[iwar] [fc:Making.sense.out.of.nonsense.-.Media.coverage.of.the.Intifada]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-01-08 06:46:19


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-4240-1010501147-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 08 Jan 2002 06:47:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 1055 invoked by uid 510); 8 Jan 2002 14:46:09 -0000
Received: from n26.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.76) by all.net with SMTP; 8 Jan 2002 14:46:09 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-4240-1010501147-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [216.115.97.188] by n26.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Jan 2002 14:36:21 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 8 Jan 2002 14:45:47 -0000
Received: (qmail 3008 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2002 14:45:46 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Jan 2002 14:45:46 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.125.69) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Jan 2002 14:45:46 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g08EkJx25656 for iwar@onelist.com; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 06:46:19 -0800
Message-Id: <200201081446.g08EkJx25656@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 06:46:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Making.sense.out.of.nonsense.-.Media.coverage.of.the.Intifada]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Making sense out of nonsense - Media coverage of the Intifada 
        

The portrayal of Israel as a besieged state at the mercy of attacks by
Palestinian gunmen is detached from reality
        

      By Mohammed Zigby (RAIN) 
      January 07, 2002, 11:18 AM

      - Adjectives such as "aggressors", "villains" and "attackers" have
been used to describe the Palestinians in the Intifada.  And words such
as "victim", "self-defense" and "beleaguered" have been used to describe
the Israeli role and actions.  But these words - being used as they are
- do not reflect the reality on the ground.  Why? Simply, because of the
fact their application distorts or ignores the relationship of power in
the ongoing conflict.  Even though the disparity of power between the
Israelis and the Palestinians has become commonsensical to even the most
casual observer of the enduring conflict Western - and in particular
American - journalistic works continue to deny the reality staring them
in the face. 


      It should seem logical that aggression derives from a position of
power.  Aggression is not necessarily synonymous with power because the
former tends to have a "hostile" connotation to it whereas the latter is
a crude calculation of one's position/status.  Aggression is a way power
can be used.  Power can be used "aggressively" or for defensive
purposes, though we are more familiar with examples of the former.  Now,
aggression connotes an "offensive" quality - to "aggress" is to make the
first attack.  A cornered animal is reacting to an attack.  An otherwise
aggressive act becomes defensive because it is a reaction in a
particular context. 

      The stronger can use aggression against the weaker whereas the
opposite is highly unlikely.  Thus, when Iraq (stronger) invaded Kuwait
(weaker) that act was one of aggression.  Now, a powerful actor can
commit such an act because it has the power to support that act.  It is
important to point out that a strong actor will decide to act
accordingly because doing so will benefit its position (or it may
perceive a "benefit").  Subsequently, a weak state - like Kuwait - will
not risk invading Iraq because such an act will be detrimental to its
position.  Therefore, acts of aggression (i.e.  invasion, occupation)
are acts deriving from power. 

      By the same token, terms like "victim" and "self-defense" imply a
position of weakness.  Self-defense implies being on the receiving end
of a stronger power.  In a "relationship of power" the stronger will
have the ability to dictate terms and initiate an aggressive action with
the intention of satisfying certain goals.  The weaker one will be in a
position of "loss" and will have to defend his position.  In the literal
sense self-defense emerges from a position of weakness and aggression
from a position of power. 

      Having offered such a clarification, it should seem apparent that
the journalistic narrative of the Arab-Israeli does not conform to
reality.  Israel is clearly in a position of strength vis-à-vis the
Palestinians.  The Israeli military ranks in the top 3 (along with the
US and Russia) and has proven its worth in battle on numerous occasions. 
Israel receives upwards to $4 billion US in military-economic aid
annually, and is more than what the entire continent of Africa receives
annually from the US! Clearly, Israel is powerful and is in a position
of strength.  The continued occupation of Arab lands derives from this
strength and is testimony to that strength. 

      Therefore, the portrayal of Israel as a besieged state at the
mercy of attacks by Palestinian gunmen is detached from reality. 

      Despite this discrepancy, the general media has succeeded in
portraying Israel as the victim.  What's more disturbing is the general
public's willingness to accept the representation uncritically.  In
order to make sure this picture is endorsed by the public words like
"terrorism", "terrorist" and "terror" are used to discredit whatever
actions the Palestinians commit in the conflict. 

      Furthermore no attempt is made to really define "terrorism" or to
question the application of the term solely to the Palestinians. 

      What is terrorism? There actually is no accepted definition.  As a
result, I will not venture to define the term.  Rather, I will focus on
what is implied by the term.  The term "terrorism" implies that the
objective is terror - terror, for the sake of terror.  Now, that does
little to clarify the motives behind a "terrorist" act.  What it does -
and it does successfully - is to discredit the actor doing the
"terrorizing".  For instance, little effort is done to understand the
reasons behind the WTC bombings or the attack of a suicide bomber on a
crowded pizzeria in downtown Tel Aviv.  Efforts to understand are in no
way attempts to legitimize.  However, discussion of the reasons for such
actions are discouraged out of fear of discovering a semblance of truth
which may shatter the "truths" constructed by a sophisticated system of
indoctrination. 

      Now, if we take the WTC case as example, we have to determine the
reasons - perceived or actual - behind the attacks.  Contrary to popular
belief, the attacks were not an "attack against civilization" - as
Washington would have us believe - or an attack on innocent civilians
for the sake of killing innocent civilians.  What motivated these
individuals (known in the media as "terrorists") was decades of unfair
US foreign policy in the Middle East based on the premise of blindly
supporting Israel and its continued occupation of Arab lands. 
Furthermore, there is the issue of US troops in the Holy Sites of Mecca
and Medina in Saudi Arabia, as well as the crippling sanctions on Iraq
which have killed upwards of half a million people.  If we accept these
factors and realize their significance we are closer to understanding
the actions on New York and we are a step closer to understanding a
phenomenon we continue to "mystify" with labels like "terrorist" and
"terrorism".  We need to bring into light a subject that has been kept
in the dark.  As for the suicide bomber blowing himself up in a crowded
pizzeria in downtown Tel Aviv we need to determine the reasons that
compel an individual to go to such lengths.  Well, a cursory review of
Israel's treatment of Palestinians and its continued occupation of Arab
and will shed some light on the situation.  Israel continues to
confiscate land, demolish homes, monopolize water sources and impose
curfews on a population of Palestinian refugees.  This does not include
the atrocities committed against these people since their dispossession
in the late 40s.  There are many reasons behind these actions.  We just
have to make an effort to discover them. 

      Ultimately, the actions of these individuals (or groups) are
symptoms of significantly unjust practice done to them at the hands of
more powerful actors.  The Hizballah, it will be remembered, was created
in reaction to Israel's occupation of South Lebanon and their role was
as "defender" of "occupied" lands.  They are reacting to a cause - they
are reacting to something they deem gravely wrong.  They have targeted
civilians - which is dead wrong.  Even if we say they do commit a
"terrorist" act, does that make the actor or his cause "terrorist" as
well? If we answer in the affirmative, then why does the same logic not
apply to countries such as Israel when Israel is guilty of targeting
civilians and destroying homes? Does it and should it make a difference
if the means employed include an army of Apache helicopters or that it
is State-sanctioned?

      Essentially the narrative of the ongoing conflict is skewed and is
partly responsible for the continuation of the conflict.  Public opinion
will back policy that is in actuality detrimental to the situation but
only seems beneficial because it suits the distorted picture we get from
the media.  Moreover, the concept of "terrorism" does not contribute in
any way, shape or form to simplifying the situation or offering an
understanding of the reality on the ground.  Terrorism discourse only
adds to the confusion and debate and only blurs the line between fact
and fiction.  We need to re-look the reality in the face, dissect it and
understand it.  We need to - ultimately - let the facts speak for
themselves and not speak for the facts. 

      This article is brought to you in association with Miftah.org

            © January 2002 Arabia Online Ltd. All rights reserved 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-12-31 02:15:02 PST