[Posted 6/2/2010, 3:22:22am by Murathan] ==> BRAVO, MURATHAN! Such high-quality thinking and careful expression are rare on Internet forums. Your comments cover some of the same points I was going to raise, so I'll just shut up and direct readers to your posting. (Too bad this page doesn't allow breaking comments into paragraphs, since your comments are pretty long.)
Posted 6/3/2010, 3:38:22pm by MalcolmCThe title of this article is very telling in many ways. This article, like the majority of discussions in mainstream media outlets, trivializes the perpetual acts of violence that the state of Israel and its "Defense Forces" have inflicted on Palestinians on a daily basis and on international activists (i.e., Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall, and most recently Emily Henochowicz in the West Bank and the passengers on board the Mavi Marmara) by dehumanizing them and their suffering. Referring to these acts of aggression and naked violence as a “blunder” and writing that “Israel takes the bait” assumes that Israel (a state) had benign intentions, something which any astute student of its settler-colonial foundations and its recent, inveterate belligerent policies, knows is absurd. It is important to ask why George Packer assumes Israel has such benign intentions and whether we would be reading a similar type of article if another belligerent state acted in a comparable fashion. With regard to his statement: “Sunday night’s incident showed again that the most powerful force in international relations today is neither standing armies nor diplomatic councils, but public opinion as shaped by media,” Packer predictably avoids any mention of the actions that Israel took following their attack on the ship that would demonstrate the importance placed on the media, and also the criminal behavior of the state. I quote from a series of more insightful statements made by Ali Abunimah on Democracy Now: “What they’ve (Israel) done is imposed a total news block-out—blackout. Hundreds of people are detained. They’ve had no access to lawyers, certainly no access to media. It was reported there was one Al Jazeera cameraman, of the six Al Jazeera staff who were kidnapped with the ships, who was released. And what he said is that all the passengers were allowed to leave the ships only with their passports, with no other personal belongings. He was personally attacked by Israeli soldiers while he was filming, and his camera smashed. In any case, no journalists were allowed to leave the ships with any film or any recordings whatsoever. We don’t know the names of the dead. The families of all those passengers are anxiously awaiting news of their loved ones. Why is this? So that the Israeli narrative can get a long head start. This is all about the Israeli propaganda strategy to give the Israeli propagandists, like Mark Regev, a free run. They’ve had more than twenty-four hours. And, Amy, it’s working in the mainstream media, because they’re only reporting, you know, the atrocious reporting on National Public Radio and on the BBC, which is taking mostly the Israeli version.” Packer eschews any such mention, instead offers statements such as the following to emphasize his allegedly important argument made about the centrality of media: “No one else cared if it was insurgents dressed as ordinary men who triggered an attack; what always shaped the world’s judgment was footage of soldiers retaliating with overwhelming firepower.” Take note that the word “insurgents” is used as opposed to activists, a word which most Americans associate with armed violent resistance to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The article, in a very predictable fashion, ends with a discussion on Iran and Obama, and moves us further away from discussing the legality of Israel’s actions, and the double standard ways in which America has continuously dealt with Israel. Packer writes, “Israel’s attack on the convoy shows an essential weakness in Obama’s vision of international affairs.” This statement avoids the larger issue: Obama’s aversion to holding all countries to the same international legal standards.
Posted 6/2/2010, 3:22:22am by
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/06/gaza-flotilla.html#ixzz0pox8nkDh
[mbc]
No comments:
Post a Comment