Last blog on Palestine...

Hi all!
I had mentioned this to Katrinka, and she thought it a good idea for me to post it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7948494.stm

It's a BBC article about how Israel is being represented by an Israeli Jew AND an Israeli Arab at the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 (it is a European song contest, started in 1956, where each country chooses a song to represent it and they have a competition where they decide the "best song of Europe", and the winning country organises the contest next year... it's been happening for 53 years, now).
Anyway, the Arab singer has been getting a lot of backlash from the Palestinians for representing Israel in the contest and the article talks about those things and her reaction to it.

Btw, it's a big deal in Israel since Eurovision is the world's biggest non-sporting TV event in the world and it's important in many European counries - it's estimated that some 200-600 million people watch it world-wide every year; so one can understand why there would be a lot of discussion about it.

Ok.... that's all!
Cheers!

In case anyone is interested...

From the BBC... pretty interesting about cartoons in the Middle East

here

Palestinian Opinion

Here is a poll I found about Palestinian opinion after the Gaza War. I thought this would be interesting to look at in comparison with the Gallup Poll about American opinions. I've been searching all day for a poll about Israeli opinions, but I can't seem to find one that's current. If anyone knows of one, I'd be really interested to see it. According to the poll, which can be seen in full at: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-223839, a large majority of Palestinians still prefers resistance to negotiations. What do you guys think of this? At this point, it seems inevitable that the Israeli's will completely leave and the Palestinian state will return to its pre- 1948 configuration. What will be the result of continued resistance other than more fighting? This is why I really wanted to find an Israeli public opinion poll, because I would be really interested to see what percentage of Israeli's favor continued force over negotiations. Also, real quick, sorry for the late posts, I could not figure out for the life of me how to make this work until last night, so I understand if you don't have time to respond, but if you do happen to know of an Israeli opinion poll even after the blog ends Thursday night, I would be really interested to know. Anyways, Here is a summary of the report:





Poll no. 67_January 2009

Press Release
A public opinion poll conducted by Jerusalem Media & Communications Center

**
Rise in popularity of Hamas' leaders and government with decline in popularity of Fatah
The Palestinian public prefers resistance over negotiations
The majority believes that US President Obama won't bring change; however, a small
ratio still feels optimistic
Turkey, Venezuela, Iran and Hezbollah are the most popular regional parties
A majority supports international supervision over the process of Gaza reconstruction

More Cartoons

This cartoon was entered in the Gaza Cartoon of the Year Contest and won an honorable mention. I was particularly drawn to this one because it seems to voice conflicting views. On the one hand, you have the Palestinian perspective: barren land, destroyed villages, IDF tanks entering the village aimed for destruction (despite the fact that it is already destroyed). The women using herself as a rocket, however, throws this image off. It admits that suicide bombing is a reality, which is not something I found in a lot of the Palestinian media sources. Ultimately, though it shows the disproportion of the forces, because how much harm can one women do compared to IDF tanks? This is misleading, though, because suicide bombings can do a lot of damage to a lot of innocent people. I would be interesting to know what your guys's take on this cartoon is, and what you think it's trying to say. Also, I uploaded some other cartoons as well that I thought were particularly striking.

Facebook's Take On The Conflict

These are two links to facebook groups entitled:

"Israel is not a country - Delist it from facebook as one"

and

"Palestine is not a country - Delist it from facebook as one"

I thought these were interesting because each group tries to legitimate their claim to space by negating the others claim. Both groups continually reference time as the reason the land is theirs. In the "Palestine is not a country" group the members claim that Israel has claim to the land because it owned the land so long ago, while in the "Israel is not a country" group the members claim that Palestine has claim to the land because it owned the land so recently. It raises some interesting questions about whether recent or ancient ownership is more legitimate, or if they're even comparable.

Another interesting part about these groups is that you get to see the views of everyday people, not just politicians and reporters. There are also hundreds of groups that advocate peace between the two groups.





http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2366623903
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?sid=125865a3f54a141a4f6e31172d0156a7&gid=55153379953

Inheriting the conflict

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/sites/drupalblogs.newsobserver.com/files/images/babingaza.jpg

I found this cartoon on another blog called “The Opinion Shop,” which is part of the larger periodical “The News & Observer.”

This cartoon makes us question how not only the actions of the Israelis and the Palestinians but also all of our decisions today will shape the world for future generations. Our generation has already inherited an economy on its knees and an unstable future, full of conflict and its aftermath. It is imperative to recognize that how we handle our own situation that we have come into will likewise be passed on again.

Furthermore, I immediately was reminded of the ending of The Lemon Tree when I saw this cartoon. When she replants the lemon tree with the children, Dalia examines the new sapling’s representation of the future of the struggle. She reflects that, “it meant moving on. It meant it’s te next generation now that’s going to create a reality. That we are entrusting something in their hands. We are entrusting both the old and the new” (264). Of course, as opposed to the cartoon, this passage relays much more of a sense of hope about the power of responsibility that the youth will hold in resolving (or not resolving) this conflict. They both, however, emphasize the reality that this conflict will indeed pass through more generations and each of these generations will greatly influence the outcome of the struggle.

Push for Peace to Avert Violence

Article: "Push for Peace to Avert Violence, Gaza Donors Told" by Alastair Sharp and Will Rasmussen, Reuters

This article addresses some interesting issues. Donors gather and give billions of dollars to rebuild areas of the west bank that, withing a year or two, promptly get destroyed and then need to be rebuilt again. It seems as though many donors are asking the question, "Will we once again reconstruct something we built a few years ago and now has been hammered and flattened?" I think that this is a very interesting question. Of coarse if a was a donor I would want to see that there was some political progress before I dumped millions into the area.

I can also see why it would be hard to just no longer give any aid to the area even if there was no political progress. I feel like it is the responsibility of these third party's continue donating to the reconstruction of these areas even if there is not any political progress. Even if it is just for humanitarian reasons alone.

On the flip side of that is the fact that it is not worth donating any money if it is not allocated effectively to serve its desired purpose. The article states that "The United Nations and aid agencies say reconstruction will probably be hampered by the inability to deliver essential material such as cement and steel to the coastal strip because of an Israeli-led blockade. The Jewish state refuses to allow in material that militants could use to build rockets."

In the article the refusal of the west to recognize the "democratically elected" Hamas is also an issue. Should the West recognize Hamas as a lagitimate or continue to label it as a terrorist orgnization? Do you think that these donors and foreign countries should continue to give aid abd money? Should they make donations contingent on political change first?

Palestinian PM Resigns

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3

Here are three articles from the Jerusalem Post about the Palestinian PM who just resigned a few days back so the PNA (Palestinian National Authority) could have some sort of unity going into the Fatah/Hamas talks coming up soon in Cairo. I found it interesting how from the searches I performed on LexisNexis and GoogleNews for "Fayad AND Fatah" and "Fayyad AND Fatah", the sources with the most articles on this were Israeli or Jewish. I found very few sources from the Middle East and an overall surprisingly lack of publicity from all sources. Is there a reason why it is on the Israeli and Jewish sites and not showing up at all on Palestinian and (most) Arab sites? Could this be that the Israelis and Jews are trying to show a division in the PNA and undermine the legitimacy of this organization? Are the Palestinians ignoring this so they appear to be more organized? I was able to find a short article on Al Jazeera English but surprisingly there were no comments like there oftentimes are for articles involving Israel/Palestine.

One State= No State

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22qaddafi.html

This article is borderline ridiculous. It is written by Muammar Qaddafi, the current leader of Libya, and proposes a one state solution. First of all, you would be hard pressed to find any Israeli or Palestinian, Arab or Jew, who thought a one state solution was a good idea. It may be true that Jews and Arabs coexisted peacefully prior to 1948, (although I think a history of Arab rebellions and Jewish rebel groups disputes that), but at this point there has been too much conflict, too much suffering, and too much internal tension for a one state solution to be possible.

Beyond that, the claims he makes, about Palestinian refugees needing to return to their homeland and Palestinians working within the Israeli or "Israeltine" government can never happen because Israel, by definition is a Jewish State, and an Arab majority population wise, in a democracy, would crush any opposition. Israel would not remain a Jewish state for long and by taking that away you are effectively destroying Israel. No Israeli will ever agree to that.

Also, the kind of refugee return plan Qaddafi is proposing is impossible. Palestinian refugees are not just looking to return to Israel, they are looking to return to specific places in Israel, many of those places now inhabited by others. For such a small country to absorb such a large influx of people is ludricrous. Imagine if the United States was told tomorrow that they had to give back all of the land of the Native Americans, and that everyone non native had to leave. It would be chaos and that is without the added influx of people. It just isn't possible.

Peace Through Education

http://www.hamline.edu/shared/news_items/university/July2008/middleeastconference.html

This is the best article I could find, but it doesn't even begin to explain what we have done at Hamline. In an earlier post, someone questioned the possibility of peace, just like all of us, I am sure question the possibilty of peace in a region so torn apart and with such a rich history of conflict.

But I do believe that peace is possible. Though the article doesn't mention it specifically, this education program was enacted in Palestine in schools in the West Bank and in Gaza. Gaza's partner Israeli school lies just across the border, and for the last few years, the Israeli students attending that school have gotten used to last minute runs to bomb shelters and interrupted classes. Now, with their sister school in jeapordy, the students at the Israeli school worry about the well being of their partners, while also praying that the current conflict will lead to some quiet along the border.

It is a tricky place to be in, for all these students, Palestinian, Israeli, Jordananian and Lebanese. When they came together this summer, at first, no one was willing to talk. Then, they talked politely, quietly, attempting to not offend each other. Then, they started yelling, hurling accusations back and forth, swapping stories of suffering until they were hoarse and dry and the mouth. Then came the constructive talk, the "ok, so now what?" moment. It was phenomenal to behold, and even though they didn't come up with a plan for world peace, they did develop a level of mutual understanding and respect most media sources make out to be impossible.

There are no easy answers or quick fixes but if Palestinians and Israelis living on the Gaza border can summon up enough empathy to picture themselves in the opposite perspective's shoes, then I have hope. I expect it to be long, arduous process, with education building upon education, which each generation becmoing a little less militant than the last, until a history of violence and agression stops determining a future of possible peace.

Propoganda or Truth?

All propoganda holds a tiny ounce of truth, and no one would argue that the atrocities in Gaza did not and are not occuring. But the premise for understanding the violence differs dramatically depending upon who is asked. When in Israel we heard numerous statements to the effect of "We only act when provoked." "Hamas struck first." "We cannot expect our citizens to live under the constant threat of Kitusha rockets." It seemed plausible, understandable, justified even. But like all conflicts Israel gets itself involved in, most recently and notably the 2006 war with Lebanon, when Israel is poked, it demolishes back. It is never an eye for an eye, it's a head for an eye, exagerrated retaliation, revenge.

This video compares Israel to Nazi's and Gaza to the Holocaust. What is most surprising to me is that it isn't Palestinians who are painting a portrait of modern day genocide in Gaza, it is outside sources. This isn't the story of a people vying for international sympathy, they already have it. This is the story of a people begging for international interference.

To be fair, a lot of the incidents mentioned in this video, white phosphorus, parent killings, the gathering of a large number of people in the heart of Gaza City, have been heavily contested by Israel. But then again, none of those happenings are things a country would be proud of. Bibi Netanyahu once measured other life against Israeli life and found the other to be lacking in terms of worth. If the death of one Israeli soldier resonates more strongly amongst the Israeli public than the death of 50 Gazan children does that make them inhuman?

Youth Perspectives

BBC news reporter, Tamasin Ford reports on the conflict in Gaza in the article below through a series of brief opinion interviews.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_word/newsid_7830000/7830179.stm

What struck me as significant in this article is the age group that Ford targeted in his interviews. Almost all of these individuals are between the ages nineteen and twenty-one, with only one woman older than this at the still young age of thirty-one. The face that the opinions of the young adult population are being expressed certainly gives a very specific perspective on this type of news briefing.

For most of those interviewed, it seems that they are largely speaking from their own individual experiences as opposed to identifying mostly with they histories of their heritages. This in itself is quite noteworthy, as so much of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is grounded in a past that spans huge scales of time and space. Instead, many of these individuals are responding to their immediate situations, and they further the discussion by identifying with their position as British Jews and Muslims. As a result, another perception of national identity is added to the discourse.

For example, before World War II, Jews were very much a diasporic people, and did not necessarily identify with the country they lived in but rather with their religious identity. When Herzl articulated the concept of Zionism, this identity was manifested into the land of Israel as a Jewish homeland, and Jews finally found a sense of self in nationality. In the interviews, however, it is clear that these individuals find validity and significance through both their religious affiliations and the lives they have lived as members of British society.

To bring a bit of humour to the issue...

I was searching youtube for videos about Palestine and Israel and I stumbled across this amazing website with 4 episodes of a cartoon about Ahmed and Salim. They are two brothers, wannabe terrorists, while their father is trying to get them to kill Jews and Americans or, the best thing - commit suicide by bombing themselves.

The authors are two young Israeli men (looks like they are students) but they claim not to make fun of Palestinian people or Muslims, but of terrorists. It is very, very, very funny (or at least I thought so) and I decided to put it up on the blog. I found it very interesting that they combined aspects American culture (i.e. songs, TV shows, game consoles, etc.) and that they had "re-created" Arabic from a bunch of other languages - English, Hebrew, Arabic (I hope...), Spanish, Italian, and I am sure a dozen more.

Anyhow, it shows terrorism from a very funny light and it does trivialise it, but I suppose that is the easiest way to go around it, if one does not want to face the real problems behind it.
Anyway, if the link above doesn't work, here it is again: http://www.ahmedandsalim.com/

Do you think that it is crossing the line here, especially since it is Israelis who are creating these videos?

Enjoy! :)

"Live from Gaza"

This you tube video is a sort of SNL type video about the Gaza Strip conflict. I think a lot of political humor like this seems normally brings light to a situation, humanizing it a bit, because you are laughing at something you know shouldn't, but at the time its okay because you feel helpless and that's all you can do, even though you know at the heart of it, its not funny at all. I would normally agree with that (because like many Macalester students, I enjoy programs such as teh Daily Show and the Colbert Report), but maybe its because we've spent the last two or three weeks talking about this conflict and all of its complications and there is so much at stake for everyone involved, or maybe it really was just crossing the line--but i just couldn't find this funny. maybe this is just one of those situations, that you should just avoid poking fun of, because there is just too much going on to simplify. instead of bringing light to the situation, it seemed to trivialize it, and generalize it into a bunch of stereotypes that don't need the reinforcing.

here is the youtube url if you want to read the comments and the long-winded author's description of the video

Just imagine

Article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7913313.stm

"We're dead - either by Israeli weapons or as the living dead."

When we graduated high school, there was a lot of talk. Talk about our future, our college plans, our career goals, our military service, whatever it was, we talked. And the talk was pretty big. We had plans, but more importantly, or what I didn't realize, was that we the privilege of having plans. Now in our dorm rooms and on the lawn in front of old main, we talk even bigger. And while we sit in our sequestered classrooms, or online chat rooms, and discuss the gravity of the situation in Gaza, their reality doesn't even begin to hit home.

We make plans because we can. Speculating about what grad school we are applying to, where we are going to work, who we are going to marry, how many children we are going to have, the places we are going to visit, all of it is not beyond reason. No one would tell us we are chasing pipe dreams. When we feel politically frustrated we have outlets with which to vent our opinions. When one internship opportunity, or job hunt, or apartment rental doesn't go our way, there are others. We have options. We have the privilege of options. The point is probably made.

When reading about Gaza I rarely find an article that talks about what the 20 somethings are feeling, the adults who are still children. The adults are to blame, the children are victims, so what does that make the inbetweens? The three men in this article have seen unspeakable violence, and witnessed events that only make ghost appearances in our nightmares. That is their reality. What is the correct way to act? The moral way to feel? To fight for one's country? But on who's side, and with what purpose? Is the outcome they dream of even achievable? Do they just ignore it, and try to live life with a semblance of normalcy? What is normal, for a Palestinian in Gaza?

So many questions and so few answers, and maybe that means they are copping out, too afraid to try to find a solution, or just too disheartened. But can they be blamed? I read one BBC article and I lose a substantial amount of my arsenal of faith in peace. The questions isn't even "How do they find international peace?" It is "How do they find personal peace?"

Issue of Recognition?

I've always wondered what it takes for a state to me formally recognised. Apparently, only the UN!
So, I've looked into the Israel-Palestine issue and how many countries recognise each.
In this case, Wikipedia was the closest to a good source that I could find, so please do not crucify me for using it!
Anyhow, there are 193 sovereign states in the world today, with UN recognition and 10 others without UN backing. Israel is one of the 193, while the "Palestinian Occupied Territories" are one of the 10 non-recognised.
Apparently, Israel has ties with 163 countries, and 36 countries without any sort of ties, as this map shows. You can also see the map on Wikipedia.

















From the countries that do not recognise Israel it is very obvious that almost all of them are Muslim, with a few notable exceptions - North Korea and Cuba, both Communist, and Venezuela and Bolivia which are leaning towards Socialism. I found that fact to be rather interesting...

Anyhow, Palestine on the other hand has not been internationally recognised by the UN (probably because of the possibility of a veto by the US), despite having PR China and the Russian Federation supporting Palestine. A total of 97 states recognise Palestine, so that represents 48% of the sovereign states of the world (or 47,8% of all the states - recognised and not recognised).






















Now my question is more about the way we decide what is a state and what isn't. Should the UN Security Council be responsible for these things, or should we have a majority vote decide. Either way, Palestine does not get independence, but that might change. I am sure some countries would change their points of view if the rule of "51% needed for declaration of sovereignty" was implemented, and they would recognise Palestine as well.
But in this case there is one problem - what do they recognise? What did those 97 countries recognise - Palestine as meaning the West Bank and Gaza, or Palestine as in the entire Mandate Palestine? Most of the countries that have recognised Palestine recognise Israel as well. How does that work?

If you look as to who recognised Palestine, it is interesting to notice that there is a division in Europe - the East recognises Palestine, while the West still does not. Almost all the countries of Africa and Asia recognise Palestine, while in the Americas it is only 3 countries with official recognition.

What are your thoughts on this? I think it is very interesting and that it is a very important issue that needs to be addressed.

Claims of Discrimination in the Defensive and the Offensive

Sorry for the technical difficulties:

I found the following cartoon on politicalcartoons.com:

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/f2116d66-58d1-4f13-8695-ba846af3e9ce.html

The cartoon is in some ways a commentary on the U.N.’s involvement in the conflict. Throughout the entire struggle between Israel and Palestine, the U.N. has often proven ineffective. For example, several resolutions have been passed to further the peacekeeping process, but have not been enforced or in many cases have been clearly ignored. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have violated international law and the Geneva Accords, and countless times, Israel has claimed that they are merely protecting their territory as the Jewish homeland.

Furthermore, this image largely speaks to the decision of the United States, Canada and Israel to boycott the United Nations conference on racism that is scheduled to take place in April in Geneva. This demonstration is a continuation from a similar conference that was held in Durban, South Africa in 2001 in which a draft document likened Zionism to racism. It was then that the United States and Israel walked out of the conference in protest, claiming that an associating Zionism with racism is in fact anti-Semitic. As a result, the three countries have refused to attend this year’s conference unless no expression of this comparison is promised.

It is clear that this cartoon portrays Israel’s accusations of anti-Semitism as merely an excuse to ward off criticisms for militancy and refuse responsibility for their own actions. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have suffered from severe discrimination throughout their histories. At what point does a people’s defense of its dignity and demands for just evaluation turn into an attempt to validate their own unjust actions?

Claims of Discrimination in the Defensive and the Offensive

I found the following political cartoon on politicalcartoons.com:

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/f2116d66-58d1-4f13-8695-ba846af3e9ce.html

Response to "Palestinians=Native Americans?"

I am having problems commenting on the other blog so here is my response

I think you have a good point about who are the "rightful" owners of the land. It seems difficult to define a point at which we can say that a certain group of people (whether it is an imagined community or a "real" one) can lay a claim to the rights of land. In some African communities they never had land "ownership"; instead people were stewards of the land. It is not as though they had no rights to the land because they did not possess a title deed. In either case, many Palestinians (as shown in the "Lemon Tree") may actually hold deeds from before the creation of the state of Israel. Do we count the point at which we start to use a Western system as the basis for "ownership"? There are so many different ways in which this process of assigning land ownership could occur, how can we determine which is the most "fair"? In some ways it almost seems simpler to leave things as they are. Can you imagine what it would be like if we were suddenly forced to return all of the lands in the US to their "rightful owners"?

Clinton Steps Up Through Talk at Israel

The WSJ published an article surrounding the Obama administrations relationship to Israel and Palestine. 

WSJ.com 3.5.09

This Video goes along well with another article published by WSJ.com entitled "U.S. to Press Netanyahu to Curb Settler Activity" that explains the situation in more detail.

The thought of the U.S. shifting greater support for a two state solution is very interesting. I find it encouraging that the U.S. is beginning to speak out against some Israeli actions in the West Bank. At the moment though, I would not say that this was that strong of a signal from the Obama administration. The article talked briefly about the Obama administration's policy of refusing to support a unified Palestinian government until Hamas formally recognizes Israel's right to exist, renounces all violence and recognizes international agreements signed in the past by the Palestinian Liberation Organization. I thought that given the current situation there it almost seems unreasonable to hold a group to such constraints before recognizing it. I also wonder about what will happen if tensions build between Israel and the U.S. as a result of an increased effort from the U.S. to promote two separate states. These talks from the U.S. secretary of State Hilary Clinton could be the first sign of a shift in the stance of the United States. 

I don't think that the U.S. should condone Israel's actions as much as they have in the past, but I don't know what direction they should take. I don't think it would be wise of the U.S. to try to force a two state solution down another countries throat. I feel that any solution must come within. It may be possible for the U.S. to aid in some sort of solution, but they should definitely not forcefully push their own agenda in this region. This issue is so complicated I do not see an easy solution with two separate states. This is a very complicated issue and I am concerned that the U.S. may become to involved in something they don't understand and, as a result, will not be able to predict the effects of their actions within the region. What level do you think the U.S. should get involved with this issue? What do you think of the two state solution? 

Sharon cartoon

This cartoon is of Ariel Sharon killing Palestinian children (or so says this website http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm). It was created in 2002, and run by Arab News, a newspaper in Saudi Arabia.

This cartoon shows the obvious anti-Israel sentiment felt by most in the Arab world. by showing Sharon brutally killing children, this cartoon is painting a negative image of Sharon and Israel that is common in the Middle East, but not so common here. In the cartoon, Sharon's weapon of choice seems to be a swatsika-shaped axe, implying that Israel's actions are equivalent to those of the Nazi's during the Holocaust, and also perhaps that Israel uses the horrors that happened during that time to justify their acts against Palestine now.

The very strong anti-Israel sentiment throughout the Arab world is a definite hurdle for the Gaza Strip conflict. I think that international pressure on both Israel and Palestine to come to a peace agreement is necessary, but that becomes near impossible when the pressure for peace is not there in the surrounding region. Many Arabs do not want an Israeli state (ie. as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once famously expressed for Israel to be "wiped off the map"). If a two-state solution were to be created, would neighboring countries allow it?

Claims of Discrimination in the Defensive and the Offensive

I found the following political cartoon on politicalcartoons.com:

Palestinians=Native Americans?

This a photo from a Palestinian protest in 2007, when former U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice came to Israel to meet with then Palestinian President Mahmoud Abba. There is a short article that goes with the photo, if you want to check that out: http://www.imemc.org/article/46551

When searching for things to post for this project, I found a lot of comparisons made between Native Americans of the U.S. and Palestinians, being that both peoples were displaced by a colonial power to smaller bound settlements else where. It is interesting that these protesters are not even addressing the Israelis, but the other powers involved, that have supported and enabled Israel's reclaiming of the Gaza area. They are appealing to an outside power, because maybe they know they cannot protest to Israel power about border checkpoints, because they know it will be fruitless, or maybe they believe that the U.S. has the power to help the situation.

I do think the comparison is valid. However, it comes down to a question of who was there first. For the Americas, it was the native peoples, but determining who the native peoples of the West Bank and of the entire Middle East is much more problematic--that's what they are fighting over! In the U.S., it is known that there were many people here before white settlers came and took the land. In this area, there has been so much transfering of power, that the history of the land is different depending on who you talk to. is the conflict a question of civilization? who was the first "civilized" peoples to live here or there? is that how the actions of white settlers has seemingly been justified (or atleast gone without much widespread criticsm) in the U.S.? These imaginative geogrpahies of who deserves to live where muddle the history of the land to a degree that seems unmuddleable.

response to bias in U.S. media film

I have just found an article that has some scholarly reactions to the video in my previous post. It is entitled “Radio-Canada Wrong In Airing Pro-Palestinian Advocacy Film.” It would appear that the playing of the video in my previous post has been the cause of much debate in Canada. The article claims that “by airing a film rife with false premises, serious omissions, and unfounded malicious allegations, the network not only misinformed Canadians about the politics and history of the Middle East, it also breached its own journalistic standards and practices by airing a one-sided partisan polemic bent on vilifying a fellow democracy, the state of Israel.” I think that this response to the film is very interesting.

 

It can be viewed at:

http://www.honestreporting.ca/2008/10/radio-canada-wrong-in-airing-pro-palestinian-advocacy-film.html#more 

 By referring to Israel as the “fellow democracy” there were red flags that immediately went off in my head about the objectivity of the response to the film. The article states that there was scholarly critique of the film by Yitzhak Santis who is the Director of Middle East Affairs for the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC). Supposedly he found many “decontextualizations, disinformation, selective emphasis and blatant lies, lack of balancing perspectives, lack of citations/documentation to back up assertions of facts, omission of facts, and straw man argumentations" within the film. There was a link to read the full scholarly critique, but it did not work and I could not find it anywhere on my own. This was really disappointing because just as the article blamed the film for lack of citations and credibility, I could not find any concrete examples that backed up anything in the article either. The article did not seem to prove that the U.S. media was not influenced in the ways that the film suggests, but simply to corrupt the information that was presented and write it off completely as propaganda that should never receive any media attention. To claim that a news station is no longer objective because they played something like this seems ridiculous. Would it not make more sense for a new station that wanted to remain objective to play propaganda and embellished reports from both sides if embellished reports were all that could be found?

This film was designed to show how the U.S. mainstream media is not objectively reporting and is being dominated by pro- Israeli filters. The filters are put in place in a complex series that prevent any real world events from being objectively reported on within the U.S. These Filters look like this:

Real World Events

These real world events go through the following filters

Business interests of corporate owners of mass media: 

The business owners have interests that extend outside of the US to the Middle East

Political elites:

Have power to access and influence mainstream media. They have the same economic interests as the corporate executives. 

Israel’s government PR campaign:

• Employs Americas largest PR firms
• 9 Israeli consulates help implement this campaign
• Private American Christian and Jewish Organizations organize grassroots opposition to any coverage in opposition to Israel

Watchdog Groups:

Pressure journalists and media outlets (CAMERA) 

I found this structure to be one of the more interesting things about this film. I made me question to what extent these filters really affect the objectivity of U.S. reporting. I feel that the video did a very nice job highlighting many of the filters surrounding Israel’s PR campaign and the pressure of some organizations on journalists to present a pro Israeli side, but I did not think there was the same hard proof about the business interests of the cooperate owners. That being said, some of the numbers that were flashed on the screen during the movie were quite staggering (like only 4% of the media coverage has mentioned occupation).

            I wonder to what extent media sources, like this film, affect the views of American people. When a lot of Israeli support is coming from religious organizations within the U.S., how would films such as this really change anybody’s viewpoint? I may just be pessimistic, but I feel like many people who are in the U.S. and not connected with the situation on a daily basis would be able to stick to their extreme and biased viewpoints. I think that people who believe strongly in one side over the other, especially within a religious organization, would simply write off a video like this one as pro Palestine propaganda.

This cartoon by Carlos Latuff was found on a pro-Palestinian blog called Israel’s 60th Birthday. Other cartoons “Subvert the Birthday” and remember it visually as 60 years since the Nakba, not as a celebratory photo opportunity but a commemoration of the “disaster” that is still mourned. The delivery of aid to Gaza is not without its own politics. In a conference that took place last week in Egypt, $4.48b (USD) was donated to reconstruct the Gaza Strip and aid the Palestinian Authority. The $900m pledged by the United States for rebuilding isn’t going to Hamas, which governs Gaza. Only $300m will go towards reconstruction of Gaza, and that will be funneled through organizations like the UN while the rest will be directed to the Palestinian Authority. The new administration in Washington has expressed support for a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. But with this pinpointed direction of aid it risks continuing the policy of the previous one by bolstering Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah while marginalizing Hamas and driving more wedges between the two factions as they struggle for control.



The closure of aid flows through Gaza’s borders that Latuff’s cartoon of last year refers to is still in effect. With 14,000 homes destroyed and infrastructure in tatters, the challenges posed by the blockade frustrate those wanting to aid those devastated by the 22-day conflict. By allowing the crisis to continue, the Israeli blockade keeps Gazans from getting access to reconstruction materials that have been offered. The picture of a baby blocked by the hand of a military that doesn’t see the desperation of the people it says it is preventing from obtaining more weapons is extreme, but not an unfair depiction of the situation. What Israel risk, besides escalating the humanitarian crisis in the increasingly isolated Gaza Strip, is provoking further anger and hostility. This blockade may aim to starve Hamas out of popularity and power, but if carried out too long, it can only embolden those who respond with terrorism. I don’t have confidence that the blockade is erected with wholly peaceful aims. It’s not too much to believe that by giving what violent groups can interpret as due cause to continue firing rockets, Israel is maintaining the conditions in which it can smother Gazan autonomy through its economic and military reprisals.

Netanyahu Video Statement on Gaza, Dec 2008

In Benyamin Netanyahu’s statement on Gaza, he makes a direct appeal to his international audience. Placing the challenges that Israel faces in terms foreigners can relate to, he simplifies the decisions made regarding Gaza. Using the scale of towns and neighborhoods, viewers can connect with the faces and people that are victims to these war crimes on their sovereign home. Posing the question, “what’s a country to do?” we are asked how we, “the international community”, would respond to the threats that he describes. Protecting its citizens through precise attacks, Iraq is taking the “necessary” action that any government would do to responsibly protect its citizens. The course that Israel has taken in the face of rocket attacks fired out of Gaza would be the one that any responsible government would.

His key verb is pinpoint, pinpoint, pinpoint, not strike or attack. Precision makes the action against Hamas justified, as he positions himself internationally as the voice (already replacing the discredited Olmert before he leaves office) of Israel’s measured, patient response to thousands of missiles. As the yet-to-be elected prime minister of Israel, in this video he aligns the status of his country with his desired observers. The legitimacy of his office (with him in it) and his state are key points here. Behind a desk flanked by the Israeli flag and signs of achievement and academia, Netanyahu’s message builds on and amplifies the status of his position. Delivering his statement in flawless English, he is a relatable, familiar, white figure of authority. This is something that a Hamas leader, like Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, although dressed in classic western political wear, isn’t ever granted from the mass American audience.

As he frames the military action against Gaza, Netanyahu makes certain that British and American audiences can connect with a familiar rhetoric that they heard from their immediate past leaders. As the Blair and Bush have, Netanyahu places this conflict as a battle for “peace and decency.” The security of its citizens, the future of the region, and peace for the world are goals that most governments would support. He almost says “We’ve tried diplomacy” when he reminds the viewers that Israel has been talking to “the Hamas” (putting the article “the” before Hamas begs it to be followed by “terrorists” or another pejorative noun). His message is crafted carefully and palatably. Garnering legitimacy for himself and the military actions that he campaigned on and wishes to extend is a clear goal for Netanyahu as he enters the office of prime minister. Whether he will be able to direct international opinion towards his geopolitical bent that sees Iran and Hamas as inextricably linked terrorist brethren and a economic “development”-driven one state solution as the “just” direction for the region will be interesting to watch.

Christian Action for Israel

The role of religion is very important in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The alleged foundations of the Israeli state were based on the Biblical ideas of the "Jewish homeland". My focus, though, won't be directly on religion in Israel or Palestine, but the role of religion in influencing the opinion of the American and Canadian public.
I stumbled across a very interesting site called "Christian Action for Israel", which deals with the state of Israel and its rights on the land. One of the articles there was called "Witness to the Nations" with the subtitle - "Occupation? Don't buy the misinformation!"
The authors' main argument is the Bible, as is usual with religious people. For example, when they speak about the "lack of biblical/historical knowledge and understanding" (see the irony there?), they say that "Arab/Muslim hatred of the Jews, and or, an ancient jealousy of them that burns deeply in the hearts of Israel's Arab kin..." This shows us the image that the Israeli's and/or Christians are superior to the Muslims, who supposedly feel an ancient jealousy towards the Christians and Jews. They do not put any sort of referencing or sources, and it is very obvious that it is the ideas of the "other" that are pervasive here.
They also ask "What does God, creator of the heavens and the earth have to say about this tiny tract of land called Israel in His Word - the Holy Bible", when actually, as every Christian ought to know, the Holy Bible is NOT the Word of God, unlike the K'uran, for example. That is just a theological fact, but is often ignored in cases like this.

Another interesting article was the Senate Floor Statement by the current Senator of Oklahoma, James M. Inhofe, on March 4th, 2002. I've put up the link from the Senator's web page, because the one on the Christian Action site had some mistakes (i.e. date of the Six-Day War).
Anyway, he talks about the history of the area (or at least, an interpretation of it) and gives a lot of ridiculous statements such as ""If this [peace] is something that Israel wants to do, it is their business to do it. But anyone who has tried to put the pressure on Israel to do this [peace] is wrong" or "Where was this great Palestinian nation [in 1867]? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there" and "If we are not going to allow them a homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to cede territory, is going to give up land?". The goal of his speech is to give the 7 reasons why Israel is entitled to the land, and his strongest argument is: "No. 7, I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so."
Obviously, he must be very popular with the people of Oklahoma, who are generally thought of as religious people, since he has been their Senator since 1994. His general platform about issues involving the U.S. such as social issues, not just foreign relations, are generally guided by religion. In an interview with the "General Council of the Assemblies of God" in June 2002, he talked about he brought religion to the Senate. Actually, the title of the interview is "Seving Christ in the Senate". Talking about key issues for Christians, he mentions the Middle East and the Scriptures, "I don’t believe there is a single issue we deal with in government that hasn’t been dealt with in the Scriptures." Basically, his entire political platform is based on religion, and so are his views of the Middle East and the solution to the problem of the conflict in Palestine. Just following the words of God.

I also found an interesting video on YouTube, which has been filmed at a conference called "Christians United for Israel". The video is from June 2008, but it shows how some fundamental Christians in the United States think about Israel and Palestine. The video itself is pretty ridiculous and, frankly, somewhat disturbing. One hears people say that the U.S. and Israel "have a common enemy, the Muslim people", and that Christians "are fighting what is behind the Muslim people, which is Satan" and ideas that if the U.S. does not support Israel, the Muslims will take over Israel and Iraq (?!) and then come to take the U.S. Unfortunately, in the U.S. religious people seem to have more power than in any other 'Western' country and they help keep the support for Israel high, on the basis of the Bible and their pre-conceptions of Jews and Arabs.

What do you think? Should we try to get "secular" in this issue? Do you think we can actually achieve piece without being secular? Any other thoughts?

Jewish Forward Spoof on Gaza

Link to spoof of Extreme Makeover. Is this over the line? I do not think anyone would argue that people are not allowed to make fun of themselves but when it is something like this and it involves such a tense situation is this over the line? In the case of the Danish comics a few years ago that incensed the entire Muslim world it was very contentious to have an outsider "making fun of" something which is clearly a sensitive issue. While the rest of the Backward (it is the spoof version of the Jewish Daily Forward, the premier Jewish news source in the United States) is much more tame and self-deprecating, this seems to toe the line a little bit. What do you guys think?

More on Media and Perspectives

The following is a homemade news briefing of the Israeli Palestinian Conflict in Gaza that I found on Youtube:



There has been quite a bit on discussion on this blog about the position of the media on the struggle in Gaza. After watching this video, I had several conflicting thoughts as to its responsibility as a piece of media. First of all, it is obviously an unprofessional, which shows in many ways—Not only does it broadcast several mistakes, one being an obvious slip up by calling Palestine Pakistan, but it also exhibits blatant biases, calling anyone crazy who doesn’t believe in a two state solution with a shared Jerusalem. Furthermore, it is in many ways tactless, and is at times offensive by simplifying this extremely complex conflict.

With this said, however, we must question the responsibility this video assumes. Does this person feel that he is fulfilling a duty as an informer or is it simply a means of expression, and if the latter, does that excuse its faults? It is also interesting to consider how many people watch and accept this video as a reliable news source.

Another note I wanted to point out is the significance of the producer using his dog as a subject while delivering the briefing. He admits that the conflict is so convoluted and tragic that many times it is easier to just detach oneself, in this case by viewing a harmless and friendly object in the midst of news on grief and destruction. Is it irresponsible of the man behind the camera to enable and even encourage this detachment or is he merely mocking our physical distance in America from the conflict and how most of the public usually reacts to this kind of news. One must question how much it differs from the somber newscaster on any broadcast news station who delivers a briefing on the Israeli offensive in Gaza and then after a commercial break, greets viewers once again with a bubbly smile. I don’t have many answers but was interested in hearing all of your opinions.

Is the Israel/Palestine situation going nowhere

It may just be me, but I am of the opinion that after increased periods of conflict the amount of attempts at dialogue from outside sources seems to increase while the dialogue between the two sides seems to decrease. This relates to a lecture I attended by Dr. John Freeman, a political scientist from the University of Minnesota. He received a NSF grant for this work on "Bayesian Time Series Models for the Analysis of International Conflict". In this he spoke on how there is a relation between the sentiments of both the Israel and Palestinian people. As the Israelis become more inclined towards peace, the Palestinians are not as excited about it and then vice versa. For all you math people think of it as cos(x) and -cos(x). He used surveys/polls of both Israelis and Palestinians and found a striking inverse relationship very similar to this mathematical model.

Considering the radicals in both camps are we destined to continue along this oscillating path or will one side prevail? Here is an article from the English version of Al Jazeera about the UK's willingness to talk to Hezbollah. 

I am having problems loading and linking to the actual paper about the time-series but here is the citation. You can find it searching on  Macalester Library website in the WorldCat search box.

Brandt, P. T., and J. R. Freeman. "Advances in Bayesian Time Series Modeling and the Study of Politics: Theory Testing, Forecasting, and Policy Analysis." POLITICAL ANALYSIS -ANN ARBOR THEN OXFORD-. 14. 1 (2006): 1-36.

BBC Refuses to Air Gaza Aid Appeal

The BBC has itself made news by refusing requests to air a charity appeal for the people of Gaza following the destruction there that has left more than 50,000 homeless. British news channel Sky has joined the BBC in refusing to air a message from the Disasters Emergency Committee asking for donations for Palestinians affected by the recent conflict. Citing the need to remain impartial and apolitical in their coverage of the situation in the Middle East, BBC has drawn wide criticism from prominent voices in politics, religion, and the media. Not being able to count on free airtime to broadcast the appeal, the DEC reports more difficulty in raising awareness and funds. The DEC is not a political group and many have said that the sudden calling on "editorial independence" to justify not airing the aid appeal is itself a political decision. In the past the DEC has gotten airtime to request aid for victims of sensitive political-military situations without British broadcasters worrying that granting that space would be a political move or speak to an editorial ideology.



Does the BBC have an obligation to use its public role to give access to those seeking to direct towards war victims or is its mission as completely removed from the conflict more important? With this issue many question how giving time to “endorse” Palestinians affected by the Israeli invasion is an endorsement of Hamas that would undermine the objectivity of the Beeb. In fact by publicly refusing to give voice to these appeals, critics now wonder if the BBC is trying to deny the extent of the devastation inflicted on Gaza by the IDF. What many see as a politicization of a humanitarian crisis by the BBC has provoked questions of what political impartiality the BBC can claim. The BBC is playing with the consideration of not wanting to appear aligned politically towards the Israelis or Gaza in this conflict or incite controversy. It seems a dangerous amount of sensitivity to avoid appearing biased towards the victims of violence.

Links from the Comments page

The following links were in the comments of the Gallup Poll post. They didn’t link automatically so I’ve put them in as a post so you can get to them more easily.

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348984&story_id=12953839

Economist article: Adrienne


http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.macalester.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T5964478281&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T5964098517&cisb=22_T5964478284&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=9&nodeStateId=101en_US,1&docsInCategory=12&csi=306910&docNo=4

Lexis nexus link: Morgan


http://freedomfolks.com/?p=5730

Freedom Folks link: Andrew

Gallup Polls About Gaza

Here is an article from Gallup Polls about American opinions or lack of opinions on Gaza related issues.

Americans’ Support for Israel Unchanged Since Gaza Conflict

Most Americans sympathize with Israel, view it favorably

• USA
• Government and Politics
• Perceptions of Foreign Countries
• Americas
• Northern America

by Lydia Saad

Page:12

PRINCETON, NJ -- The Obama administration has signaled it will be more energetic than its predecessor in brokering a Mideast peace, with the appointment of a special envoy and with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to the region this week. While their government may be steering a new course, Americans' views toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict haven't changed: nearly 6 in 10 (59%) say their sympathies in the conflict lie more with the Israelis; just 18% side with the Palestinians.

According to Gallup's annual World Affairs survey, updated Feb. 9-12, 2009, about a quarter of Americans are partial to neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians. This includes 9% saying they favor neither side, 4% saying they favor both equally, and 10% with no opinion. The 59% favoring Israel this year is identical to what Gallup found in February 2008, and similar to the annual reading each year since 2006.

Additionally, the new poll finds 63% of Americans holding a favorable view of Israel, including 21% holding a very favorable view of that country. Only 29% have an unfavorable view of Israel, including just 8% "very unfavorable."

Favorability toward Israel was slightly higher a year ago at this time, when 71% viewed it favorably. Israel's military incursion into Gaza in December and January that killed more than 1,000 civilians and resulted in a major humanitarian crisis may have dampened American favorability toward that country slightly. However, today's rating of Israel is identical to the average favorability score for Israel since January 2000.

By contrast, the Palestinian Authority is seen in a mostly negative light, with only 15% viewing it positively and 73% negatively. And, among those holding strong views, the balance of opinion is even more negative: just 1% have a very favorable view vs. 30% very unfavorable.

Favorability toward the Palestinian Authority has varied some since 2000, ranging from 11% to 27%, but has registered close to 15% for each of the past three years.

Aid for Gaza

The issue at hand this week in the Middle East is international funding for humanitarian and economic aid to the war-torn Gaza Strip.

Attending a Gaza aid conference in Egypt on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States will provide $900 million in aid to the Palestinians, but specified that only $300 million would be directed toward Gaza and that all of it would be channeled through the U.S.-backed Palestinian Authority led by President Abbas in the West Bank, not the Hamas-led government in Gaza.

This isolation of Hamas in U.S. aid to the Palestinians would seem to be consistent with the American public's general opposition to providing the Hamas government with any financial assistance, even if it were to formally recognize Israel. According to a Gallup Poll conducted shortly after the Hamas party won the January 2006 Palestinian elections, only 35% favored providing aid to the Palestinian Authority under Hamas leadership under any conditions (5% unconditionally and 30% if Hamas were to recognize Israel), while 57% said the United States should not provide that government with any aid.

Two of the more prominent participants in the Gaza aid conference are Egypt, the host country, and Saudi Arabia, which has pledged $1 billion of the $5 billion raised. Egypt is nearly as highly ranked as Israel, according to the two countries' overall favorable ratings among Americans (59% for Egypt vs. 63% for Israel), although far fewer have a "very favorable" view of Egypt than of Israel (8% vs. 21%, respectively).

Americans view Saudi Arabia far less well, with only 31% favorable and 60% unfavorable. Opinion of Saudi Arabia fell sharply between February 2001 and February 2002 -- spanning the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, which involved several Saudi-born hijackers -- and has yet to recover.

Bottom Line

President Barack Obama's desire to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on his watch -- something Clinton reiterated this week -- may put him at odds with the newly elected leadership of Israel, but not necessarily with the American public. In 2002, Gallup found 48% of Americans in favor of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and only 27% opposed. Support rose to 74% under the provision that the Palestinian government demonstrated it could stop suicide bombings in Israel.

At the same time, Clinton's recent assurance that U.S. support for Israel is "unshakable, durable, [and] fundamental" is consistent with Israel's broadly positive image in the United States, as well as with Israel's solid advantage over the Palestinians in American "sympathies."

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,022 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 9-12, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

There is a lot of information to take in here.
The first question I had was: What happened in 2005 (when Israeli support went down and Palestinian went up) and what happened 1991 (when Israeli support spiked Palestinian support decreased). So I did some Googling and found some vague answers: in 2005, the Palestinian Authority was in control of Gaza and in Sept. all Israeli troops and settlers ceased to be in the area. In 1991, there was the Madrid Conference. Neither of these events really unveil the reasoning behind disruption in the pattern of American opinion. I do not know enough to speculate further.

According to the polls, Israel is still seen positively by most Americans. More Americans feel the "other" category (both, niether, or no opinion) more than the support Palestinians. However, many Americans also support an independent Palestianian state (and more so if they stop suicide bombings).

I think most of these graphs show that the basic trend of American support of Isreal is embedded in social thought. I would say today, many people do not know the details or a very thurough history of the Gaza conflict and so they feel what they think an American is supposed to. Supporting Isreal is a demonstration of patriotic loyalty becasue: 1. America and Isreal are friends and 2. Hamas supports Palestine, and America isn't friends with terrorists or their friends. This is the age old problem of imagined communities and constructed identities on the basis of ignorance about "the other." We allow our uninformed selves to make judgements on situations that we know little about because we have been conditioned to keep our friends close and the others at bay, with questioning or challenging the information we have or the sources we get it from.

Different media interpretation of the same thing

Hey all! It seems as if I am the first one to post on the blog.

First of all, let me apologise for this post being sooooo way too long. The next one will be MUCH shorter, I promise.

I wanted to talk about the way the media (mainly the Internet, which is becoming extremely important nowadays) is portraying protests against the violence in Gaza, that have been happening in January.
I went on www.flikr.com and typed in "Gaza" to see what will pop up. And as I was browsing through the countless images, one in particular intrigued me. It was a photo of a pro-Palestinian rally in Amsterdam (http://flickr.com/photos/viory/3165131324/) and it made me think, what the world would have held from this photo before the attack on Gaza, if there had been a pro-Palestinian rally. My initial reflex was to think that some media, being very sensationalist, would label it to be a "pro-terrorist" or anti-American, or anti-Israeli rally - essentially "ANTI" being the crucial word. From what I've experienced from the media before the latest attacks on Gaza, was that the Palestinians were pro-terrorist, so the Israelis have a right to interfere, for it is for the best of all of us.

That photo made me want to compare how different media looked at rallies, so I did that. On one of the many blogs online, I found a very interesting interpretation of a pro-Palestinian rally happening in Chicago, on January 19th. The photo below is one of the two photos that were on the blog.



The blog is on the following link: http://amerisrael.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/01/for-those-curious-as-to-who-constitutes-the-radical-religious-left-in-america-visit-this-link-and-scroll-down-to-see-the-va.html .

If you read the text in the blog, it states that that was a "pro-terrorist" rally and that it was made by the religious left in the U.S., which I found very interesting and amusing (amusing, in a sarcastic way).
The blog re-creates the images that have been put forward by the media for so many years now - that all Muslims are terrorists, that any pro-Palestinian rally would automatically mean that it is pro-terrorist and anti-Israeli (which it does not have to be, even if it is a pro-Palestinian rally!), etc. And this blog just contributed to these arguments. It went even further, it claimed tha the "religious left" had "allied itself with Islamofascism".
My intuition tells me that the author of this blog does not even speak Arabic, in order to understand what those flags are saying. The image of the "terrorist" has become anyone who has a scarf around their face. That is the typical, uninformed, narrow-minded approach that has kept peace away from reaching Palestine/Israel. I think that, to a large extent, the unwillingness of foreign powers, and their lack of knowledge about the problems, has lead to the problems lasting since 1948. It is one of the world's longest-standing political issues, and if the UN had implemented its resolutions in the 40's and 60's the situation would probably look different now.
Anyhow... I am going on another tangent here (sorry for that).

The way that other media described the even is completely different. I will cite only two sites that I read, which talked about the same protest in Chicago:
http://chicagoist.com/2009/01/10/photo_gallery_another_pro-palestine.php?gallery0Pic=2#gallery

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/pro-palestinian-march-to-close-loop-streets.html
Both sites describe the rally as a "pro-Palestinian" rally and they state that there was another, pro-Israeli, rally that had happened a few days earlier.

What my point with this post is is that the media is very influential in the world with any issue, and so is with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the first time, I was able to experience almost unanimous support for the people of Gaza/Palestine (well, with some rare exceptions, like the one mentioned above) that was not the case before. The perceptions of the Palestinians and Israelis are changing in the minds of people. Even in the U.S., which has been Israel's strongest ally, there are more and more voices raised against what Israel is doing. So, what I am trying to do is to comment on the positive change in the media. That is that here is, finally, both sides of the story presented. There were news about pro-Israeli rallies; they may not have gotten as much publicity as the pro-Palestinian ones, but they were still talked about. Finally, one can say that both rallies were "PRO" something, and not "ANTI" something, which used to be the case before. I, for one, was pleasantly surprised with the fact that the media is presenting both sides. Of course, it is taking sides as always, but the situation today is much better than it used to be.

Oh, and another thing - I found a really interesting video from the two rallies that left me thinking: What is the point of it? It was done by freedomfolks.com, whose motto is "fighting illegal immigration... one post at a time". It made me thing - what kind of authority do they have to post videos about pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian rallies? And if you watch the video on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSWaVgB579U) it seems as if the Israelis are the calm, nice people while the Palestinians are the wild, loud ones. The fact that they spoke to Israeli supporters and with no one from the pro-Palestinian rally, just gives more subtle indication that the makers of the video are pro-Israeli. I jus thought about the legitimacy of who is posting "news" online... the same thing is with that blog. Who made it? Why? Who would read it? I personally hope not many people, but well...

That's all from me. Sorry it turned out to be so long - wasn't supposed to be. Didn't structure the whole thing very well! :S

West Bank Story 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)