This is my first classroom exposure to the subject of current conflicts and recent events in the Middle East. I think I have been very confused by the U.S. media since I, like many Americans my age, have relied heavily on major news organizations to present these facts to me.
I have gradually become more aware of the extent to which corporate interests in the U.S. can play such a role in filtering and manipulating journalists, but after seeing the film Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land: U.S. Media and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, I found myself shocked and disappointed with how much journalism seems to have lost its integrity. Specifically so in the U.S. It has become clear that propaganda is being used specifically to confuse many of us because if half of us understood the history of these conflicts and the occupancy of the Israeli military, I feel many Americans would no longer wish to support these efforts simply for oil or business.
Much of the footage I saw in the film of Palestine was new to my eyes. I don't understand why other countries have managed to show much clearer and unbiased stories. What makes our society different in that respect? I also wonder when corporate interests became so intertwined with journalism. What happened to muckraking and why does our government have the power to keep Americans in the dark? I have learned that I cannot rely on simple media coverage to understand what is going on day to day. It is my responsibility as a citizen to keep myself informed even if that means I must look elsewhere for the facts.
I was also quite surprised by my lack of awareness to the disrespectful portrayal of Middle Eastern people in not a few, but many movies which I have watched and considered to be some of my favorites. When examined in such a way as presented in the film Reel Bad Arabs it was absolutely surprising to me, but I had to agree with it. I find it hard to believe that other races would not be offended if they were portrayed time and time again as a threatening and “barbaric” people. Now that I am aware of Hollywood’s pattern, I know I will be unable to ignore such representations in the future. I think it is truly unfortunate that film makers continue to strengthen such stereotypes and that as an audience we have not responded to this.
I truly hope to get a lot out of this course and that by blogging my thoughts and sharing my opinions I can make others more aware of these issues.
You make a good point about the media. I have not been able to gain a deep understanding about the conflict by reading newpapers or watching the news. I have gained most of my knowledge by reading books or reviewing sources on the web.
ReplyDeleteHere is some history about the conflict that I have learned:
ReplyDeleteBefore WWI
There was little unified opposition to the first and second wave of Zionists who settled in Palestine before WWI. Initial opposition from Palestinian Arabs, who were peasant farmers, subsided after Jewish landowners permitted them to work the land and keep their income. However, Palestinian Greek Orthodox Christians were very vocal and used their newspapers to convey their anti-Zionist feelings (Bickerton & Klausner, 2007, p. 29).
During WWI
Britain made three contradictory deals that would help fuel the Arab-Israeli conflict. They are as follows:
The first deal developed out of the British government’s fear that the Ottoman Sultan, who was the Caliph, would declare a holy war against Britain and lead to attacks in Egypt that would disrupt of the Suez Canal (NPR website, Macmillan interview, 2003, start audio at 32 min. mark). To counter this concern and help their war effort, Britain promised Sharif Husain British assistance and Arab independence if the Arabs would help defeat the Ottoman Turks (McMahon-Husain correspondence, 1915-1916) (Macmillan, 2002, p. 387)
The second deal developed because “the British wanted to start a new offensive against the Ottomans from Egypt” and needed French agreement to divert the required resources. To bait France, Britain agreed to carve up the Ottoman Empire between the Allies (Sikes-Pecot, 1916) (Macmillan, p. 383).
The third deal developed because Britain wanted to make propaganda among U.S. Jews, as the U.S. had not yet joined the war, and Russian Jews who were lukewarm supporters of their government. When rumors circulated that Germany planned to make “a public declaration in favor of Zionism, the British government moved with speed” to court Zionists (Macmillan, p. 416). Britain, the most powerful country in the world at that time, put its prestige behind a Jewish homeland in Palestine, which was a province of the Ottoman Empire (Balfour Declaration, 1917). The promise was to be fulfilled when the Ottoman Empire disappeared (NPR, Macmillan interview, start audio at 32 min. mark).
As a side note, I now understand the meaning behind the title of a new book by Aaron David Miller (2008), “The Much Too Promised Land”. The book’s subtitle is “America’s Elusive Search For Arab-Israeli Peace”.
After WWI
There were mandates imposed after the war, which called for developed states (Britain/France) to take less developed states under their wing until the less developed states could rule themselves. The mandates were meant to be an interim step, but Arabs viewed them as Britain breaking its promise to allow an independent Arab state. Arabs considered Palestine, which was 9/10ths Arab at the time, Arab land that was included in the agreement with McMahon. They also viewed the Balfour Declaration as handing over Arab lands to people coming from the outside. The consequences of these deals left many in the Arab world feeling betrayed by Britain and France (NPR, Macmillan interview, start audio at 32 min. mark).
As a result, Palestinian Arabs began to react with hostility toward the Jewish presence, to riot, to organize and demand their rights. Their cause began to be tied to the cause of the greater Arab world. A symbol of the way the Arab world has been pushed around and manipulated by outside powers (NPR, Macmillan interview, start audio at 32 min. mark).
Bickerton, Ian J., & Klausner, Carla L. (2007). A History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Macmillan, Margaret. (2002). Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed The World. New York, NY: Random House.
I want to mention the Margaret Macmillan is the great-granddaughter of former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George.
NPR. (2008). Interview of Historian Margaret Macmillan. April 2003. Washington, D.C. Retrieved October, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1244627
Yes I think it is really sad that the media is so incredibly skewed. In fact I was revolted yet not surprised when the film showed us just how the process works to get to the point where we actually "watch the news." Even the words they are made to change and delicate language that is used! Yet I would like to think that we endorse the Israelis for more than just Oil's sake or whatnot. Probably, from the originally "Christian" country that we are, our leaders feel it is our duty to give the Israelis back "their" land. However, upon reading Lockman's book it kills me to realize that BOTH religions spurred from the same beginnings and yet they can't seem to agree to disagree and just enjoy the same Holy City... I tell ya
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that many movies that we have watched over the years and even during our childhood involve Arabs as the villains. But these are not the only people that are portrayed as villains. Due to the Great War many films involved Germans and Russians as the bad guys. I think it depends on who the people of this country are against in order to develop the bad guy.
ReplyDelete