Ethnocentric, Biased Media: "Strangle" those Palestinians

Mark LeVine is quickly becoming one of my favorite writers, and not just because he's faculty over at the University of California, Irvine (GO EATERS!). Levine's latest piece over on Al Jazeera, titled "The meaning of strangulation," demonstrates an extraordinarily biased and ethnocentric American media.

Many will recall the recent comments made by White House reporter Helen Thomas, who said Jews "should get the hell out of Palestine." Why will so many recall these comments? Not only because of their content (anti-Israel), but also because they made headlines all over the American media. Heaven forbid an elderly, retiring reporter with Middle Eastern roots express her opinions on a charged political issue, let alone an opinion that challenges Israeli occupation. In any case, the point here is, her comments made big news and threatened to taint her legacy as a reporter.

I hadn't realized, however, what LeVine points out:

Thomas was forced into retirement for declaring that Jews "should get the hell out of Palestine," but New York Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the most powerful politicians in the US, has avoided any criticism or even major press coverage for remarks he made only days later that supported the continued "economic strangulation" of Gaza; in part, because, he essentially argues, the inhabitants of the benighted Strip are not Jewish.

Schumer made his remarks during a brief talk to the Orthodox Union, a well-known politically conservative Jewish educational, outreach and social service organisation.

The talk covered several foreign policy issues, including Iran and Israel/Palestine. When the topic turned to the Israeli attack on the Gaza aid flotilla Schumer began by explaining that the "Palestinian people still don't believe in the Jewish state, in a two-state solution". But that is not all, he continued: "They don't believe in the Torah, in David."

Because of this, and because they chose to elect Hamas, Schumer went on to argue, Israel is right - and the US should support its desire - "to strangle them economically until they see that's not the way to go".

I, like most Americans, was made well aware of Thomas's statement, but not Senator Schumer's. LeVine then extrapolates on the social significance of Schumer:

...through his representation of New York, the state with the largest Jewish population in the US, he is a leading pro-Israel voice in congress who has the ability directly to impact the nature of US policy towards Israel and the Middle East more broadly.

In other words, what Senator Schumer says actually can cost people - Palestinians, Israelis, Americans - their livelihoods and even their lives, not to mention help prolong or alleviate one of the world's most intractable conflicts. And yet no one in official Washington even blinked.

To consider the implications of these comments, it is worth considering what would happen if any Arab or Muslim, never mind a US senator, explained that because Israelis do not support a two-state solution, and do not believe in the Quran - that is, have not converted to Islam - and have voted in one of the most right-wing governments in their country's history, the US, or the world more broadly, is justified in trying to "strangle Israel economically" until it moderates its policies.

Imagine the uproar. Consider what would happen to the person - a columnist or congressman - who made such a comment. Yet hardly anyone has even noticed, never mind considered the implications of Schumer's remarks, which on YouTube have garnered about 1,500 views.

I've re-presented a good portion of the essay, but there's a lot more. Excellent read. And here's a clip of Schumer's speech, along with a general summary of LeVine's points afterwards:

American Culpability in Israeli Occupied Territories

A few days ago I briefly suggested that the global community (okay, I mean the global north) held some complicity in allowing Israel to continue their oppression over the Palestinian occupied territories.

Mark LeVine (professor of history at U.C. Irvine) articulates this stance much more eloquently, and drives the point to another level in his piece, "Israel's 'friends' also to blame." LeVine argues that the United States' motivation in supporting Israel has nothing to do with supporting Israel or political ideology.

Rather, our support of Israel lies covertly in bolstering the private weapons manufacturing industry:

We have pretended to be its friend, but we are the friend in the way your drug dealer is your friend, sitting with you late at night listening to your problems while hooking you up with your next fix - only in strange twist, the American people rather than the Israelis are paying for the habit their government and corporate elites grow richer sustaining.

We are the ultimate facilitators of this insane and immoral arrangement, which is part of our larger addiction to war that now reaches $1 trillion per year.

LeVine goes on to tie the United States' ongoing relationship with Israel to the broader Middle East and connects our current militaristic efforts to American history:

And now at least 10 people are dead because of the shame, because of the inability of Israel's best friends to look it in the eye and say: "Stop this insanity. Treat Palestinians like humans before you destroy not only them, but you."

We cannot say that because we are guilty as well, and the US has proved singularly unable to come to grips with our own culpability in occupations from Iraq and Afghanistan to Gaza and, of course, our own original sin, which demanded millions of dead native Americans to ensure the creation of the very country that now supplies Israel with its weapons and tells it everything is going to be okay.

Some day you can let the Palestinians have casinos and they will thank you.

Highly recommended read.

Expulsion as an Option of Dominant-Minority Relations: Israel and the Occupied Territories

"Expulsion" is defined as "an effort to drive out a group that is seen as a social problem rather than attempting to resolve the problem cooperatively. This policy often arises after other methods, such as assimilation or extermination, have failed" (Parrillo, 2008, p. 137).

A good example of expulsion, in combination with extermination, occurring right now is the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territory of the Gaza Strip by Israeli forces. In the aftermath of the 2009 Gazan War (in which the death tolls were substantially higher among Palestinians), Isreal's sanctions have become even more ugly. A fairly balanced, rationale perspective from The Independent, "Leading Article: A costly misjudgement by Israel":

Confused though the picture might be, however, what has so far emerged conforms to a pattern that has become all too familiar. Confronted with a situation it saw as threatening, Israel applied massive armed force – force that would appear, at least, to have been out of all proportion to the circumstances. Acting apparently without warning, Israeli forces closed in when the boats were still in international waters, 40 miles from the coast. At that point there was no immediate threat, as most people would see it, either to Israel's blockade, or to its national security – and these are not necessarily the same thing.

Yes, it can be argued that the aid flotilla was conceived by the Free Gaza Movement (FGM) as a deliberate provocation. The presence of elderly people and at least one baby on the boats does not detract from that. And yes, it can be argued that the plan to breach Israel's sea blockade of Gaza was foolhardy. Israel insists that its blockade is designed to thwart arms shipments destined for Hamas. It was never going to stand idly by as the ships came within reach of the coast, however peaceful FGM's leaders might have professed their intentions to be.

The catastrophe and the shame is that this is not the first time such an unequal confrontation has taken place. Time and again, Israel has found itself applying military force and swiftly prevailing, only to lose whatever moral high ground it had at the outset. No one – at least no one in an internationally recognised government with the possible exception of Iran – disputes Israel's right to defend itself if its security is threatened. But since Hamas seized control of Gaza three years ago, Israel has repeatedly shown itself at its worst. It is not only the vast imbalance between Israel's professional military might and the armed fighters of Hamas. Nor is it only the suffering caused to Gaza's residents and the apparent irrationality of many aspects of the blockade – including the ban on building materials needed to repair the war damage.

Above all, it is Israel's abject failure to devise ways of defending itself other than by overwhelming military force. Faced with mass demonstrations or aid shipments that are cast by their organisers as peaceful, Israel still has no answer beyond a call to arms. It cannot, therefore, be surprised when most of the rest of the world then judges the means to be excessive and disproportionate to the ends.

As clearly stated, it is Isreal's dominant power (i.e., "gunboat diplomacy") in the form of militarisitic might that is a central variable in this violent mix. Irrespective of who fired the first shots in this latest tragedy, the ongoing imbalance in death tolls (even on ships hoping to provide humanitarian aid) demonstrates how discimination can mainfest in its most extreme forms (explusion and extermination) when power disparities widen.

As the global community continues to watch, or simply condemn Israel, the social dynamics that enable these tragedies will persist.

Backlash to America's First President of Color Continues

Backlash to America's first President of Color appears to be on the rise (listen here, fast-forward to about 9 minutes into the discussion). Today's announcement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicates movement towards constructive diplomacy in the incessant conflict between Palestinians and Israel, although the following comments will not likely sit well with any Palestinian leadership (from NPR).

Netanyahu, in an address seen as his response to Obama, he refused to heed the U.S. call for an immediate freeze of construction on lands Palestinians claim for their future state.

In any case, the catalyst for Netanyahu's announcement is obviously U.S. President, Obama. The picture, above, indicates how Obama will be constructed by majority groups who must now begrudgingly deal with an African American leader making serious efforts to address minority rights.

How further resistance to Obama by those wanting to maintain the status quo shakes out in public circles could be very disturbing.

(Photo courtesy of NPR).

Rationality in the Midst of Despair: A Balanced Look at Terrorism

The Independent ran an excellent story (2/27/09) titled "Despair and rage among Gaza's youths," which presented a variety of perspectives expressed by young Palestinian men in the wake of Israel’s recent military offensive. Despite being relatively short, the story spells out multiple factors that can contribute to terrorist movements.

Facing extreme poverty, violence, and victimization, some of these young male refugees – many of whom are in college – begin looking to terrorist organizations as an alternative.

"I used to keep away from military activity," says student Ahmad al-Khateeb, 21. "I wanted to graduate and leave the country. I was sometimes afraid of death".

But now, unable to sit his exams because his ID papers are buried under the rubble of his home, he says his views have "completely changed".

Sports science student Mohammad al-Mukayed, 22, says he saw three children killed by an airstrike as they played in the street just meters away from him.

"They were just pieces of flesh. I wanted to help but I couldn't. I do think of joining a group. I would rather be killed defending my land than die like these kids, doing nothing."

…

Rabah Mohanna, a political leader with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, one of the smaller militant factions, says the organisation has seen an in increase in the number of people volunteering to carry out suicide bombings since the conflict.

Many of them are young; most have either lost relatives or homes, or seen it happen to others, he says.

At the same time, other men’s voices display an alternative perspective that simply hopes for peace, feeling a resistance could not possibly overthrow Israel’s military prowess, and a realization that terrorist groups do not always look out for the greater good of their entire community who they claim to represent.

With few job opportunities even for those who can afford to study, many young people dream of emigrating.

"We're dead - either by Israeli weapons or as the living dead," says Mahmoud Abuqammar, 22.

…

Jihad al-Ajramy, 24, still bears a scar on his cheek from his two years as a militant, which he says ended when open warfare broke out between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority-linked Fatah.

The workshop he used to work in has long since closed as the flow of raw materials dried up under the blockade.

"I used to earn 200 shekels ($50) a day, now I even have to borrow cigarettes. None of these military factions is helping me. Why would I join?"

"During the war, everybody was thinking of fighting, of revenge, of going back to military action - but what fighting? Fighting against Israeli F16s?"

Again, it is an excellent read that needs to be read in its entirety. It also has a bit of commentary on masculinity's connection to violence and is nicely augmented by this BBC audio slideshow, titled "Homeless in Gaza."

The piece also ties in nicely with Louise Richardson’s (author of What Terrorists Want) research on terrorism. Richardson was on BBC’s radio show, “Outlook” (3/16/09; click HERE to listen to the whole interview) and offered brilliant insight into how terrorist groups operate, as well as how America’s “War on Terror” has fed into terrorist desires. Some highlights from the interview:

Terrorists have two types of motives. First, the underlying political motives, and these differ with different types of terrorist groups, so religious groups may want to reintroduce the counter faith, whereas nationalist groups may want independence or autonomy, secession and so on. So they differ with the different types of groups, but the secondary or more immediate motives I believe are constant across all types of terrorist groups.

So I believe the answer to the question “What Terrorists Want,” is first and foremost revenge, second renown, and third to provoke a reaction, so those are I think the motives that are held constant across all different terrorist groups – revenge, renown, and reaction.

…

People are recruited out of their commitment to the ideology. So what’s interesting, what’s the challenge for us is to try to understand how a person who in one part of his or her life may be a functioning student or a good parent can nevertheless commit atrocities in an effort to achieve a highly unlikely goal.

I think the main motive that anybody joins the IRA is the same motive that most people join Al-Qaeda. It’s a desire for revenge, usually for an act committed not against themselves personally, but with a larger group with which they identify.

…

I think the U.S. grossly, tragically over-reacted to the tragedy, the atrocity of September 11th, and in so doing, they played directly into the hands of Al-Qaeda. By declaring war on what was after all a motley collection of extremists living under the sponsorship of one of the poorest governments on the planet, we elevated their status to a degree that was almost unimaginable to them.

Terrorists want to be considered at war because it legitimizes them and raises their profile. And I think also by declaring war, we decided on a military response. And again, America has an extraordinary military, but as we’ve seen time and time again, military strength doesn’t translate into victory against terrorism. There is a role for the military, but it’s a limited role.

We need to understand (terrorists) so that we can fashion more effective counter-terrorism policy.

Looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from this point of view, one can more clearly see why some (definitely not all) Palestinians join Hamas or smaller combative organizations. And as Dr. Richardson states, those who join terrorist organizations are not necessarily blind puppets.

They frequently have excessively violent experiences behind them coupled with a strained perspective lying ahead, in which their life’s aspirations do not coincide with expectations. Without exonerating terrorist efforts, this puts a more humanistic and properly contextualized angle on terrorism, accounting for co-occurring violence and power imbalance.

(Photo courtesy of BBC News)

When a Victimized Ethnic Identity Leads to Collective Violence

The Independent has an interesting piece up penned by Antony Lerman titled, “Must Jews always see themselves the victims?” (3/7/09). He argues that the Jewish identity is mired in calls for sympathy, and that while international commiserating is surely warranted, the ongoing portrayal of victimization without an acknowledgment of co-occurring provocation is inaccurate.

Lerman relies heavily on Jewish intellectuals to make his case:

Some pioneering research, published as Israel's bombing of Gaza began, throws some light on this. It reveals just how much the feeling that no matter what we do, we are perpetually at the mercy of others applies to Jewish Israelis. A team led by Professor Daniel Bar Tal of Tel Aviv University, one of the world's leading political psychologists, questioned Israeli Jews about their memory of the conflict with the Arabs, from its inception to the present, and found that their "consciousness is characterised by a sense of victimisation, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanisation of the Palestinians and insensitivity to their suffering". The researchers found a close connection between that collective memory and the memory of "past persecutions of Jews" and the Holocaust, the feeling that "the whole world is against us". If such a study were to be conducted among Jews in Britain, I suspect the results would be very similar.

For Jews to see themselves in this way is understandable, but it's a distortion and deeply damaging. As Professor Bar Tal says, this view relies primarily on prolonged indoctrination that is based on ignorance and even nurtures it.

Provocative words no doubt. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict differs from many of the other ethnic conflicts raging across our globe in that it is based much more so on an expressed ethnic right to a land base that is not terribly rich in natural resources. Instead, Jewish ethnic identity is rooted in victimization and religious ties, which in turn "justifies" attacks on Palestinians (and likely visa versa, though that is not Lerman’s focus). More from Lerman:

The hope and optimism which accompanied the collapse of communism and the Jewish revival in Europe in 1989 have certainly been eclipsed by a defensive, fearful, ethnocentric mindset, which makes a just resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict ever harder to achieve and casts a pall over Jewish life everywhere. So why are we reading our own times through the prism of a lachrymose view of Jewish history?

Lerman’s point regarding ethnocentrism is key and coincides nicely with theoretical viewpoints made in Stefan Wolff’s excellent (though sometimes confusing) book, Ethnic Conflict: A Global Perspective:

…the nature of demands made by ethnic groups is not necessarily an indicator the strength and cohesiveness of the ethnic identity of group members, but rather a reflection of the degree of threat under which group identity is perceived to be. Current perceptions and past experiences often function as an escalator in this context – the worse a group’s historical experience within a particular state and the more threatening current state policies are perceived to be to the identity of the group and its members, the more likely will demands be high and the means with which they are realized be indiscriminate, including violence. (p. 41, 42).

The indiscriminate nature of violence that characterizes an increasing number of ethnic conflicts since the 1990s includes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where civilians are victims as much as, if not more so than, opposing military forces. And as covered in varied media accounts, a significant number of Palestinian and Israeli children are showing severe forms of physical and emotional trauma due to their exposure to violence. From the BBC News:

Several hundred of the 1,300 Palestinian deaths were children and some accounts of civilian deaths have raised concerns of war crimes…

Ongoing trauma too plagues the residents of Israel's southern towns, who live under the constant threat of Palestinian rocket fire, with about 8,000 rockets and mortars fired since 2001.

At least 18 people have been killed in that time. Children under eight have known little else but a constantly heightened state of anxiety.

It’s truly amazing that ethnic groups establish their collective identities to such an extent that collective violence escalates to this level.

(Photo courtesy of the BBC News)