october 2004
Racist
Zionists like Ami Isseroff like to rant about the biases
of the Arab press, but it is an open question whether the
Arab, the Zionist or the American media come closest to
reality.Daniel Dor's Intifada Hits the Headlines provides a careful and tight analysis of the misrepresentation of the second intifada to the Israeli public by the Israeli press. As the Americans received most of their news about the 2nd intifada via the Israeli press, the Israeli press managed to mislead not only the Israeli public but also the American public in one fell swoop.
Probably a more general but similar analysis should be carried out for the US press. One must also wonder whether there is any reason to believe Israeli misreporting is just confined to the period of the second intifada? I was doing business in Israel and the OT from 1993 onward and was already noticing a severe disconnect between the facts on the ground in the OT and the presentation in the Israeli press by 1994. By 1997 I began to feel that Israeli and American Zionists were deceiving and had deceived me in every way about Zionism, the State of Israel and the associated history. One really does find a very different history on researching the primary sources in the original languages. The material available in English is untrustworthy, and translations from primary sources into Hebrew are also questionable.
I saw an op-ed column in Haaretz that struck me as peculiar and perhaps as a symptom of the same pathology. The title is Scapegoat for Iraq (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/426884.html). The author, Aluf Benn, tries to frame the Neoconservatives as naive Washington youngsters that proposed a bad strategy for which Israel is being perhaps unjustly blamed.
Even in 1996 Bill Kristol and his buddies simply were not youngsters. I knew Bill Kristol (Neoconservative publisher of The Weekly Standard) when I was an undergraduate at Harvard. I considered him a potentially dangerous idiot. Since then he seems to have graduated to the class of really dangerous idiot. (I also met George W. Bush at about the same time. Because he was a heavy angel dust user, he was not much of a conversationalist.) Since Harvard, I have met at one time or another the major pentagon Neocon policy makers. They are all characterized by a complete inability to distinguish American from Israeli interests.
As far as I can tell, they are all blue stripe diaper babies (by analogy with red diaper babies). Rafael Medoff has documented the efforts of American Revisionist followers of Vladimir Jabotinsky during the 20s, 30s and 40s.. This group included Benzion Netanyahu and Rabbi Kuk's nephew Bergson. The children of the American Revisionists learned an elitist form of politics from Leo Strauss and his disciples during the 50s, 60s, and 70s. During this time period the American Revisionists transformed themselves into Neoconservatives. Leo Strauss developed most of his philosophical and political ideas while he was a student of Heidegger. Heidegger was with good reason the Nazis' favorite living philosopher even if he was more of an opportunistic than a committed Nazi.
American Revisionists and Neoconservatives not only maintained their connection to the Zionist right-wing from the 1920s through the 2000s, but they have strengthened and deepened their ties to the point where there really is no boundary between the Neoconservatives and the Israeli political establishment, for many hold dual citizenship, serve in the Israeli army and are married to members of the Israeli political and economic elite.
There really is no way to separate Neoconservatives from their Zionist ideology, their commitment to Israel and their associations with the Zionist political establishment. If Aluf Benn were a real journalist, he would be investigating and documenting the Israel-Neoconservative connection either to prove or disprove it. Either way he would be doing an important and relevant service to his readership. Summary dismissal of the connection is completely inappropriate.
And BTW I have noticed that the Neocons are already grooming the next generation at Harvard and other American universities. Check out http://hcs.harvard.edu/~hireview/content.php?type=article&issue=spring04/&name=feith. This author helped Perle and Frum with the research for their recent book, An End to Evil.
Conflict Terminology: A Note For Editors, Journalists, and Readers
An Interactive Article
By Hassan El-Najjar
Al-Jazeerah, September 15, 2004
The following is just a tentative list of conflict terminology based on definitions from dictionaries, history, and observation. Any feedback to add more terms is welcome..
The reason I am writing this article is the need for a minimum level of agreement on the conflict terms used in the media around the world. The bias in reporting and analysis made most of the conflict terminology used in different ways to achieve goals of writers, away from objectivity and professionalism. This is an attempt to bring back some respect and decency to the profession of journalism and the media in general.
The conflict encompassing the world today is between the US-UK-Israel as one camp and groups opposing them all over the Arab and Muslim Worlds, as another camp. The corporate media in the first camp call the US-UK-Israeli (UUI) actions as the "War on Terror." However, most media around the world, including alternative media in the UUI camp, call it "invasion."
The corporate media of the UUI alliance describe Iraqis, Afghanis, and Palestinians opposing the invading armies as "terrorists," "insurgents," or "rebels." However, most media around the world, including alternative media in the UUI camp, call them resistance or guerrilla fighters.
The difference in the usage of these conflict terms is important because they are used to justify the actions of each camp. That is why it may not be easy to persuade journalists from both camps to use a common list of conflict terminology. Anyway, it doesn't hurt to try. I'll attempt to give an objective definition for each term, then I'll comment on the usage of the term particularly in the "embeded" UUI camp.
1. Politics is the process of who gets what resources, when, and how.
Political activities aim ultimately to controlling wealth in any society. How the budget is going to be decided and who benefits most is the end outcome of the competition. In the US, the media obscures the term to refer to differences on other issues.
2. War is using force to achieve political means. It is fought by regular military forces from different countries.
There is no war in Iraq or Afghanistan because there are no Iraqi or Afghani regular armed forces. There is resistance to foreign occupation in both countries. The term, "occupation" was mentioned in the UN Security Council resolution, in reference to presence of US forces in Iraq.
3. Civil War is using force to achieve political means. It is fought by regular or irregular military forces from the same country.
As long as there are foreign forces in Iran and Afghanistan, there is no civil war. There are US-backed Iraqis fighting Iraqis resisting the US occupation.
4. Rebellion is fighting one's own legitimate government in order to achieve political goals. It involves an open, armed, and organized resistance.
As a result, it's inaccurate to describe Muqtada Al-Sadr, for example, as a rebel, until at least the government can be legitimate and truly sovereign.
5. Uprising is an unarmed rebellion that is confronted by applying government force against the civilian population.
This term accurately applies to the peaceful activities of the Palestinian people and groups in opposing the Israeli occupation, such as protests, demonstrations, sit-ins, and hunger strikes. But it does not apply to the armed struggle.
6. Insurgency is an armed uprising against one's own government but it is less organized than a rebellion.
What's happening in Iraq is not an insurgency because the fighting is between Iraqis and foreign forces or between Iraqis and other Iraqis who are recruited by foreign forces. A more accurate term is resistance to the foreign occupation of the country.
7. Guerrilla is one who engages in irregular warfare in connection with a regular war.
In the first stages of the fighting, during 2003, Iraqi armed activities were accurately described by even the US military commanders as a guerrilla warfare. However, it has taken a more coherent and coordinated shape, particularly in 2004. Thus, a more accurate term is resistance, if the fighting is aimed at the opposing military forces.
8. Militants are persons aggressively involved in fighting.
This term should not apply to political leaders or activists, as many journalists do.
9. Resistance is the act of using arms to oppose the invading armed forces.
This is the term used throughout the 20th century to describe opposing foreign occupation forces, particularly German occupation forces in Europe. It should apply to groups fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine.
10. Terrorism is terrorizing or being terrorized, a mode of governing, or of opposing government by intimidation.
The term should be used to describe individuals, groups, and governments, which are involved in terrorizing the civilian populations. Corporate media journalists use the term routinely to describe individuals and groups but never use to describe the governments which target the civilian population by killing them, destroying their homes and fields, or by subjecting them to collective punishment. For a balanced approach, both terms of terrorism and state terrorism should be used.
11. Illegal Settlement Activity refers to the construction of population centers for the invading group on confiscated lands inside the invaded or occupied territories.
This activity is illegal because it violates the international law that prohibits changing the demographic status of the occupied territories. That is why the Israeli activities in the occupied territories should be accurately referred to as illegal settlement activity. If the term settlement is used alone, it misleads readers to think positively of the activity.
Ronald D Kennedy of California suggested that Israeli illegal settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories be called squatters. If his suggestion is followed, then illegal settlements may also be called squatterments.
Hilmi Salem of Canada objected to the term "squatter" because it means one who or that which squates, i.e. to settle on a piece of land without title or payment; especially one who settles on land without permission or right. This does not apply to the Palestinian territories which are owned by the Palestinian people. He suggested the use of colony and colonist instead. But the problem with the term "colony" is that it refers to a whole country, like Egypt or India, which were British colonies.
So far, the most accurate term to describe the Israeli occupation activities in confiscating and annexing Palestinian lands is "illegal Israeli settlement activities."
12. Sunna and Shi'a are the two major Islamic sects or schools of thought.
The apostrophe before the letter a in Shi'a represent a glottal Arabic sound.
13. Sunnis and Shi'is are followers of the Sunna and Shi'a schools.
Journalists in the Western media in general use the term Shiite in reference to Shi'i. This is a derogatory term, particularly in English, that should not be used. More important is that it is inaccurate and does not comply with the Arabic way of adjectivizing, as in the case with Sunni.
A final word:
This is an attempt to bring some order to the chaotic state of conflict terminology. I welcome any serious feedback. I hope that this list can be increased, reviewed, and improved, which may hopefully decrease some of the confusion accompanying the conflict insanity of our time.
Peace
ILLUSTRATION GEORGE GROSZ
A lie is a
terrifying business, looking so much more reasonable than
the truth, for truth often takes time to make itself
apparent. Now a days ofcourse at the outbreak of war
poets are drafted into what is called Information, one of
their main jobs being the manufacture of lies injurious
to the enemy. PATRICK KAVANAGH