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.