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.