Bottoms Up.

By Natashia Hajee





What was interesting is when I typed into YouTube: Video Activism Palestine so many videos popped up advocating for peace and when I substituted Israel for Palestine it was all about Israelis killing activists, activist's parents suing Israel, etc. Has there been no bottom up movement in Israel? We all know from class this is not true, is Israel getting the right media coverage? Most definitely not. This is terrible because again this shows a hate mongering movement. People should post Israel's activist side, this will show that there is progress, that people do want change. 


By Natashia Hajee

Studying media sources and critically analyzing them has led me to see a great difference between peace journalism and war journalism. The news often dehumanizes people and generalizes people into certain categories that might not necessarily fit. Arabs are terrorists. Jews are greedy. Muslims are fanatics. The list goes on and on. These generalizations create fear and hate and do not help societies today, if reporters are reporting strictly negative events they are only darkening our viewpoints. Positive news pieces can be seen as fluffy or idealized however when discussing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict it is crucial to report on these positive events, in which there is a possibility for people to see that there is a possibility for change and that people on the ground are working towards positive outcomes. Perhaps an idealistic perspective will allow for the leaders and society to be encouraged to create solutions, not violence.

I might be living in a fantasy world, but it would be nice to imagine one day when you switch on your TV or open the newspaper you see something inspiring rather than depressing.




By: Lisa Fiorilli




On April 1st 2011, Richard Goldstone, the chair of the Final Report on the Gaza War (UNHRC), posted an editorial with the Washington Post that explained his personal retraction of the damning views of Israeli conduct during the 2008-09 hostilities. Essentially, the original paper explored the dynamics of the use of force directed towards civilians, and it was originally found that Israel had a policy of targeting civilians.

However, Goldstone's retraction, which is incidentally only his personal one (he hasn't filed for an official retraction of the report yet) explains that they did not have Israeli cooperation at the time (hard to corroborate facts) and he speaks of a negative bias towards Israel in the UNHRC overall. What is telling in the editorial is his condemnation of Hamas' disinterest in investigating its combatants for alleged human rights abuses, though Fatah and the IDF have shown good faith by doing so.

The portrayal of the retraction was clearly jubilant by both Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post. On its part, Haaretz elaborated on the mention of bias in the UNHRC, and explained that the USA was quite content that the chair of the report retracted and reflected their initial position. Jerusalem Post was more focused on the American support of the retraction, and the American pledge to eradicate any anti-Israel bias from the UNHRC.

An interesting and articulate response to this retraction was published in Al Jazeera, and was written by Noura Erekat. She highlights the fact that Goldstone seems to accept Israeli accounts of what happened at face value, despite the opinion of the experts committee on the very panel that he chaired, despite the fact that they had come to the consensus that the Israeli explanation "structurally flawed". Interestingly, she makes the argument that his argument that Hamas has made no moves to remain under international jurisdiction by following international is flawed, because Israel has defined its very policies towards Hamas as being a "terrorist group", and has resisted calls for its action against Hamas to remain within the bounds of international law.
The editorial points out several flaws in Goldstone's retraction, and is generally quite consistent with coverage around the Arab world.

So, what do you think? What were the motivations behind the retraction? Is it flawed or did he simply make a mistake the first time around? Is it a positive thing for Israeli PR, as it is framed in JPost and Haaretz, or is it 'negligent' like its described in Al Jazeera?










http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/state-department-goldstone-affirms-u-s-position-israel-did-not-commit-war-crimes-in-gaza-1.354147
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=215200
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/20114413734463122.html

BDS continued...

By Natashia Hajee

J Street and its members are extremely fascinating and I do think our class should pay more attention to the statements they make...maybe it's just me. :)

By Natashia & Lisa

Seeing as we both took on the discussion facilitation that included the BDS movement, it is convenient that a new video of a BDS flash mob in New York City's Grand Central Station came out. 

Here it is...we hope you enjoy. 


Two State Solution Or One State Domination?

By Natashia Hajee

How can we continue to press for a two state solution if both sides continuously deny one another? Israel and Palestine have got to stop with the childish back and forth and recognize both sides right to live and to live peacefully. In a recent Haaretz article it has been stated that if the United Nations recognizes Palestine as a state in the upcoming month of September, then Israel will take on unilateral steps of their own.

Senior Foreign Ministry officials stated that Rafael Barak has sent out private cables to Israeli embassies "directing them to lodge a diplomatic protest at the highest possible level in response to the Palestinian efforts to gain international recognition for statehood at the UN General Assembly session in September." 


European government officials have clarified that they have indeed received these cables, however due to the stalled peace talks, a Palestinian state is unavoidable as of September. 

Why is Israel so adamant on their stance? Some might say that it is for fear of a loss of power and they never truly wanted a two state solution in the first place. However the Israeli claims are that it violates the Oslo accords, it will not actually lead to a Palestinian state, and it will create more violence on the ground.

Speculation as to Israel's next move has brought up suggestions of annexing settlements as part of Israel or applying Israeli law to the West Bank. These are extremely dangerous moves on behalf of the Israelis and time will only tell if they will actually go forward with them.

What will September bring and why is it so important?:
"September is expected to be pivotal for several reasons. Last September, U.S. President Barack Obama told the General Assembly that he wished to see a Palestinian state become a member of the UN within a year. In addition, Israel and the Palestinians had agreed that the talks they undertook last September 2 in Washington would last for about a year. Thirdly, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's program of establishing institutions for a future Palestinian state is due to be wrapped up this coming September." 


Due to the increasing violence within the reason it is no surprise that neither Abbas or Netanyahu have been in any contact with one another. This makes for an even more tense situation and even less motivation for either side to jump-start the peace process again. 


Perhaps the peace process is not what is needed, maybe the recognition of a Palestinian state, by the global community, will force both sides into a peaceful agreement....wishful thinking?


Links: 
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-threatens-unilateral-steps-if-un-recognizes-palestinian-state-1.352423
http://www.vancouverite.com/2011/03/29/israel-threatens-unilateral-steps-if-un-recognises-palestinian-state/
http://cloud.graphicleftovers.com/23821/593621/peace-between-israel-and-palestine.jpg





By: Lisa Fiorilli


After the absolutely horrific murders of a family of Israeli settlers in Itamar, it would seem to the casual observer that the story has been almost forgotten in the Western media. Obviously, with Gaddafi's brutal crushing of the revolt in Libya and the tragic Japanese earthquake/tsunami, not much else is being discussed.
That being said, there has been a robust dialogue within the Israeli media about the implications of this event, and there has been mention in the last day or so of the revenge-related attacks on Palestinians.
In Haaretz, there was a slightly less inflammatory report on the attack. They simply state that two Palestinian construction workers in Shiloh, West Bank were hurt by six unknown Israeli attackers who fled the scene. They make note of rising tensions in the area because of the increasing settlement activity, and offer a slight mention that this can be interpreted in light of the Itamar attack earlier this week. Interestingly, and especially within the context of other news reports on this attack, they do not draw any direct causality between the events.

However, the Jerusalem Post puts an entirely different spin on the same event. They call it a "price tag" attack by settlers, The article itself is only a few lines, mainly about the fact that Israeli police are looking into the matter. However, they make a direct causal link between the Itamar attacks and this one, assuming that there 5-7 Israeli's were exacting revenge for the attacks. Also, they make mention that the suspects, though they have nobody arrested, were in fact suspected to be settlers. This is also absent in the Haaretz report.

A third article that appeared in Ynet News corroborates the Jerusalem Post interpretation of events. They describe the event as a "price tag policy" on the part of settlers, and attribute this interpretation as coming from the police in charge of investigating. However, Ynet seems to do a bit more research, with interviews with hospital employees as well as people who were at the construction site. They note that the attackers were unmasked before the attack and arrived in a car, meaning that they were not residents of the nearby settlement. Though at the beginning they seem to imply that it was an act of revenge, they quote a Binyamin Regional Security officer as saying that they weren't sure if the motivations were criminal or otherwise.

Obviously, this story should develop further in the next few days as the suspects are caught and their motivations can be elaborated on. One can't help but think that this is symptomatic of the broader cyclical nature of the conflict: one act, perpetuated by an act of violence, which will then incite reprisals. Obviously, the attack on the family in Itamar was a horrific act, but so was attacking construction workers. This is obviously working under the assumption that these events were related, which both Ynet News and JPost seem to assume as the underlying theme of their reports. What is interesting is that they make mention of this 'price tag policy', which has come to be an integral ideological basis of violence in settlement areas, and something that has been condemned by leaders on both sides. If you take into account the movie we saw in class yesterday, Encounter Point, what comes to mind is the segment where the Palestinian woman is talking about settlers coming and smashing the windows to her house with bats. Her response is ultimately that they will not leave, and her husband adds that this notion of forcing the Palestinians to leave is an integral part of what settler violence in motivated by. This 'price tag policy' would seemingly be a part of this cyclical process of violence and revenge that has characterized the conflict seemingly since the beginning. The violence inflicted on settlers by Palestinians, a deplorable act by most moral standards, then becomes inflicted on Palestinians in an equally deplorable way. This ensures that both sides remain locked in a vicious cycle of conflict.



Finally, one more article in Ynet caught my attention because it is seemingly doing what our blog is intended to do. The author, Yedioth Ahronoth, is criticizing the lack of attention by Western media on the attacks at Itamar. Specifically, the Israeli government made some pictures of the event available in order to underscore the violence of the attack. He analyzes the coverage of the event in England, France, Scandinavia, Italy and Spain, and states the respective news agencies' objections to carrying quite graphic pictures of the crime, as well as their perceived biases and underreporting. Obviously, he states at the very beginning that there are other world events that are dominating international airwaves, but he makes the point that these media sources demonstrate that Israel has not "won the west": most of these newspapers make statements about the illegality of the settlements under international law in the same articles about the settlers being murdered (Italy), and a real and/or perceived bias towards the Palestinians (Britain). Obviously, this is a pretty controversial stance, and he is essentially accusing the Western media of either at best not caring, and at worst taking a pro-Palestinian stance. The article is an interesting example of the Israeli-victim narrative that develops throughout the history of the conflict, it is assumed that Israel is not receiving its fair share of positive media attention and this contributes to the "world is against us" narrative.

I will end this discussion with some food for thought. What can we make of the following paragraph that appears in this article. Justified or not justified? What do you make of his interpretation of the dichotomy between the bombing citizens/coming into a house with a knife?



"In response to the question of when did you see an Israeli come into a Palestinian house and butcher a child with a knife, the reporter answered: Is bombing citizens more ethical than stabbing children in their beds? To me the two are equally atrocious."

The reporter's statements indicate clearly that a majority of the European public sees no difference between a legitimate act of self-defense and a terror attack. When this is the popular view in the European media and public, it is naïve to think that a series of pictures, as shocking as they may be, would bring about a change in public opinion."




Links:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinians-attacked-at-west-bank-settlement-as-tensions-rise-1.349779
http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=212555
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4043664,00.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4043490,00.html
top