Route 181: ..." Documentary: International Response

The other evening I spent 4 and a half hours watching Route 181: Fragments Of A Journey In Palestine-Israel. It is a documentary film in which the directors followed the route of boarder drawn after the UN Resolution 181 in 1947, beginning a two-state society that we have still today. It was an incredible film in which the makers (one Israeli and on Palestinian) talked to hundreds of people along this boarder, Israeli and Palestinian. In their film, they showed patient, face-to-face interviews with the people they came across; asking them questions about what used to be here and what their feelings were about the state of the land. The film focused so much on the sense of place, always showing the surroundings, never leaving out a person's environment as they spoke to the camera. The makers also used many shots of the countryside and the ruins of Palestinian villages. Some of the most interesting interviews for me were those of the Arab Israelis who had such a starkly different approach to nationalism than the descendants of European Jews.

It was hard for me to find much media response because it was a 4.5 hour film and was not shown widely. (The makers clearly made many decisions that would lead to this lack of publicity.) It seems to me what they wanted was to patiently show/represent what they had found and were not to succumb to the "film media norms".

The film was banned and cancellations for political reasons. Here is an article a screening in France that was canceled by the French Ministry of Culture and Communication due to unease and anti-semitism in France. I see this as a parallel to the international sport scene brought up by Stephen. In sport, in film, in art, this political issue is raised in so many different contexts and responded to specifically each time.

An Israeli Playground, Armored Against Rockets

In a continued discussion about the roles of children in the recent conflict as well as the impacts of war on their development, I found a NYTimes story today entitled An Israeli Playground, Armored Against Rockets. This story focuses on Israeli children in Sderot but balances the story of an indoor recreation center with the impacts of this conflict on both Israeli and Gazan children. Interestingly included in the center are"two rooms set aside for counseling and a staff of mental health workers" and the author comments that "emotional trauma among the young is an area of great focus not only in Israel, but also in Gaza." The article is relativley unbaised when it focuses on children, it speaks to the great damage this is conflict causes to the children on both sides, but it ends admitting that Gaza may be worse off. Israeli children are being protected and considered, Israel can construct a recreation center to foster growth and support children affected by the conflict, and yet Gazan children are living in tents because their homes were destroyed.

When speaking to the actual conflict between Gaza and Israel, the article has a more biased tone, at least in my opinion: "Israel went to war in late December to put an end to the rockets, and though it pummeled Gaza for three weeks, killing some 1,300 people and destroying hundreds of buildings, the rockets have not stopped. On Tuesday, five fell around the Sderot area. Since the war ended on Jan. 18, some 160 mortar rounds and rockets, including nine long-range ones, have been launched from Gaza at Israel." It almost rationalizes the deaths of the 1300 people with the fact that Gaza continues to attack Sderot, even though the death toll in Israel is around 20. Obviously the article is focusing on Israel and the danger in the region, but in the section describing the similarities to the story of Purim and the current conflict, I felt like instilled some pity for Israelis over Gazans.

Disproportianate uses of force (sorry for the new post)

Hey, sorry I made a new post for this because I know we talked about keeping the remainder of our discussion to responses but I wanted to create a place for us to continue our in-class discussion of the disproportionate uses of force in this conflict. If you consider the crappy Soviet-era rockets against the 21st century Israeli military, the contrast is made very clear. To start, here is an article from the Huffington Post that discusses disproportionate use of force and self-defense, is concludes by saying that Israel's decision to bombard Gaza was ill-advised and that international criticism has mostly come from the UN and Sarkozy, while Obama has dodged the issue. If anyone finds any info regarding the quantifying/categorizing of force used by both sides, please post here,
Thanks!

Hamas and Fatah meet to talk about uniting

There was some discussion about what it would take for Palestinians and those who share the same views to gain some political leverage in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Recently the two political parties Hamas and Fatah who have so far been in heavy competition are having talks about Gaza's Future. As the article mentions, with any form of Hamas in the picture with government with a united two parties, official dialogue with the Israeli government would be pretty much impossible. Also talking with the EU and US could be problematic still if the new coalition is too Hamas-led. With possibly the same limited international governmental dialogue and a stronger Palestinian authority - is this a step back or a step forward for the region? What do you guys think?

sorry, this is part of the previous post

I accidentally hit the 'post' button before I meant to.  The following continues my last post:

"One will never know as most seem to be silent on the appointment of Lieberman as Israel’s new Foreign Minister. It is now an established fact that one does not criticise anything that goes on in Israel for fear of being labeled an anti Semite….. So I guess it’s up to us Israelis ourselves to do the condemning….. WHICH WE WILL!"

This cartoon and comment beneath it were also on this "Desert Peace" blog that I mentioned as the source to the Palestinian poster.  

This is related to my post before about the seeming unacceptability of criticizing Israel, at least by a politician.  It is interesting to see an Israeli acknowledge this fear of being labeled an Anti-Semite, and scream in its face (at least in this case).  I am not sure how common it is, but I certainly haven't seen much of it.  Does this come up often/with even more controversial issues?  Is a truly open and honest discussion taking place?  If not, is this why?  If this fear is a roadblock, what is being done to change this?

[note: Although my last couple of posts seem pro-Palestinian, I am not trying to propagandize.]

Palestinian poster

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/

Posted on a self-proclaimed peace-maker's blog.  He lives in Jerusalem.

Politicians muckin it up / Apartheid

This post is connected to Jacque's post about the internet being a key to opening dialogue between Palestinians and Isrealis.  After Jacque emphasized the importance of the perspectives and opinions of the people actually involved in the conflict, I wondered what that would mean.  I imagined great progress in the peace process due to people's general good nature, abillity for compromise, empathy, and respect for one another.  But then I imagined how so many differing political agendas would get in the way of this.  Even if Israelis and Palestinians opened up a waterfall of dialogue and made real solution progress in the blogosphere, I fear that politicians would surely muck it up in the execution.

So, I searched "political motives in Israel Palestine solution."  It brought me to a basic blog titled "From Occupied Palestine," which had posted an article from a November article of Haaretz about the UN General Assembly President's comments likening Israel's policies towards Palestinians as a newer version of apartheid.  See the article here.  He went on to say that he felt it necessary to use such a heavily charged term, as it was the UN itself who passed a resolution against apartheid.  Then Israel's ambassador to the UN called him an "Israel-hater" because he hugged Iran's president, an outspoken critic/enemy of Israel.

So, does Israel enforce apartheid-esque policies (did you catch in the video about black market aid that 85% of Gazans are living below the poverty line?)?  Why is it so unique for an international official to criticize Israel (remember Brennan's post on Turkey's PM?)?  What about the politicality of the issue?  Perhaps blogging will be/is an immense aid to bringing together Israeli and Palestinian neighbors, but what are we to do with our politic(ician)s?

Hebrew anyone?

Here is a link to an article in Hebrew where I found an eye-catching cartoon of Obama painting the white house black. From just the cartoon and a blog I saw written about this, it seems to me as an incredibly racist cartoon. I think that race is a testy issue in the Israel as it clearly has an effect on the relations between the Ashkenazi Jews and the Mizrahi Jews and the Palestinians.

I don't feel right speculating about this cartoon before I know what the hebrew says that is written around it. Can someone help me out?

ימים של קלות דעת צורמת בסיקור"

The Internet as a key to peace?

I was talking with a friend of mine last night about Israel/Palestine and she claimed that Obama said, "Jerusalem for the Jews". Now, as I am still not sure if he really did say this, I "stumbled" upon an article on Al Jazeera's website "From Gaza to Obama" that had three Palestinian accounts of the recent blow up in Gaza and what they think Obama can do for them seeing as many said that the fighting happened when it did becasue Obama was just about to be in office. These personal accounts struck a chord as I was thinking about the lack of home/place that both peoples have experienced or are experiencing now. The recent violence up rooted the people of Gaza to yet another extreme, but again, this lack of home is affecting both sides, just in different ways.

What I found most intriguing about this article was not so much the body of the text but the responses that are coming for all across the world. It was here that I found a reference to Obama's quote that I referred to above:

miguel lupianez United States		21/01/2009
Gaza/Obama
He's a fool on this subject,and the people of Gaza and Palestinians should expect nothing as he has said that Jerusalem for the Jews only and believes isreal had the right to throw out Palestinian out of their home and into misery/ghettos,just because isreal says there was no government there.Perhaps he suffers from memories of his own people being dumped into ghettos after their so called liberation.In this aged of independent minds his vocalness using religion makes him like like a real idiot

He makes an extreme claim, but in the spirit of blogging, I think there are some interesting parallels to draw here. The reason why I say that I don't know if Obama really did say this is because I couldn't find a more credible source than this man's blog post (which is clearly not reliable). That said, it's very interesting the dynamic of the conversation that came before and after his posts. There are people from all over the world posting and in 33 of those posts only one is from an Isreali or Palestinian:

A simple Israeli guy who just wants to live in peace Israel		22/01/2009
The Israeli point of you
Not of all us are bad people. In fact, most of us are deeply upset by the suffering of Gazans. Take it from me - Israel would give the whole West Bank and Gaza back if it knew that there will be peace. The fear is that, as many Gazans have explicitly said, they don't want us here at all. They want us all in the sea, dead and will continue to attack. I didn't choose to be born here and also have nowhere to go. I pray that one day some sensible leaders will come and save both peoples!

I feel like personal accounts are the only way that people across the globe are going to begin to understand and/or begin to thinking about and demanding a peace process. Maybe the internet is a good way for both Isrealis and Palestinians to communicate with eachother in ways they they are not communicating today. As has been pointed out from many sources, there is little to no communication between the vast majoity of these neighbors. Could the internet be used as a key to get everyday people communicating and taking strides towards peace?

Syria

In a recent story featured in the Jerusalem post,http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236269380382&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull, Syrias president Assad was quoted as saying peace talks between Syria and Israel cannot continue until the, "issue of one-and-a-half million Palestinians is solved." Inderect talks between Syria and ISrael were underway until Israel invaded Gaza. Many feel that a solution to the conflict between ISrael and Palestine could be solved through Syria negotiations. That Palestinians would see ISrael's negotions as a major step towards wanting peace and it would lead towards more disscusions. IT would also hopefully put a stop to Syrias support of Lebannons Hezbollah. What really stands in the way of this is Assads demands of right of return for Palestinian refugees. If the refugees get the right of return that would mean there would be a majority of Palestinians over Israelis. Basically ISrael would not be Israel anymore. I dont believe that Israel would evr allow a right of return but I think it must do something for the refugees. The refugees are often considered second rate citizens in the countries they fled to and are very impovered. I think Israel must provide them with sanctions or help them in some way in order to show the current Palestinians they are attempting to do something about the problem.

Turkish PM at Davos economic forum

About a month back at an economic development forum the Turkish Prime Minister Ergodan was speaking about the Israel/Palestine conflict and was given substantially less time to speak than the Israeli Prime Minister. He was speaking passionately on the issue and then was cut off by the forum and then stormed off stage. When he returned to Turkey he recieved a hero's welcome from thousands of Turks. Here are a couple stories with videos, I highly recommend you check it out. To me, this is an extremely interesting happening in the international sphere. Turkey a country that desperately wants to join the European economic and political alliances is proud that their leader vehemently showed his views on an international stage probably because they support the Palestinian cause with a lot of passion. It was an interesting moment that I feel was revealing of a lot of the predominantly Muslim nations' views on the conflict. 

I was in Dubai right after the recent Israeli destruction of Beirut and a lot of Lebanon and there were posters everywhere telling the population to donate money to Lebanon to rebuild and they raised millions of dollars on this campaign. My question is that if the Muslim world feels so strongly about the injustice they feel, why is this revealed through the media in such small and non-effective mediums? Why don't the Muslim nations stand up against the occupation more because it seems to me that its obvious that they strongly oppose it? Is it the fear of the defence that Israeli backed by the superpower United States? Why aren't there widespread protests by the Muslim community that surrounds the conflict on every side? 

Hamas/Fatah

With Hamas now refusing to have a joint party with the secular Palestinian group Fatah.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236269376833&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Hope is fading for talks with Palestinian leadership. The U.S. will not speak with Hamas as it is considered a terrorist group but also the Palestinians people representitive governement. This made me consider if this is really a good policy or not. Yes a lot of acts commited by Hamas is terrible but I dont know is refusing to speak with them is the right thing. It could perhaps further isolate and radicalize the people.

Another approach

Israel is often blamed for using to much force in Gaza, but the Israelis retaliate accusing Hamas of bombing ISrael for the past 8 years. I feel that this is a tough issue because how is Israel not suppose to re-act? I feel that Israel could put a stop to the attacks if they invested into preventing the missles from entering PAlestine. There are major tunnels going from Egypt into Gaza were weapons are smuggled. I feel that Israel should be putting more pressure upoun Egypt who they have good realations with into making sure no more arms go in. This would hopeful cut back on missles fired into ISrael

Obama Should Consider Inviting Arab Nations to Help Solve Israeli-Palestinian Issues

In the context of United State’s involvement in the recent Gaza-Israeli conflict, I thought this interview between the Consulting Editor from Council on Foreign Relations and Mohammad Yaghi was an stimulating alternate perspective. As we have already examined, the US has been portrayed by multiple media sources as an integral player in future negotiations processes. Besides the worthwhile viewpoint on the issue on the whole by Yaghi, his advice on the inclusion of Arab Nations in the resolutions was a new solution for me. He explains that the the Palestinian Authority President lacks legitimacy in the face of Hamas and that negotiations will only prevail if they are opened to the Arab League.

His main point, it seems, is that Palestinians are angry and the country is divided--they are past the point of bilateral negotiations with Israeli. He believes that if peace is to be realized in this area, it must include other Arab countries because of the inherent connectivity of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I viewed this opinion, though it still includes the US, as a counter-Western perspective. Yaghi argues that Arab nations and Israel must come to a peace agreement with Palestine in order to neutralize other long-standing issues. He believes that it is from within this geographic area that peace can be achieved, but that the peace process is no longer a bilateral issue and should not be approached as one.

Border Restrictions and Post-conflict Aid

This is partially a response to Stephen's post, but I wanted to post this video and sort of expand the discussion to the question of border restrictions as a way to control aid and exert political influence.

This is a video from Al-Jazeera English describing the black market in Gaza where humanitarian aid is sold for other necessities, such as schoolbooks. This report is from about a month ago, so the situation may be changing as we speak. I did find a more recent AP article, and as Stephen and Laura mentioned it appears that the longer-term issues facing recovery in Gaza will not be a question of humanitarian aid (the article reports $4-5 billion in pledged international aid) but one of restrictive borders that are preventing infrastructure-based aid from coming to Gaza.

This Reuters article reiterates the issue of border crossing impeding the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. According to these two articles, both Israel and Egypt are putting heavy restrictions on what can pass through. Israel cites the need to screen reconstruction projects (and thus the materials entering the Gaza strip) on an individual basis so as to prevent these projects from benefitting Hamas. Egypt, on the other hand, is using border restrictions to pressure Hamas into making amends with Mahmoud Abbas.

I think border screening/security can become a tough issue during and after violent conflicts. Border restrictions can slow down the flow of humanitarian aid into high-need areas, and the individual screening process for reconstruction projects may bog down efforts to rebuild essential infrastructure like housing, medical facilities, schools, etc. Is Israel justified in taking these kinds of measures if it prevents aid from reaching Hamas? Is Egypt justified in using restrictions to pressure some sort of reconciliation between Hamas and the West Bank P.A.?

One State, Two State

I think it's important to discuss the fesability of a One state vs. Two state solution. Especially considering the literature that we just read.
I feel that a one state solution is not possible for a number of reasons. I feel the history of the conflict is to complex for one. Years of conlonial rule and decision made for the people not by the people was the start of a long history in a short amount of time, relatively speaking. This history has also left devastating scars upon the each side of the conflict. almost every Israeli Jew or Palesetinian has a story of suffering. I also feel that Israelis would not let this happen. The issue of safety and security is a hug deal for Israeli citizens and always comes up in peace negotiations. Finally as long as Hamas exists as the Palestinians representitive government and has in there charter that Israel cannot exist a one state is not possible. Polls over the years have also showed that both Palestinians and Israelis are in favor of a two state solution and that they want peace to exist. If anyone has further ideas or would like to elaborate tha'd be great

"The Gaza War as reality television" / Justice vs. Crime

In an article that I saw linked off of the Haaretz page KC pointed out, Bradley Burston writes about his personal conflicts regarding Israel's actions in and media portrayals of the war.  He comments:

The war had gone on only a few days when Israel Channel 10 television began interspersing coverage of Palestinian rockets exploding in the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon and commercials for the Israeli version of the veteran reality show Survivor, in which one of the contestants is shown saying of the rival tribe "We're gonna kick their butts!" 

He then quickly shifts his discussion to a more personal and serious issue.  He shares that as a former army medic, he needs to adamantly question if the Israeli government was using phosphorus.  Many army officials and experts were asked about this and none gave a clear response that they were not using it.  Terrified for what his country could be doing to people with the horrific effects of phosphorus (extensive flesh damage due to intense, long-lasting burning), he brings into question the precarious position of the occupier.  Fighting an enemy which is interspersed into the regular population (which includes Israelis as well) creates an especially fuzzy line for a just war.  

Burston writes that restrictions have been in place to protect civilians in these scenarios, but that several were lifted for the attack on Gaza.  Thus the question of war crimes rears its ugly head.  He quotes a previous article in Haaretz where philospher Yirmiyahu Yovel says,

"The Gaza War dramatically demonstrated that the conjunction of justified combat and war crimes is not an individual instance of this war or that, rather it is becoming a permanent model for the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians. As long as this is a struggle between two populations, occupier and occupied, and as long as there is no peace between Israel and an independent Palestinian state existing beside it, the Israeli soul will be divided between justice and crime, holding onto each other with no way out, like two Siamese twins." 

He ends by suggesting that Israel needs to support the creation of a strong Palestine in order to end this conflict...

I found it very interesting to hear the conerned Israeli voice in actual fear of what his country is doing.  Having almost no previous exposure to alternative sources, especially op-ed type pieces, I am appreciative of this glimpse into the stress and internal conflict that this situation creates in a citizen.  Plus, he brings up an incredibly valid moral dilemma-- 'justified combat' versus war crimes.  Where is the line?  Who decides?

New Possibilities Regarding Palestinian National Consensus Government

A report by the Palestine Media Center states that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayad announced Saturday that he has submitted his resignation to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The resignation will take effect after the formation of a Palestinian unity government, but no later than the end of March. The PLO and Hamas have demonstrated highly different policies regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, however unity between the two entities would be seen as a momentous step forward regarding the potential for peace in the region. Dialogue between the two Palestinian governments is expected to resume in Cairo on Tuesday and the article raises an interesting point with the following: "The Egyptian sponsored talks have raised high expectations that an agreement to end the inner Palestinian division and restoring the geographic and political reunification between the West Bank and Gaza Strip." According to the article, reaching an agreement between the factions will enable the start of the reconstruction efforts in Gaza and many Palestinians see unity as an essential matter following the right wing victory in the recent Israeli elections. The process of reunification would be difficult and probably bloody, and with the risk of failure and further division between Hamas and the PLO, is reunification a realistic endeavor? The resignation is seen as a step forward because it leaves room for more PLO officials with the credentials necessary for dialogue with Hamas, but should the PLO risk loosing valuable diplomats regarding Israel in order to gain diplomats to work with Hamas?

Pro-Palestinian Demonstrators Outside Davis Cup

ESPN.com reports that demonstrators clashed with police outside Baltic Stadium in Malmo, Sweden as the Swedes won the doubles match Saturday to take a 2-1 lead against Israel in the Davis Cup series.
Davis Cup officials allowed only 300 special guests inside the 4,000 seat hall citing security issues providing a depressing atmosphere for Sweden's victory. Israeli tennis player Andy Ram said it was a "stupid decision" to play the match behind closed doors and that "playing without a crowd is like playing a practice match." 7,000 pro-Palestinian demonstrators gathered in a square downtown to listen to speeches condemning Israel's offensive in Gaza and urging support for Palestinians. Organizers of the "stop the match" protest had said the demonstration would be peaceful, but extreme-left activists had vowed to disrupt the match. About 100 people were apprehended and at least six were arrested for rioting, there were no reports of injuries.
This article interests me because it demonstrates the reaches of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into wider interactions of the international community, such as sports. When an Israeli athlete travels abroad, is he or she obligated to show their feelings regarding recent events? Could an Israeli athlete's expression of dissatisfaction with recent escalations by their government's military serve any real purpose, or are they obligated to show unwavering support and be 'patriotic'? When one looks at the history of the conflict in light of international athletic competition, the immediate event that comes to mind is the tragic Munich Olympic Games in 1972. However more recently, Israeli tennis star Shahar Peer was denied a visa preventing her from competing in the in the Sony Ericsson World Tennis Association Tour in Dubai. Although these events are less significant in comparison to the overall violence and bloodshed, I feel that there is something to be said regarding the "exterior" or indirect components of the conflict, such as athletics. Why do countries find it necessary to allow the conflict into seemingly unrelated events?

Don’t Try This at Home/Beyond the Banks

These New York Times op-eds are a post in response to KC’s dual view of United States’ aid for Palestine in light of the recent conflict in Gaza. While I am much more of a Krugman follower than a Friedman one, Mr. Krugman is far too busy trying to clean up our own country’s economic woes to have time to focus on international conflicts.

The Don’t Try This at Home article lends another perspective to the Palestinian-Israeli solution; KC’s articles included the international “let’s sit down and figure out a two-state system” and the splintered “six swing states” viewpoint, but Friedman’s adds a much more American view. The article includes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s initiatives in the Middle East, which is similar to the KC’s articles, though Friedman does not see our intervention as a simple “saving the day” mission. He is much more pessimistic about the entire situation and outlines, in his layman manner, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

What I found so interesting was not the way he outlined the historical and actual conflict, but of his overgeneralization of Israel/Palestine as one giant question mark. He portrays the conflict in a way that we, as Americans, cannot understand. By using phrases like “Are you still with me?” and comparing the conflict to “how an amoeba reproduces by constantly splitting itself in half” he is almost allowing ignorance to overtake thoughtful study. I felt, in a way, he was allowing the Western world to write this conflict off, that its intricacies and struggles cannot be comprehended.

It is his final paragraph where he describes his own feelings towards the situation is the most disappointing: “Who in the world would want to try to repair this? I’d rather herd cats, or become John Thain’s image adviser, or have a colonoscopy, or become chairman of the “bad bank” that President Obama might create to hold all the toxic mortgages.” He ends with a suggestion of starting over, and maybe that is the new Western perspective, but I was wholly unimpressed by his tone regarding the conflict.

The solution article, Beyond the Banks, printed 3 days later, was also interesting in connection to KC’s articles since it offered the same answer--the US must fix this conflict. Friedman’s article ends with the sentiment that US involvement is not just key, it is the whole solution: “So it is important to have George Mitchell, the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, steadily pushing the diplomacy from above, but nothing will happen without vastly increasing U.S. efforts from below to help West Bankers build a credible governing capacity. Do that, and everything is possible. Don’t do it, and nothing is possible.”

Children!

I think addressing the children of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is especially important in looking at the intensity and friction of the occupation. Children have come up again and again in discussions like when the IDF shows up, the kids are first to throw rocks or in the Promises movie we experienced deep hatred for the opposing side in a couple of the interviewed kids. Also there were brutal attacks last semester in an Israeli school and the back and forth going eye for eye in the killing of children  If they are the future, their attitudes and paradigms will carry over - as of now children seem like the only beacon of light but they are targeted more in this conflict than any other I have heard of. I found this story about the Children of Gaza - an interesting part is this story is the fact that about half of the population (half of 1.5 milllion people) in Gaza and are carry the large brunt of the suffering. 

I also found an article about a month ago in Al-Jazeera about attacks on Children which is the story underneath the first one I posted. 

British Aid Convoy for Gaza Arrives in Rafah

VOA News reports that aid headed for Gaza has been stopped in Rafah, Egypt and that it is unknown as to whether or not the supplies will reach desperate Gazans. The British Parliamentarian George Galloway organized the initiative but the degree of its success remains in limbo.
I find it very interesting that international efforts to bring aid into Gaza continue to meet resistance despite the recent and highly disproportionate increases in violence between Hamas and Israel. Concerns that foreign aid could be used to the benefit of Hamas are used to justify the denial of aid to Gaza, but when the general population of the strip has been significantly impacted by the violence, I find it difficult to believe that the quality of life for Gazans has any presence on Israeli or Egyptian government agendas.

A Question of Perspective: Arab response to Gaza

I've found a few articles treating the topic of Arab political response to Gaza, and wanted to explore the regional politics that factor into how Arab leaders are reacting to the conflict. This article from Reuters reported that demonstrators across the Middle East protested the lackluster answer offered by Arab leaders. In addition to civilian protests, some Muslim nations (particularly Libya) have criticized Arab leaders and how they have handled the situation.

The third article I found from Haaretz gave more insight into regional politics and their influence in the conflict. The second half of the article discusses Syria, which historically has ties to Hamas. Syria and Israel have been meeting in the hopes of negotiating a peace deal between the two, and while the talks have been suspended as a result of the incursion, the article implies that Bashar Al-Assad still wishes to keep that diplomatic avenue open. These kinds of conflicting interests may be driving how Arab nations respond to violent conflicts between Israel and Palestine.

This Al-Jazeera article took a different viewpoint by characterizing Syria as highly critical of Israel at a recent Arab summit. Given these different accounts, I had a difficult time coming to a conclusion about the Arab reaction to the conflict. While some depict Syria as a hard-line critic of Israel's incursion, the Haaretz article sees a more nuanced political situation that has prevented a stronger response to Israel. What do you think? Are there any other sources that can give clues to Arab geopolitics and how they influence Arab responses to Gaza? What about the history of Arab involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Hamas using children as human shield

This post is in response to Alyson's post, but I couldn't add a video in my comment so I just am writing this as a separate post. I thought Alyson's post was an great perspective on the different uses of human shields in conflict. I found the BBC article the most interesting perhaps, since it acknowledged that both Israel and Gaza overtake civilian homes, thus reducing them to human targets. I had never considered that the use of a home transformed into a military target would fall into the same category as the type of human shields I have heard of/seen. I began searching for clips of human shields in the Middle East and I came across these two YouTube videos, which both show Hamas’ use of children as human shields. The first, is a 17 second clip, the second contains the exact same clip beginning around 2:15, but includes other human shield images and a larger message of Hamas’ abuse on children.




I think the second video falls in line with a sort of sensationalist media, it uses the abuse of children as another negative perspective on Hamas. It induces pity for these children, but the video is without background--for example the final image is of a young child crying with a fake rifle around his neck.

Pro-Israel Response and "Human Shields" in International Media

Laura's post on Arab representations of the Gaza conflict spurred me to research representations in political cartoons produced by pro-Israel sources. These are a few comics I found on Mideasttruth, a pro-Israel media site that has articles and editorials as well as comics. I don't know how blogger will scale the images, but if the text is too small to read you can just click on the image to link to a full-sized version.

The first image, by an Austrian cartoonist, as well the second, by an American, reiterate claims that Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as "human shields" during military operations. While the first cartoon suggests that the human shields are used just to physically protect Palestinian militants, I felt that the second cartoon links the use of human shields ("Body Armor") to a larger agenda that uses civilian casualties to strengthen the humanitarian case against Israel ("Public Relations").

I also found an article on BBC that discusses the use of human shields from a very different perspective. BBC reports that Amnesty International is accusing both Israeli and Palestinian forces of using Gazans as shields during the conflict. The article discusses in more depth the tactics both sides allegedly employ with regard to human shields.

Finally, the last comic in the post brings in yet another perspective on civilian casualties in armed conflict, and in a sense it responds to the "Public Relations" agenda implied in the second cartoon. I feel it criticizes the way that popular media can over-exaggerate or sensationalize civilian casualties, and as a result perhaps what some see as a "Palestinian PR agenda" can be attributed to the willingness of sensationalist media to feature civilian casualties in its coverage of the conflict.

So my initial research on pro-Israel cartoons led me to a larger discourse on human shields and how media represents this kind of violence. I think it's interesting that each of the sources I found came to very different conclusions about who is at fault and what the motivations are for using human shields.

Secretary Clinton in Haaretz/Middle East Online

I thought this letter to Clinton was interesting. You might too.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1068057.html

particularly when compared to

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=30715

Each of these sources has a definite perspective on the issue, what I find most interesting is the commonalities.

Arab Press Responds to Gaza Violence with Holocaust Analogies and Anti-Semitism

This article is about a set of political cartoons from various Arab newspapers around the Middle East and this blog post includes both the Jerusalem Post’s and the Anti-Defamation League’s reaction to these images.

The cartoons carry a Holocaust theme, with images of swastikas and Jewish stereotypes and are in response to Israel’s defensive military action against Gaza. The two accompanying articles are from the ADL “the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism” and the Jerusalem Post.

Both news sources discuss the vilification of Israel’s defensive reaction, but what I found most surprising from ADL’s reaction was the response that "We have always said that it is OK to criticize Israel. But these images clearly cross the line." ADL does not, however, respond to why this backlash occurred, which was explained a bit more through Jerusalem Posts’ article:
“Last week, Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna'i sparked an uproar after warning the Palestinians in a radio interview that they faced a bigger ‘shoah’ if they increased rocket attacks from Gaza. Vilna'i's spokesman later clarified that the deputy defense minister had used the Hebrew word - which is primarily used in Israel to refer to the Holocaust - only to mean ‘disaster, ruin or destruction.’ However, this did not stop Palestinians from seizing upon the original statement, which was widely reported around the world, to compare Israel's attacks in the Gaza Strip with that of Nazi Germany.”
The ADL article criticizes the cartoons for not representing both sides of the story, that they ignore “Palestinian terrorists” and only demonize the Jewish response to Gaza’s attacks.

I found it interesting that some cartons were included that didn’t fit with the Holocaust theme that was represented throughout most of the images. It is undeniable that many Jewish stereotypes were portrayed in these images, but I found the last cartoon (on the website, the first on this blog) a representation of the difference of power between the forces, but unconnected to the Holocaust. Both sides were stereotypical caricatures and I feel that political cartoons are always biased.

What if ... (if Qassam-Rockets would bombard Berlin Paris and London)

This posted video has a long backstory behind it, but I realized that it’s important to trace the steps I took to find this short clip. I first began searching for materials for this blog by doing a general “gaza video” search through Google and following different media sources and sites.

One of the first links I found connected me to a PBS story called How Social Media War was Waged in Gaza-Israeli Conflict, which discussed both pro-Israeli and pro-Gaza perspective websites. The first highlighted group was Help Us Win, and one of its reporters was quoted as saying: “‘We are fighting against the mainstream media who prefer to ignore certain bits of information about Israel,’ Berger told me in an interview, ‘and social media is an effective way of providing the right information passively.’” The name sounded incredibly familiar, so I clicked on the Help Us Win site to keep exploring. As I read about their site, an online pro-Israeli database, I remembered where I had heard of the group during the actual conflict. Help Us Win is a group determined to distribute information in new and untraditional ways, such as through Twitter as well as Facebook. They are most well known, as some of you may remember, for the Qassam Counter. This was a feature on Facebook where users could “donate their status” to this cause and it would automatically link to an update the number of Qassam rockets that had fallen on Israel. The status would appear like this: “QassamCount: One or more rockets hit Israeli civilian areas today. Click here for more details: http://qassamcount.com/today.” I remember reading this status on many of my friends’ pages, and I always wondered where the counter/pro-Palestinian status was. At first I thought this was a Facebook-sponsored status donation (like they did for the presidential elections) and I was angered that I couldn’t find a counter-status donation since it focused on attacks on civilian areas, which were happening on both sides.

As we’re now starting this blog project, I began examining more deeply what these counters and this website mean. I was searching around the Help Us Win site and I found this short cartoon video, showing Qassam rockets hitting Berlin, London, and Paris. This clip plays on European stereotypes, showing important city landmarks being bombed and caricatures of French, German, and British people. The video ends with a message on the screen: “How do YOU like it? In Sderot, Israel, people have been living like this for the last 8 years.” I thought this video was an interesting start to examine the victimization of both sides in this conflict. The counter, along with the video, constructs Israel as a target, as the injured party in this larger fight.

I thought this video was especially important in our new world of social media, how do we examine the role of unabashedly pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian sites? Social media does not require unbiased viewpoints, and how do we balance what we consider to be objective news stories with these subjective accounts and opinions? The Help Us Win site self description is “A site where you can ensure that the international coverage of the Campaign Against Hamas is balanced.” But what media sources are actually balanced, and how can we create a full picture of this conflict?

I’m sorry for the long post! I know its a sort of silly short video, but I felt like the connections between each step were the important part to trace: from a more objective media source, to an opinionated site, to Facebook, to an individual’s YouTube clip, each source represents the disparate ways in which we get our information.

West Bank Story test 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)