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?