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?