Rights and Wrongs

This morning, Reuters reported that the Israeli government showed no signs of scaling back its offensive, in spite of a UN resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire. In the article, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is quoted as saying in a statement that "Israel has acted, is acting, and will act only according to its considerations, the security needs of its citizens, and its right to self defense."

Now the exact details and order of truce-breaking are still fuzzy. Israel most definitely invaded Gaza in November, killing 6 Hamas gunmen, The Guardian reported. Israel has said repeatedly that Hamas has habitually broken the ceasefire by continuing to fire rockets into Southern Israel. And for its part, Hamas maintains that since Israel failed to lift the blockade of Gaza, as promised, they invalidated the ceasefire from the beginning, making Qassam rocket attacks justified.

Much has been written about the vast military and technological unevenness of the "war" between Israel and Hamas. Popular opinion here is that Hamas is firing nothing significantly more dangerous than hommemade fireworks, and in return entire blocks are obliterated in Gaza. While loss of human life should not be measured in some grim utilitarian math equation, the numbers do blow a hole in the Israeli narrative. Hamas rockets have killed 22 people in the past 8 years, whereas the Israeli military has killed over ten times that many children in the past two weeks. Thirty times as many Palestinians have died in the most recent Israeli offensive. As has been pointed out, Hamas' lesser scale of casualties is probably more attributable to lack of capable weaponry than lack of trying, but the numbers still seem horrendously lopsided. News accounts of attacks in Israel cite people being treated for shock, not buried.

Reading between the lines in recent news reports on the bombing of the UN school that killed over 40 has brought several disturbing questions to the fore - most of which remain unanswered. John Ging, director of the United Nations relief agency, was quoted in the New York Times as saying there were no militants inside the school. Those taking refuge there were monitored, he said, and presumably registered. Additionally, Ging also said that the Israeli army had been provided with the coordinates of all UN schools and compounds, and such places where identifiably marked. The assurances of caution and pinpoint accuracy also ring hollow from an army that has killed at least three of its own soldiers in friendly fire accidents. And on January 9, UN Relief and Works Agency suspended all aid distribution in Gaza after a driver was killed by tank fire from the IDF.

IDF spokespeople have said that rockets were fired from "inside the school compound" and countered that Hamas deliberately launches military operations from in and near residential and heavily populated areas. The above context brings me to the essential question of this post, what exactly is the right to self defense, and more importantly, what are its limits?

Security concerns are often cited by governments as a reason for action. It's how the US ended up with the PATRIOT Act and Guantanamo, how Hosni Mubarak justifies imprisoning and torturing his own citizens, and how Israel is rationalizing an avalanche of military force against Gaza. While Benjamin Franklin criticizes those who would give up liberties for security, the issue also goes deeper. How many other rights can be trampled on in the name of security? When did that right become the single consideration that trumps all others? There have been times in the United States that I have thought that I would accept less nebulous "guarantees" of my security in exchange for rights of privacy, due process, and even just not having to take my shoes off in the airport (I assure you, there are plenty of such places where people keep their shoes on during security that are not bombed on a daily basis).

As the Red Crescent reports of half-starved children huddled next to the dead bodies of their mothers - 200 meters from an Israeli army checkpoint - and recovering survivors and decomposing corpses from rubble that it was denied access to for days, I wonder how much longer the world will tolerate Israel's inhumane and grotesque treatment of Gazans in the name of its own "self defense." At what point does someone (the UN ideally, but I'm not holding out hope) step in and defend the Palestinians? Will anyone say the because Israel has veritably imprisoned hundreds of thousands off people, and cut off their access to food, water, cooking oil, and medicine, its claim to a "right of self defense" is null and void. Rights are always in conflict, and these competing loyalties have been the subject of philosophers and ethics scholars for ages. But at some point, the world must realize that to bank everything on "security" is both cowardly and ineffective. There must be another way, and Israel, as the Goliath of the situation, must have the courage to seek it.

Spin Doctors

Today, sadly, I was not proud to be an American. Strong words, yes, but unfortunately applicable ones. The United States is a great country, as are its citizens, but I was appalled, and even ashamed at the recent conduct of our media and our politicians in regards to their attitude and coverage of the current situation in Gaza. Both were characterized by slant, bias, intolerance, oversimplification, unwillingness to compromise, and ignorance of history. Among the deplorably few bright spots are Foreign Policy magazine, and that bastion of commentary laced with dark humor The Daily Show.

John Stewart's opening monologue was so cutting that I felt guilty laughing. While it was refreshing to hear an American voice contradicting the monstrous tide of "Israeli national security" support, it's sad that it takes a fringe media outlet to do so. Stewart lampoons the one-sided commentary and political rhetoric broadcast endlessly on American news outlets.

Samuel Huntington's brainchild Foreign Policy Magazine features several blogs full of good analysis and thoughtful commentary. Daniel Levy's "Five Comments on the Gaza crisis and what to do", available on his blog Prospects for Peace also represents an actual moderate view of the conflict.

Aside from the refusal of Israel to allow foreign reporters into Gaza (though sites of Israeli civilian casualties are easily accessible) what has really struck me is the disparity in news coverage of the conflict, exemplified best by the morning news headlines from Al-Jazeera English, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and Haaretz.

Al-Jazeera English pulled no punches this morning, featuring a picture of a small girl held by an adult man, looking disoriented with blood covering half of her face, with the headline: "Israel Kills Dozens at Gaza School". In the article, the spokesperson for the Israeli prime minister is quoted as saying the explosions at the school were "out of proportion to the ordnance" that was used, and accused Hamas of "booby-trapping" locations in Gaza and Israel.

The New York Times homepage had no mention of the bombing of the UN school or an update on the current offensive. The only reference to Israel at all on the portal was an analysis of the lessons learned (or not learned) by Israeli leadership. To be fair, the main page of its World section was a photo of the conflict, with the headline "Israel Ponders Truce Plans as Conflict Enters Its 12th Day". The dozens of dead from the school bombings of the previous day are mentioned only in the lede.

The Washington Post fares little better. The headline "Israel hits school in Gaza camp" can be found after scrolling past two large photographs of t-shirts (the same photograph twice no less) at the MacWorld opening.

Its picture is not even of the aftermath at the school in Gaza, or even of Palestinians, but rather Israeli soldiers patrolling a border crossing, from a distance.


The UK also put American media outlets to shame. Aside from a chilling picture of a wounded policeman (a link to Avi Shlaim's biting editorial on the conduct of the Israeli government), its main article features a very strong headline as well: "Gaza's carnage - 40 dead as Israeli's bomb UN schools".

And lastly, what did Israel's major media outlet have to say about the deaths of at least 40 people, nearly all of them civilians, after its military fired upon a school in a refugee camp where people have fled in order to escape the possibility of death in their homes?

Practically nothing.

The most relevant headline was "IDF: Hamas militants fired shells from inside UN school in Gaza".

The truth is no doubt in the middle of the quagmire. And each of these organizations serves a particular audience, which no doubt influences the tone and extent of its coverage. However, historically, news media have been the gatekeepers of information, even if sometimes that meant they took a top down approach, speaking from on high and dictating "the news of the day". Those were considered to be the objectively important stories, that people should know about, even if they occurred far away.

I have heard people here criticize Americans as not caring about the plight of the Palestinian people, but I disagree. While we have lost patience with foreign affairs as a result of a string of domestic crisis (most notably Katrina), I would say that the bigger problem is a lack of awareness. How can we expect to hold the American people accountable for information which they must jump through hoops to find? And why is that struggle for access necessary? If nearly every major news outlet in the world finds a story important enough to put on it's front page, why do our news outlets and politicians seem like broken records, repeating lines nearly the complete opposite of what everyone else is saying?

Defending the ignorance of America gets old quickly, especially in the face of seemingly blind support by the Bush administration of all Israeli actions. Indeed, it has been said by more than one analyst (in the US and abroad) that the Israeli government chose to launch its offensive now because they knew they would not face censure from their stalwart ally in the West.

We need a press and a polity who are both strong enough in their character and passionate about real solutions to stand up and hold everyone accountable. And that includes Israel, the United States, and Hamas, and will require concessions on all sides, and perhaps coming to terms with some ugly truths. Otherwise papers around the world will continue to feature photos of dead and disfigured children on their front pages. Everywhere, that is, except Tel Aviv, New York, and Washington, D.C.


All photos used in this post were taken from the news outlet referenced near them in the text. Thanks and credit goes to those organizations.

The Tel Aviv Twilight Zone

Every New Year's weekend, the SciFi Channel in the United States broadcasts a marathon of episodes of the Rod Serling masterpiece The Twilight Zone. For the uninitiated, The Twilight Zone is an old black and white science fiction television show, but it also has become much more of a cultural phenomenon. The series tackled old moral parables, society's obsessions and the way we thought of ourselves. Stories didn't always have a happy ending, often the episode would leave the viewer vaguely unsettled, as Serling's voice wrapped up the narrative and signed off.

Now, the term "Twilight Zone" has become ubiquitous for a place that isn't quite right, or all that it seems. It's used to describe discomfort you can't name, situations that seem backwards, yet logical, a sort of cultural or social "out of body experience". For a further definition, please visit Tel Aviv.

The cultural and political capital of Israel (or "Occupied Palestine" depending on where you're from) Tel Aviv comes off as a cross between New York and LA, with a hefty dose of the Mediterranean thrown in for good measure. The beaches are beautiful, the urban planning spectacular. The sidewalks are wide, trees provide shade, and large recycling bins are easy to find. Food is incredibly expensive (though to be fair, quite delicious), much like any Western capital. But there is a nagging insecurity about the place, that hangs on while you're walking around, and shows up in the people themselves.

For all of the "dangerous" cities I've been to, the real threat of terrorism has never crossed my mind, except in passing as something that you really can't waste time worrying about. I've never actually not felt safe. But in Tel Aviv, I was often nervous in crowded places, scanning crowds. I didn't take any public buses inside the city. No matter how comfortable I felt culturally, some part of me was still uncomfortable. On one hand I was ashamed of my fear, but on the other, it was a sign to me that something wasn't quite right.

The Israelis themselves had the same variation in temperament as you find among any people: some good, some bad. A friend of a friend of mine was nice enough to invite us to his home, and that experience ranks as one of the most touching acts of hospitality I have been given. Waiters in restaurants and taxi drivers nearly always had a story of a visit to the U.S. that they were eager to share.

However, there was a segment of the population that was snotty, arrogant, and condescending. Whenever I told them that I lived in Jordan, in response to their curiosity, I was met with "Why would you want to live there?" . . . "I hope they're paying you well.". . ."It's like a Third World Country over there" . . . and "Oh but you like Israel better right?" Such judgmental and ignorant people remind me, unfortunately, of a segment of Americans who express exactly the same sentiments toward other people and cultures. They are so enamored of their own limited sphere of existence that they refuse to entertain the possibility of something good occurring somewhere else. And in their opinions, those who do appreciate that potential are traitors.

And the need for acceptance I heard, the sort of craving to be reassured that Israel was "better" than everywhere else, seemed to belie a deep insecurity about international opinion.

It was shocking to find such ignorance in a country whose existence and daily life is so closely intertwined with and affected by that of its neighbors. While racism, stupidity, and close-mindedness are certainly not unique to any country or culture, it was disheartening to see it in a beautiful, modern, developed place such as Tel Aviv, whose potential is hidden by a conflict that remains gridlocked because of the stubborn prejudices of all parties involved.

Why we write?

There isn't much more imposing than a blank sheet of paper. Generally, it's best to subscribe to the wisdom that if you don't have anything interesting or useful to say, you should just be quiet and pay attention. Journalists, myself included would do well to do more of the last two activities.

However, how exactly do you know when you've observed something worth saying? Most writers spend their lives laboring away in obscurity, never read, only to be eventually forgotten. And with the advent of blogs and self publishing, many more people can put their thoughts and feelings into the public discourse, for better or worse. Even then, one could argue that little of value often comes from this seething mass of html code. Perhaps then, we write not because we really believe someone else cares what we have to say, but rather because we care what we have to say, and want to leave, if nothing else, a simple record of our existence.