Media Language and War: Manufacturing Convenient Realities - by: Ramzy Baroud

Media Language and War: Manufacturing Convenient Realities
By: Ramzy Baroud

In the competitive world of media today, swift and conveniently selective reporting is of prime importance. Google News, for example claim to scan 4,500 news sources, of which only a few are highlighted as main stories. There are thousands of similar services, all competing to produce a story in the fastest time. Thorough - and thus slower - reporting is relegated to the sidelines and crucial information often appears too little too late.

The Iraq story, which has occupied a huge proportion of headline news for years, serves as a good example of this.

On February 1st, only a few minutes apart, two Iraqi women detonated themselves in two crowded pet markets in the Iraqi capital. Authorities said that 98 people were reportedly killed and 200 were wounded. Eyewitnesses reported a grizzly scene where human and animal body parts littered the streets, hundreds of feet away from the blasts.

Any thorough analysis of the story would have to examine several related factors. First, it would need to juxtapose the high death toll with US and Iraqi governments’ reports of ‘calm’ in the Baghdad area. The claim of a ‘return to normalcy’ in the Iraqi capital has been propagated for months, as a way of validating US President’s Bush’s military ‘surge’. Even if we buy into the questionable statistics aimed at hyping the positive outcome of the surge – questionable because they are only promoted by US and Iraqi military sources, with vested interests in downplaying the seriousness of the ‘insurgency’ – the violence seems to have shifted from the capital into northern areas, especially Mosul.

Instead of admitting failure in halting the violence which has plagued Iraq since the US occupation of 2003, US and Iraqi authorities resort to a continued and violent language to confuse and distract from the real issues.

This is how Alissa J. Rubin began her article for the New York Times (January 31): “The unsettled situation in northern Iraq continued Wednesday as Iraqi troops massed in Mosul to fight Sunni Arab extremists”. This is a brilliant way to divert attention of the story from the failure of the surge to manipulate other values, and lump these values to create a completely fallacious association: "Sunni Arab extremists."

Rubin further quotes an Iraqi defense ministry spokesman as claiming that the goal of the military operation is to oust Al-Qaeda in Iraq from the city and prevent its fighters from returning."

The entry statements contain a dangerously inaccurate linkage between Arabs (an increasing oppressed monitory in the Iraqi city), Sunnis (the ‘remnants of the Saddam regime’ as mindlessly parroted by the media), extremists of the previous group and al-Qaeda. The New York Times story – which often sets the standards for reporting in other major US publications – will have laid the prefect foundation to justify future ethnic cleansings of Sunni Arabs from the city, should the ‘military operation’ succeed in ‘driving out’ al-Qaeda militants (the numbers of which are inflated whenever such exaggeration is necessary).

Returning to the Baghdad markets’ bombings, the response to this tragedy was predictably misleading. The Iraqi government issued the usual, if somewhat bizarre statement, and US officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made fiery condemnations. Enough material was gathered within the hour to inundate us with hundreds of ‘fresh’ news stories, which were mostly a rehash of the official statements made in Baghdad’s Green Zone or in Washington.

CNN online opened one of its articles, made available soon after the market bombings, with: "Two mentally disabled women were strapped with explosives Friday and sent into busy Baghdad markets, where they were blown up by remote control."

The allegation was attributed to an Iraqi government official later in the statement.

The Iraqi official said that "people referred to the bomber at central Baghdad's al-Ghazl market as the "crazy woman" and that the bomber at a second market had an unspecified birth disability."

Who are these ‘people’? Did the CNN reporter examine the legitimacy of that claim by interviewing any of them’?

The involvement of women in this sort of violence is often a critical addition to the story, especially for Western readers. Readers tend to pause longer when they hear of a suicide bomber who was also a mother. They may feel an urge to learn more about the life of such a woman. Was she an inmate in Abu Ghraib? Tortured? Raped? Did she lose a family member to the US war, to the Iraqi death squads?

What do the bombings tell us about the security situation in Baghdad, the success or failure of the ‘surge’ or the war which is driving people to suicide in its most brutal manifestations? Apparently, it tells us nothing.

But Lt. Col. Steve Stover, spokesman for the Multi-National Division-Baghdad has an explanation that seems, at least from the point view of CNN much more relevant than the seemingly unimportant questions above. "By targeting innocent Iraqis, they (those who dispatched the ‘mentally disabled’ women suicide bombers) show their true demonic character." Thus, CNN headline: "'Demonic' militants sent women to bomb markets in Iraq." In Western media language, Arab women are perpetually oppressed victims, and they must maintain that role for the story to read right. Thus, the women bombers cannot be viewed themselves as extremists, but as victims in the hands of extremists.

Within hours the buzz words on online news were ‘mentally disabled’ and ‘demonic’.

But what does ‘demonic’ mean exactly? What real issues does it address? And why should such an irrelevant outburst define the deadliest bombing in Baghdad in months?

Focusing on such extraneous associations - mindless, mad, demonic women, possessed and acting on the behest of bearded and cunning al-Qaeda ‘Arab Sunni, extremists’ – does much more than simply distract from the many military and policy failures in Iraq. It helps create a parallel universe to that of the real world, thus presenting a substitute image that shapes and reshapes the perceptions and imaginations of faraway news consumers.

The ‘real world’ - whether that of Iraq, Palestine, Burma, Kenya or any other - is a world that, although seemingly chaotic, is very much rational. It is predicated on the values of cause and affect. What may seem ‘demonic’ and ‘mad’ to a non-media person should not appear the same to a journalist. The latter’s responsibility is to narrate, contextualize and deconstruct with an independent and critical eye, not merely reiterate what has been told to him by ‘official sources’.

The corporate media’s depiction of the Gaza story which has been unfolding for months might be summed up in one overriding headline: Hordes of Palestinian Breach Gaza Border with Egypt, Israel Concerned over Its Security.

The imprisonment of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza – where poverty stands at 79 percent and unemployment hovers around a similar number, and where the majority of the population is ‘food insecure’ according to United Nations agencies – should have been depicted first and foremost as a humanitarian disaster compelled by an Israeli siege. The dates related to the successive stages of the siege follow a line of Israel’s political, not ‘security’ logic. Any reasonable timeline of recent events could easily verify that (the formation of the Hamas government in March 2006, the ousting of the pro-Israeli Palestinian security apparatus in June 2007 and so on being followed by dramatic Israeli moves to tighten the siege on Gaza, Hamas’ stronghold).

But little of that seemed relevant to the way the Gaza story was amply reported. Like the Iraq story, where the two main trusted sources are the occupation and its puppet Iraqi government, any story of relevance to Israel and Palestine has to be validated by the official Israeli source and to a lesser but growing extent by their allies among Palestinians. The rest are ‘extremist’, radical and hell-bent on the destruction of the ‘Jewish state.’ Note how the Jewishness of Israel is often emphasized whenever the word ‘destruction’ or similar words are infused.

This is what Bridget Johnson wrote in the Seattle PI (January 29) chastising the United Nations’ Human Rights Council for its condemnation of Israel’s siege on Gaza: “There was zero mention of Hamas' continued rocket attacks on Israel -- which preceded the cutoff of supplies that has caused such an uproar -- or Hamas' refusal to renounce violence against and attempted destruction of the Jewish state.”

The claims were preposterous – especially that of a small group’s ‘attempted destruction’ of a country saturated with nuclear arms. The words ‘destruction’ and ‘Jewish state’ are simply passed as an innocent ‘opinion’, read by thousands of Americans. There are many notable omissions as well. Hamas has repeatedly called for a mutual ceasefire. This was also repeatedly rejected or simply ignored by Israel (in the guise of ‘not negotiating with terrorists’). The siege followed the democratic elections of Hamas, not the rocket attacks, the intensity of which corresponded with the number of Palestinians killed in Gaza.

Also conveniently missed is the fact that Palestinians rockets have killed 10 Israelis in several years. The killing of any civilian anywhere is tragic, but the facts are rarely contextualized by the media. The number of Palestinians killed in Gaza as a result of Israeli army attacks since the Annapolis ‘peace’ conference two months ago is estimated at 149. Several folds were killed in Gaza since the siege started early 2006. Over 60 have died since June 2007 as a result of either lack of medicines or Israel’s refusal to allow them entry to better equipped hospitals in the West Bank.

This is only the tip of the iceberg since human suffering cannot only be measured by those who die, but also those who continue to live in perpetual suffering. For Johnson, this is irrelevant, since this is not about right and wrong, but a war of language. To win, one must have command over language – and the way it’s manipulated – and access to platforms that reach the largest number of readers. An easy recipe to victory is an intentional mix of such words as Islamic extremism, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Jewish state, security, destruction, right to exist, juxtaposed with images or clips of angry Palestinian youth burning Israeli and American flags, ‘side-by-side’, and you will have an American public and government standing in eternal solidarity with Israel.

While most US politicians are self-seeking, power hungry and would do whatever it takes to be elected, the average American, unlike what it may seem, is not born ‘pro-Israel’, and ‘anti-Palestinian.’ Most Americans are pro the manufactured, yet misleading image of Israel that reaches their homes through television, waiting at their doorsteps in the morning and is beamed to them through the web. Israel has mastery over the language of the Western media, which, again, helped create a paralleled universe that has little relation to reality. This alternative universe only exist on the pages of New York Times, the images of CNN, and the blabber of Fox News ‘experts’. According to that narrative, Palestinians, are, like the Iraqi women suicide bombers, ‘demonic’, ‘mad’, ‘extremist’, ‘irrational’, self hating, and all the rest.

To recognize reality the way it is, one has to re-examine language. While a critical reader is essential, the task starts in the hand of a journalist, who must understand his topic not based on simple ‘facts’ and perceptions. Simple facts lead to simple conclusions: Sunnis extremists, mad Mullah, unruly Palestinians, besieged Israel. Every story can be told in three different ways: two by the two main conflicting parties, and a third by the journalist himself.

The journalist must not compromise on his independence, must not buy into jargons, mantras, and turn into another official spokesperson. To convey a version of a story that is as close the true story as possible, a media person has to comprehend the context himself, analyze the motives and follow the line of logic: cause and affect, then, impart his new realizations - free of self-censorship, coercion or intimidation. Otherwise, the true story will always be shelved in favor of re-written official statements and repackaged government and military press releases, falsely presented as ‘accurate’, ‘independent’ and ‘impartial’. Mindlessly repeating these official discourses may be easier and more profitable, but it will make no helpful contribution to the field of journalism, and to any possibility of truth and justice.

-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

QuestionItNow

Is Pakistan is Up for Grabs?

As usual Ramzy Baroud delivers insightful analysis of world events. American policy makers will be wise to listen to voices such as his. The following message was sent 12/30/07:

Dear Editor:

This article was written before Benazir Bhutto's assassination Thursday, however, it puts some context, I think, around her assassination, and the statements made by the Pakistan, and U.S. governments prior to that.

Hope that you will find it useful.

Regards
Ramzy Baroud
+++++

Machiavellian Musharraf
By Ramzy Baroud

The 42-day drama in Pakistan is far from over; the declaration of emergency and the lifting of emergency are part of a charade, behind which exists a complex power play between Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, various camps within the military elite, and the US government. The Pakistani people are the least relevant to these calculations, although every player never fails to justify unwarranted actions in their name.

General Musharraf’s motives for declaring emergency on November 3 are far from enigmatic. To guarantee his political future, Musharraf acted in the decisive, uncompromising fashion of a military man: first he brought the country to a state of suspended animation, then he restructured the government, judiciary, parliament and constitution to align them with his interests. Once these changes were enacted, he revoked the 42-day state of emergency, and even further promised ‘absolutely’ free and transparent legislative elections on January 8 next year.

The Bush administration’s placatory response to Musharraf’s actions (not going further than carefully-worded, benign condemnations) is not the only thing that makes it hard to substantiate the claim that Musharraf acted independently of the US or at the behest of some elements in the Pakistani military alone. Following September 11, 2001, and the invasion of Afghanistan soon after, Musharraf has become one of America’s most faithful allies in the region. US aid to Pakistan multiplied and spent with little accountability. According to Jeffrey D Sachs, a Professor of Economics at Columbia University, "75 per cent of the $10 billion in US aid has gone to the Pakistani military, ostensibly to reimburse Pakistan for its contribution to the ‘war on terror’, and to help it buy F-16s and other weapons systems. Another 16 per cent went straight to the Pakistani budget, no questions asked. That left less than 10 per cent for development and humanitarian assistance."

The Pakistani president is Machiavellian part and parcel. Contrary to appearances, he knows his limits and plays by the unwritten rules of power. When he declared emergency, he cited two objectives with underlying messages.

The first was aimed at his detractors who he claimed had mounted a ‘conspiracy’ to destabilise the country and his rule; as this conspiracy allegedly involved the judiciary, it justified his purge campaign.

The second message cleverly transcended all of that to reel in the US and its ‘war on terror’. Indeed, according to this logic, Musharraf needed a state of emergency to combat a Taleban-inspired insurgency stemming from the tribal areas in the North West Frontier Province. With the US and NATO fighting their own Taleban and Taleban-inspired insurgency in Afghanistan, Musharraf’s actions in Islamabad were meant to supplement the incessant efforts at curbing the terrorist resurgence in the entire region.

It is hardly news that countries which to utilise ‘war on terror’ reasoning to justify violating human rights and democracy in their own countries are often — if not always — American allies or clients.

Musharraf must have understood that his failure to cooperate with US military plans would invite US wrath and hasten his exit (violent or otherwise). While his ‘cooperation’ was hardly optional, it also had its rewards. One of these was a free hand to alter internal political structures, so long as they didn’t in any way interfere with US interests. Musharraf tested this unspoken understanding, and the Bush administration kept true to its word — until the US Congress decided to interfere.

At the same time that Musharraf began decrying the Taleban-inspired insurgency in the tribal areas, US officials began highlighting — if not manipulating — intelligence that exaggerated the same threat.

For example, US Defence Secretary Robert M Gates said in a media briefing on December 21 that Al Qaeda insurgents are shifting focus to Pakistan, threatening the country and its ‘people’. Gates dismissed the Taleban’s violent return to Afghanistan, even mocking the over-publicised spring offensive. "The spring offensive we expected from the Taleban became NATO's spring offensive," he told journalists in Washington. Why this sudden change of priorities, and why did they coincide so well with Musharraf’s own changes?

The shift — which has made Pakistan the primary battleground, as opposed to its previous position as a less important frontier than Afghanistan — could mean a major strategic change in US military policy toward Pakistan in the future. It also emphasises the importance of the role played by Musharraf and his regime.

Musharraf’s validation is urgently needed by the Bush administration now that Congress has passed the spending bill, putting limits on $300 million of US military aid to Pakistan. A sum of $250 million is be used strictly for counter-terrorism operation, and the delivery of the rest hinges on Pakistan’s success — or failure — in living up to the Congress’ strict conditions. This deviation, if not contained quickly, might cause a rift and future difficulties for the US in Pakistan, especially among disgruntled military figures competing for power, privilege and contracts. For now, the White House has gone on crisis management mode, touting the January 8 elections and paying lip service to democracy, free media access and so forth.

One of those involved in defending Musharraf’s record is US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, who, on December 20, said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should be able to report that Pakistan is on its way toward full restoration of democracy. "We're trying to keep moving toward elections that are as fair and as free as possible. We do think there are (additional) steps that can be taken and will be taken," Boucher said.

The US administration and Congress are likely to clash over the best ways to control Pakistan, or — to put it mildly — to ensure Pakistan’s continuous cooperation in the US ‘war on terror’. However the clash manifests, the resulting US foreign policy posture is likely to affect changes – substantial or otherwise – in US policy toward Pakistan, resulting in further interference in the country’s internal affairs, deepening the discord and fuelling more violence. Indeed, it may endanger the future of genuine democracy in Pakistan for years to come.

-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London)

QuestionItNow

JUST Media: the new news experts.

Dear Editor:
Greetings:

I hope all is well. Copied below and also attached is my latest article, A Matter of Opinion; it discusses the role of the ‘expert’ in the corporate media and it offers an alternative.

I hope that you will find it interesting.

Many thanks

Ramzy Baroud
+++++

A Matter of Opinion

By Ramzy Baroud

What do an organic farmer from Spain, a union worker activist from Brazil and a human rights scholar living in London have in common? They are all individuals who affect substantive change in their communities and they are also individuals who are overlooked by the corporate media.

The latter has its own lists of ‘experts’ — usually well-groomed males with little involvement in the daily struggles of the unseen and unheard multitudes of the world, yet able to influence their lives (most often detrimentally) from a well-guarded distance.

So how does the business of expertise work? Why are those qualified to address their own affairs so widely ignored by mainstream channels in favour of intellectual middlemen who purport to have some sort of legitimacy over a range of narratives, without any convincing credentials, let alone first-hand experiences?

The phenomenon precedes the advent of network television and satellite news. It is embedded in a Western tradition that was formulated around imperial conquests: for a people to be conquered, they have to be understood in a language that prioritises the interests of the colonialist over the rights of the colonised. The latter’s identity is replaced by verbal and textual reductionism. Thus Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, the Somali leader who strove for twenty years to free his people from British and Italian colonialism was termed ‘Mad Mullah’ by the British. Hassan, of course, was as ‘mad’ as Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and the vigorous leaders of numerous struggles around the world. The list of these individuals is ever expanding, as activists are written off by those in power, those whose ‘sanity’ preaches subscribing to the status quo and the inherent wisdom of the ‘system’.

This system serves not the majority of people living within it, but rather the combined interests of those with the money and those with the weapons: one funds the other’s military adventurism, and the other guarantees unhindered access to cheap supplies, labour and markets. Without Bush’s war in Iraq, Blackwater could not generate over a billion dollars of extra contracts; the relationship is painfully obvious.

Of course, neither Bush nor Blackwater executives are imprudent enough to speak of their real motives, and it would be equally imprudent for us to trust that Blackwater’s ultimate objective is to contribute to the efforts of the US military to ‘protect’ their country and its founding principles. Unfortunately, though the deceptiveness of dominant rhetoric may often be apparent, when repeated numerous times to millions of people worldwide, it eventually gathers force, and even credibility. The process has real and very deadly consequences: Blackwater mercenaries go on killing sprees; endless media airtime is given to its executives and sympathetic ‘experts’ who ‘objectively’ defend their company’s image; a congressional hearing of good cop/bad cop is held whereby one congressman thanks Blackwater for protecting the lives of Americans overseas while another gently reprimands it for not using extra care. Extra care in gunning down innocent people? At this question the story is shelved. By the time Blackwater kills again it is no longer even newsworthy.

Many far from credible ‘experts’ are employed in this way to neutralise and effectually justify violence. Their roles are those of apologists of state and corporate crimes, and as ideologues who tailor information to fit political and economic agendas. They are dangerous because they have the leverage of being presented as impartial observers, even when their very identity should give away their partiality. Benjamin Netanyahu has managed to reinvent himself to US publics as a ‘terrorism expert’, thanks to Fox News. As for the former Israeli Prime Minister’s own crimes while in office, and his close ties to the neoconservatives — the ‘intellectuals’ behind the Iraq war — and his persistent use of anti-peace language — these are unimportant diversions.

According to the corporate media and the selective samples of humanity they endlessly feature and tout for their ‘expertise’, the world is a convenient place that consists of big companies (and no workers, thus no workers’ rights), prison guards (no prisoners, thus no prisoners’ rights), war engineers (no victims, thus no accountability) and celebrities (no ordinary people, thus no widespread and urgent grievances). All those in brackets don’t exist as actual, living and breathing individuals; they only exist as part of skewed narratives, designed carefully by an expert and a think tank. That ‘expert’ need not be there to understand, he needs only to speak in a language that manipulates prejudice. The working women of India fighting globalisation, the lawyers of Pakistan fighting for judicial independence, the teachers of Palestine fighting for survival amid siege and boycott, the millions of uninsured Americans fighting for a doctor’s appointment — these people simply don’t exist as far as corporate media is concerned. Or worse, they exist but don’t matter.

As those justifying violence on the basis of security, justice and democracy work to make the world increasingly unsafe, unjust and undemocratic, there seems an equally increasing need for a new kind of media, one which requires a new kind of ‘expert’.

When I contacted Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Arun Ghandi, Ilan Pappe and many other intellectuals and activists from all over the world, proposing an alternative to ‘expertise’ in the media, I didn’t expect that just a year later the discussion could evolve into JUSTmedia (JustMedia.net). JUSTmedia is the first initiative to be launched by the People Media Project, a global scheme that hopes to offer a different kind of platform for discourse, dialogue and commentary by promoting the voices of people from all walks of life. Supported by intellectuals who refuse to play by the roles of the ‘mainstream’, the idea is to extend a bridge across cultural, language, geographic and political divides to show and extend the possibilities of true democracy and human rights in the media.

They say it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness. After much darkness and much cursing, another kind of candle may well be lit, one which only the efforts of ordinary people could keep alight.

-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London)

QuestionItNow Blogs

"To eliminate violence, one must be brave enough to examine the root causes." - Ramzy Baroud

The following was sent to QuestionItNow by Ramzy Baroud. This interview presents an alternative to the stereotypical view of Palestine presented in the main stream media, and is consistent with the QuestionItNow philosophy of presenting voices that are not heard in America today.

Articulating the Unprintable:
Ramzy Baroud Discusses Media Response to His Book

By June Rugh

Ramzy Baroud, veteran Palestinian-American journalist and Editor-in-Chief of the Palestine Chronicle, recently completed a speaking tour of the United States’ East Coast to promote his second book, The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle (Pluto Press, 2006). The Second Palestinian Intifada is a far-reaching account of key events of the past five years that transformed the political landscape not only of Palestine and Israel, but of the entire Middle East. With a critical eye, Baroud takes the most controversial issues head-on: the alarming escalation in suicide bombings, the construction of the Separation Wall, the devastating hunger and unemployment in the Occupied Territories, the brutality of the Israeli army, the political surprise of the Palestinian elections. On November 12, 2007, Baroud was interviewed by June Rugh, a freelance writer, in Seattle, Washington.

June Rugh: Good afternoon, Mr. Baroud. Your book, The Second Palestinian Intifada, has been widely praised by eminent scholars and intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, Ilan Pappé, and Norman Finkelstein. Coupled with the national media awareness of the momentum building towards the US-based Palestinian-Israeli peace conference, did your book tour receive considerable attention from the press?

On the contrary, the silence has been deafening. Let me clarify: The Second Palestinian Intifada has received wide coverage in the progressive, alternative, Asian, African, and Arab media, and has been reviewed many academic journals, in print and online. But not one corporate newspaper—that I know of—has touched it so far.

JR: Not one? Are you surprised?

RB: Actually, I’m not surprised at all. In Western corporate media, it is the most predictable and consistent practice: if the narrative doesn’t fit the dominant "liberal" ideology, it is simply omitted. And it’s not just the media boycott of the book. Sometimes the local newspapers refused to cover the events of my tour. Rather than straight reportage, certain newspapers opted to publish defamatory articles and letters to the editor that chastised the academic institutions for inviting me to speak and deliberately misinterpreted my comments.

JR: In other words, they literally replaced your words with other content—a kind of journalistic ventriloquism. Can you give an example?

RB: The most disturbing case occurred around my talk at Virginia Wesleyan College, in Norfolk, Virginia. Norfolk has a powerfully committed antiwar community—in addition to fourteen military bases, interestingly—and I was very much looking forward to speaking to this audience. My core message was a call for justice for the Palestinian people based on coexistence, coupled with global alternatives to war and racism. In my talks, I always address other regions of concern in addition to Palestine; notably, Iraq, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. I feel it’s crucial to give a cross-cultural perspective to encourage the audience think beyond the usual geopolitical limitations and ethnocentricities. Yet a local Jewish newspaper announced the event on the front page as a “"ro-Palestinian journalist" — suddenly, I’m a speaker with a narrow agenda.

JR: What happened when you spoke at the college?

RB: A local rabbi and his supporters came and heckled me with questions and outrageous claims. One said that in 1880 there were more Jews than Christians and Muslims in Palestine; another claimed that my effort to explain the sociopolitical context of suicide bombings was the same as endorsing the horrific attacks of 9/11. Zoberman himself accused me of being a "Hamas sympathizer"; and since Hamas is on the US State Department’s list of terrorist groups, his implication is clear.

JR: This brings to mind an observation by Steven Salaita: that the discourse of mainstream America is shaped in such a way that if an Arab expresses any feature of political identity, he or she immediately evokes the "undefined but identifiable terrorist."

RB: Yes, I’d say that applies here. The Rabbi’s supporters followed me to a second event at a local theatre, and when I refused to modify my statements, he began a campaign of letter-writing and calling the college and local papers, describing my message as "poisonous."

JR: So as far as mainstream media goes, you—and your book—are either ignored or vilified. What is it that strikes a nerve? Is it the topic of Palestine, or your particular perspective?

RB: The subject of Palestine always strikes a nerve in American media. Even more, though, the fact that I was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Gaza to a dispossessed family forced to leave its ancestral village in 1948—leaving behind burned homes and bullet-riddled bodies—does not make me a desirable voice for the "liberal" media. I was raised in a place where I had to negotiate my daily survival among Israeli tanks and soldiers. As a Palestinian, I advocate for a just peace and dignity for my people, who remain hostage to the inhumanity of the Israeli occupation; as an American, I protest my country’s contributions to violence in the Middle East. This is not the kind of writer that the New York Times wants to profile. It’s too far out of their readers’ comfort zone.

JR: So, as a Palestinian, you find yourself doubly effaced: first, by the Israeli government, and then again, by the Western press.

RB: Yes, you could say that.

JR: One of the objectives of your tour was to promote The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle. What is your primary goal in getting people to read this book?

RB: To present an alternative reading of Palestinian history. To help people realize, among other things, that Palestinians should be praised for their courage in taking on the risks of democracy; that they should not be forced to suffer, and a civil war provoked, because their elections resulted in a government that is not a regime compliant to the US government. That the terms "extremism" and "moderation," as used in the corporate press, are not objective concepts, but rather tied to whether a government or political agency serves the interests of the Bush administration. These are concepts you’ll never see in the mainstream media.

JR: So, in a sense, you are raising awareness that an alternative narrative of Palestinian history even exists.

RB: Exactly. And this issue goes beyond me and my particular book. As you know, well-known figures such as Jimmy Carter, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt—even the usually untouchable Desmond Tutu—have recently been victims of smear campaigns, accused of anti-Semitism and so on, simply because they were presenting the Palestinian perspective and, implicitly or explicitly, criticizing US and Israeli government policy.

JR: And that’s in the public forum. It’s striking that even in academia—traditionally, the last bastion of open debate—there is now also a systematic silencing of alternative readings of Palestinian history. Norman Finkelstein was essentially forced to resign position at DePaul University; Ilan Pappé recently left the University of Haifa for similar reasons.

RB: Even the area of publishing is no longer safe. Pluto Press, the publisher of my latest book, is currently fighting for the right to distribute Joel Kovel’s book, Overcoming Zionism, in the United States. Kovel’s book was published by Pluto Press and is distributed in America by the University of Michigan Press, under contract with Pluto. But when the Michigan chapter of the pro-Israel group StandWithUs denounced the Overcoming Zionism as anti-Israel propaganda and discredited facts, the university press stopped its distribution. In early September, the press’s executive board decided to continue distribution temporarily; but the incident has caused the university press to review its relationship with Pluto Press, with a decision due in late November. A statement from the University of Michigan says explicitly that Pluto Press’s decision to publish Kovel’s book brings into question the viability of the university’s distribution agreement with the publisher. So sometimes, quite literally, the phrase "Stop the press!" is treated as a reasonable request.

JR: In other words, what we’re seeing is not just a chilling effect, but a deep freeze that appears to be settling over all alternative sources of information. Do you have suggestions for people who want to counteract this, who want to keep these lines of communication open?

RB: Yes. It’s important to actively support progressive publishing companies such Pluto Press, and to be aware of the attempts to shut down distribution of their books. I’d urge everyone to go to their website and see the books they offer. It is vital to keep information sources flowing to counteract the deceptively complete discourse presented in the corporate media. And be aware of other news sources: progressive websites such as Counterpunch, and other resources such as the Palestine Chronicle, Zmag.org, etc.

JR: It strikes me that by referring to your book and the progressive press as "alternative narratives," we are implicitly affirming the primacy of mainstream media. Yet the fact is that your book, which deals with on-the-ground realities of the second intifada, is not "alternative," but central, and vital to any real understanding of the Palestinian struggle.

RB: Quite right. In fact, if you want a true alternative reality, I’d suggest a front-row ticket to the upcoming peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland. That will be a parallel universe constructed to serve the needs of the Bush administration, with very little to do with the actual needs of either the Palestinian or the Israeli people. It will be a media spectacle, starring Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas as the already-disempowered players, and with little result—except for preserving the US and Israeli governments’ status quo, and keeping the region ruled by military occupation, state violence, and, inevitably, terrorism.

JR: One challenging issue you address in The Second Palestinian Intifada is the increasing violence used by Palestinians against the Israeli military and Israeli civilians. You write that it is important to "contextualize this phenomenon, not to justify it, but to present the Palestinian response as a tragic yet predictable human reaction to decades of subjugation." Do you think it’s possible for the American audience to get beyond the image of a suicide bomber and see the larger phenomenon behind it?

RB: Yes, I do. I assume intelligent readers, and thoughtful readers will ultimately be able to put themselves in the position of the Palestinians described in the book. To eliminate violence, one must be brave enough to examine the root causes. That requires a mixture of humility and imagination—a mental exercise rarely required by the corporate media.

JR: Finally, in practical terms, how can one buy a copy of The Second Palestinian Intifada?

RB: You can order the book directly by sending a check of $23 USD, which includes shipping charges, to Ramzy Baroud, PO Box 196, Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043, USA. If you have a PayPal account, you can send $23 USD, including your shipping address: editor@palestinechronicle.com.

-For more information on Ramzy Baroud, please visit his website at http://www.ramzybaroud.net.


Will America Lead?

A Case for Arab Dignity

Ramzy Aboud reached out to QuestionItNow to share this insightful and thought provoking essay. I found this serendipitous, since I just finished reading The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by: Naomi Klein.

Klein's book and the following article illuminate a common theme, democracy and corporatism (neo-liberalism aka neoconservatism) are incompatible.


A Case for Arab Dignity

By: Ramzy Baroud

The ongoing socio-economic and political ills that mar potential progress in Middle Eastern countries can largely be attributed to the ill-defined foreign policy of the United States. Utterly desperate situations have arisen whereby US clients rule with an iron fist, making prospects for a meaningful democracy sit at an all-time low. However it would be nothing less than self-deception to elucidate Arab social, economic and political ailments exclusively on US-Israeli military and political belligerency; there needs to be an element of self-reflection and responsibility to make viable any pragmatic steps towards improvement and justice.

The Arab Human Development Reports list political and economic regressions, rampant corruption, utter inequality, oppression of women, and indeed men, lack of cohesion, planning, and forward thinking as significant problems in Arab countries. The 2005 report laboured to put a positive spin on negative situations, choosing to focus on the empowerment of Arab women, who, in some Arab societies are denied access to schools, economic independence and political representation.

The oil boom of the 1970’s, and the wave of neo-liberalism in the 1990’s has turned most Arab countries into class societies, either creating new disparities or deepening already existing ones. But there is little class conflict to speak of today; the poor are, in many cases, literally struggling to survive on day-to-day basis, while the rich have surpassed, in arrogance and attitude, the positions assumed by the elites of Central America. Their access to political power, economic wealth, and total control over most media channels has significantly deepened the divide. Many of Morocco’s poor are braving the tumultuous Mediterranean waters to make it to Europe, to secure meagre jobs with meagre pay, and an uncountable number of Egyptians are in constant hunt for opportunities elsewhere. The situation everywhere is getting more dire, opening the doors for even greater corruption and nepotism to permeate.

The media cannot be counted on to represent the reality on the ground. Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiya remain the exception, but they too are receptive to political and economic pulls. And even without these, it takes more than couple of TV stations to cater to the local and national needs of hundreds of millions of people whose cultures, immediate realities and economic and political challenges are too varied to be encapsulated in a few news bulletins, erratic TV debates and passing slogans.

Saddest of all is the fact that Arab masses lack the ability to even vent their frustrations, having lived under a tight grip for decades and crushed mercilessly whenever they dared to march for their rights.

While the ruling elites lavishly spend to set themselves apart from those at the bottom, the latter are forced to learn the language of power, to cater to the elites every whim. No wonder many turn to the most immediate ways of escaping such reality. The Internet is thriving in major Arab cities, not so much as a tool of meaningful communication, but mostly for purposes of chatting and pornography. Both of these create alternate realities. Chatting could also represent the start of new opportunities, that of premeditated love, or, just maybe, a green card or its equivalent in some European country.

The situation is particularly dismal for Palestinians caught between a brutal Israeli occupation and their own corrupt elites. While many live under various regimes with an almost impossible legal status as stateless people, rich Palestinians in the Gulf (and elsewhere) seem blissfully far-removed; the immense Palestinian wealth abroad is yet to benefit the 1.4 (million) Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, 80% of whom are dependent on international aid for their survival.

The US and various European countries are contributing to the chaos, compounding neoliberalism with neo-imperialism, controlling the former colonial outposts via economic dependency in the form of aid, political and military posturing, and NGOs. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID are two prominent examples. NED, funded mostly by a Congressional annual allocation, was founded in 1983 to serve US foreign policy. It claims to be guided by the belief that freedom is a universal human aspiration that can be realized through the development of democratic institutions, procedures, and values. Considering NED’s role in the coup against Venezuelan democracy in April 2002 and other instances of soft intervention, one cannot help but question the organization’s democratic values.

The Arab peoples are in a situation that warrants little envy. In countries like Iraq, a functioning socioeconomic and political structure despite its shortcomings was simply written off in May 2003, with the signature of L. Paul Bremer, the first US ruler of Iraq. The disbanding of the army was followed by the country’s de-Baathification (undermining Sunnis for merely being the favored sect of Saddam), showing utter disregard for the welfare of the Iraqi people.

The Iraq scenario has set a dreadful precedent. Those not content by their current rulers were forced to rethink their priorities when they saw the US-induced chaos in Iraq in action. Those who giddily capitalized on the democracy window were mercilessly crushed. Palestinians were subdued and democracy was snatched away from its proper owners, the majority of the people, and was handed back to the corrupt few. In Egypt, coercion and corruption during elections has managed to maintain the status quo.

There are no easy answers here, no snappy recommendations or full-proof solutions. The task is truly overwhelming. But it is clear that the true interests of the Arab peoples can only be served by Arabs themselves; reforms can not be imposed, true, but that is impossible to achieve under the current power relations - rulers setting themselves up as unquestionably superior to their people, TV channels promoting rampant consumerism and providing endless distraction, and uncountable multitudes seeking deliverance, escapism and, often, falling prey to extremism. For Arab countries to have some hope of a meaningful future (and indeed present), grassroots work must replace intellectual detachment, wealth must be invested in building self-sustained societies, and, most importantly, the dignity of Arab women and men must be preserved above all else.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

QuestionItNow