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.
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.
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)
One of the theme of this course is how do we learn about other places, and particularly places in the Middle East. In a healthy democracy citizens engage with each other on common (and differing) values, perspectives and interests mainly through media sources. I expect each of you to respond to your own sources of material on the conflict in Gaza as a civic dialog and learning exercise. What can we learn about Gaza? About Israel? About the rest of the world’s relationship to these places through what is said in the wide world of media.
Here is what I will be looking for in your online participation:
Regular participation!– I expect you to contribute your thoughts to your groups’ blog regularly throughout the 9 days of the project. Don’t just drop in once or twice and expect a good grade. You are expected at a minimum to upload 3 items (with a discussion of what you see) and respond to at least 3 posts by your groupmates. This level of participation, if done well, can earn you a B, but more is needed for that coveted A.
Interesting and diverse postings—are you only looking at CNN? Not that CNN is wrong, their articles should be on the blog too, but try also looking farther afield. This could be news sources from around the world, or different types of media (cartoons, Youtube, mashups, flickr, etc)
Depth of reflection and analysis– once you have found an item to share with the group, don't just state an opinion and stop, develop your ideas, show why you view the item the way you do. Don’t be afraid to share experiences where relevant, but always keep your tone and content respectful;
A willingness to examine your own assumptions –the best way for YOU to get credit for examining your assumptions is if others (graciously and respectfully) point out the assumptions you are making. Thus don’t be afraid to disagree with each other. Or even if you do agree, can you find a source that wouldn’t? What are the assumptions that separate the two?
Direct references to reading material when called for.
Here is what to avoid:
Attacking another point of view or person; disagreeing is fine, but be respectful and give your reasons
simple yes or no responses;
long winded responses in most cases a few well developed paragraphs should do late responses be sure to participate in the dialogs during the time period in which the topic is up for discussion.
For every post, you will need to complete one of two following types of tasks keeping in mind the directions above.
TASK ONE - ORIGINAL THOUGHTS, ORIGINAL POSTS The first task is to create at least three new threads (starting messages) over the project timeframe that pose significantly different points than those already offered. This is where you upload or post your media source and your original analysis of it. These must be completed by March 9th in order for your peers to have an opportunity to reply back to your ideas. It will be to your benefit to contribute your first thought early (to avoid having to read all other messages in order to see what points have not yet been made).
TASK TWO - CARRYING AN IDEA FARTHER The second task is to make at least three new replies to blog threads started by other members of your group. The responses to others can answer questions posed, amplify and support points (with evidence and observations), or question and pose counter-arguments to points made by others (with evidence and observations). You can make your replies in text alone or add media your replies. These responses can diverge, reflect or support other statements already offered. However, each contribution must offer significant additional information (i.e. -- an "I Agree!" message will not earn points). When you are presenting any media, fact, or statements that state a conclusion, you are responsible for properly citing your sources so that the statements can be verified or clarified. This is particularly important with the media—let us see it, even if you just upload a picture from a news story include the link so that we can follow it back and see the image in its original context. This can be added as a link to your title and/or as a link within the widget "links to our sources" at the bottom of blog. If you are using yourself and your personal experience as the source, then you must make this obvious, such as "based upon my time in Israel, all my friends there said_______ about Gaza vs the West Bank.” You are encouraged to bring your personal experiences into the discussions.The purpose of discussions within the course is to share experiences and backgrounds, as well as perceptions and ideas, so that we can learn in a peer-to-peer manner. Please realize that my role as the instructor is to monitor the discussions but I will refrain from participating (more or less) unless the conversation needs guidance into another direction. Comments from me to the class will generally reflect the entirety of the discussions observed and your grade will be based on your successful completion of the requirements (specified above).
Some questions that you may wish to consider as you look at the various media texts include:
a) What are the primary concerns of each author as revealed in the representation/text? b) Who or what are the author’s sources? How did he/she obtain the information? c) For whom is the author writing and how does this affect the themes discussed and the overall presentation? d) What is the general impression given? Can you identify a master metaphor? e) What kinds of details are given, what details are excluded, and why? f) Are the various representations consistent with one another? If not, why not? g) How has the representation of this place evolved over time?
ok it's Iraq but it's interesting
-
Here is a link to a blog put up by Morgan on a different Blog. There are a
number of entries that tie more to your topic than theirs. Enjoy.
War with Iran
-
The Buildup to a US-Iran War
I found this article mildly surprising, but the implications of another war
with Iran are incalculable. I found the most surpr...
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.
Posts
