cartoons shortly after the beginning of the semester and found them to be interesting perspectives of the conflict not only in Gaza but the general Israeli-Palestinian conflict overall.

The first cartoon I found and thought to be interesting gives an interesting perspective on Western/American views (and in some ways my own views) of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As Gaza goes up in flames, the "rest of the world" thinks that the only way a lasting peace will work is if "one state [is] on Mars and the other state on Pluto." Although this is a cartoon, it ignores the history and the ties to the land that both Israelis and Palestinians feel. It also suggests that the rest of the world believes that Israel and Palestine cannot get along, ever, thus must be separated to different planets in order for peace to exist between them. The first cartoon does not highlight which side is to blame, if the response is appropriate, etc. but it does reflect some helplessness felt by the "rest of the world" toward a long term solution for peace between Israel and Palestine.


The second one I found rather interesting. Not only is the conflict caused by "hatred" and "vengeance," thus creating "terror" through the use of "bombs" and attacks on "civilians" but both "Zionism" and "Antisemitism" are listed as

ingredients to the "Mideast stew" of conflict. The inclusion of "radicalism" and "martyrdom," however, imply a certain leaning toward the Palestinians causing the conflict in Gaza. For a Western audience, "radicalism" and "martyrdom" are elements of fundamentalist Islam. Although "Zionism" is included in the list of ingredients, it is overshadowed by "antisemitism," "radicalism" and "martyrdom" within the context of "terror" and "vengeance." I do not know what to make of the creature stirring the stew and what he represents other than causing the conflict to boil over. I do think that what he says about "getting all the proportions right" is interesting. Both sides have to fight each other, whether or not the response is proportional or not, in order for the conflict to gain the attention of the Western media. A one-sided attack tends to favor the one attacked but when the fighting on both sides is apparent, the conflict begins to become fuzzier and more difficult to diffuse.

Both cartoons reflect a bit of hopelessness for peace in Israel/Palestine. The first one more or less states it as part of the plan to separate the Israeli and Palestinian states on to different planets. The second one, the hopelessness is more implied. A cycle of violence is brewing, occasionally boiling over and fueling the flames of the conflict overall. The causes of the violence are "terror," "vengeance," "an eye for an eye" (and the whole world goes blind) and "hatred." These cannot be easily overcome and provide a daunting task for those who wish to see peace and coexistence among Israelis and Palestinians.

The Daily Show: Strip Maul

This is a rather lengthy clip from the January 5th episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213380&title=strip-maul

To begin with, the clip is entitled "Strip Maul" which is a pun. The Gaza Strip and the Israeli "maul"ing of the area, as well as the similarity to the "strip mall."

As The Daily Show mocks the media and politicians, Stewart's comments are of particular importance, particularly when juxtaposed with the comments from the journalists, politicians and commentators in the clips shown. One interesting point is when Stewart comments that the conflict "happens all the time in the Middle East [itself a stereotype of the region as a whole as a violent place]... the 2009 missiles coming in, got to make room in the silos. Right?" This is posed against various journalists commenting that even "Israelis admit, this could take a long time," thus destroying the hope for a peaceful 2009.

Perhaps one of the most telling instances is when Stewart asks the question "Why right now?" The response is that Israel is afraid that Obama will not support their actions, whereas they know they have unlimited support from the Bush Administration. Thus, Stewart comments that Israel has to get their bombing in "before the January 20th Hope and Change deadline."

Stewart also points out that both Democrat and Republican politicians support Israel wholeheartedly, to the point that Stewart comments there is only one side to the various debates. This goes to the heart of Western media perceptions of Israel, particularly in the United States. Support is widespread throughout the United States, in areas often unexpected, while the Palestinian side is rarely stated. The solidarity between members of the United States and Israel continues in this clip as various politicians responded that if the US was attacked by its neighbors in the same way as Israel, it would respond in the exact same manner. The dominant rhetoric in the United States, particularly among political groups, is that Israel is simply protecting itself from hostile neighbors. The conflict has no time-frame. It is an eternal entity. This relates to the dominant Western narrative that Israelis live in perpetual fear of terrorist attacks by Arab neighbors/Palestinians. This, of course, ignores the complicated issues that surround the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The clips utilized throughout this segment reflect a variety of news programs and even political perspectives within the United States. Yet, this variety does not translate into the views of the conflict as Israel is seen as a justified actor with no detailed mention of the Palestinians (aside from Hamas launching missiles into Israeli territory, the justification for the Israeli response). Although The Daily Show is directed toward the youth in the United States and is broadcast on Comedy Central, the mocking reveals a great deal about the general portrayal of the situation in Gaza (and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on a whole) in Western/American media as well as the political response to the Israeli military position.

West Bank Story test video

here is the video (finally when you weren't looking I got the movie clip to copy--from google video--http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8860670051621711477)