How the US Media Contributes to Conflict

This 2003 documentary details the ways in which the Israel-Palestinian conflict is exacerbated by the US media and government.

That the US government subsidizes the Israeli occupation and aggression is a big problem, but it’s one which an informed population might be able to correct. The real problem is that the media refuses to present the conflict in an evenhanded way, instead slanting coverage to favor Israel. This needs to change.

Filed under: Israel and Palestine, Media Failure

Creating Demons

Important thoughts from John P. Avlon, writing for CNN:

As a country, we have become accustomed to using fear and hate in the service of hyper-partisanship. We need to wake up to the fact that demonizing people we disagree with, and indulging in attempts to delegitimize a duly elected president from Day One, hurts us all as a nation.

As I began reading the article, I thought I’d like to read his book, Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America, because anything that delegitimizes the right-wing extremists appeals to me. When I finished the article, I recognized the damage my attitude does to my efforts to reduce conflict in this area. Mockery and derision are not constructive. There are plenty of people (too many, really) taking that strategy, and I don’t need to add my voice to that.

Lesson learned. Again.

Filed under: Political Dialogue, Daily Beast, Extremism, John P. Avlon, Respectful Dialogue

Baghdad Attack Video

This gets more disturbing all the time. Not that new details are being released, but because people are trying so hard to find ways to justify the killings. Look at the weasel words in the Fox News report.

Washington Post Monday, April 5, 2010; 5:41 PM:

The Reuters new agency has pressed for release of the video since a helicopter strike on July 12, 2007, killed staff photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40, in a contested neighborhood of eastern Baghdad. The attack and its aftermath were detailed in depth in The Washington Post and in “The Good Soldiers,” a book by Post reporter David Finkel.

[. . .]

In the 17-minute black-and-white video, U.S. forces can be overheard targeting a group of men who were thought to be armed insurgents, then attacking a van as it attempted to load a wounded individual who had crawled away from the scene. Eldeen and Chmagh, part of the first group, are identified in the video.

[. . . ]

The U.S. Central Command declined to offer immediate comment on the video’s release, or to confirm its authenticity, but said it would be issuing a statement.

Fox News Updated April 06, 2010:

The Iraqi Journalists’ Union on Tuesday called on the Iraqi government to investigate the apparent killing of two Reuters employees by U.S. Apache helicopters after a Web site posted classified American military video footage of the shooting.

The July 12, 2007, incident has been reported before, but the graphic video reignited anger over the U.S. killing of civilians at the height of violence in Iraq.

[. . .]

The clear black and white film, which runs about 38 minutes in full, shows the helicopters locating a group of about a dozen men moving down a road, some of whom the aviators say are believed to be carrying weapons. After being told they are “free to engage,” the gunships attack the group, apparently killing most of the men, then also destroy a van after more people show up and attempt to evacuate one of the wounded.

Among those believed to have been killed in that attack was Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his driver Saeed Chmagh, 40. Two children also were wounded. The aviators say on the tape that they believe that they killed 12 to 15 people in total.

[. . .]

A senior U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the video, confirmed that the footage was authentic but said the military could not confirm the identities of the Reuters employees in the film.

Reuters said it couldn’t verify that the video was of its employees dying, even though it looks like one of the men killed had a camera slung over his shoulder.

New York Times Published: April 5, 2010:

The Web site WikiLeaks.org released a graphic video on Monday showing an American helicopter shooting and killing a Reuters photographer and driver in a July 2007 attack in Baghdad.

A senior American military official confirmed that the video was authentic.

[. . .]

Late Monday, the United States Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, released the redacted report on the case, which provided some more detail.

The report showed pictures of what it said were machine guns and grenades found near the bodies of those killed. It also stated that the Reuters employees “made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.”

Mr. Schlesinger of Reuters also said in his statement: “The deaths of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh three years ago were tragic and emblematic of the extreme dangers that exist in covering war zones. We continue to work for journalist safety and call on all involved parties to recognize the important work that journalists do and the extreme danger that photographers and video journalists face in particular.”

It’s infuriating to hear about this, and the more I hear the worse it gets. A number of bloggers have provided early analysis of the story (Pharyngula, Yglesias, Avram Grumer, James Fallows).

I still haven’t watched the video–I don’t know if I can. We don’t belong in Iraq and we never did. The deaths of innocent people, of noncombatants, is inexcusable. Unfortunately, in this kind of combat it’s also unavoidable. Some would argue that because it’s unavoidable we need to acknowledge it and move on. I’d argue that if it’s unavoidable then we need to get out of there yesterday.

Filed under: War of Choice in Iraq, Violence Against Noncombatants

From Sarah Palin to the Hutaree

For months bloggers and editorialists on the left have been accusing Republican politicians of engaging in the kind of rhetoric that will eventually inspire some of the right-wing fringe to act out violently. The conservatives counter that they have the freedom to express themselves however they want–and that if people are violent it’s because they’re prone to violence, not because of the remarks of a senator or a representative.

Just last week Sarah Palin made an appearance in Nevada where she encouraged angry conservatives to “take back” the country. While the Health Care Reform bill was in debate a number of Republican congresspeople egged on the angry crowds, and right after passage of the bill bricks and bullets went through windows.

Today Eugene Robinson draws a connection between the hyperbole and the “Hutaree” militia, members of which have been arrested and charged with weapons offenses and sedition. His final paragraphs make a strong case:

By contrast, there has been explosive growth among far-right, militia-type groups that identify themselves as white supremacists, “constitutionalists,” tax protesters and religious soldiers determined to kill people to uphold “Christian” values. Most of the groups that posed a real danger, as the Hutaree allegedly did, have been infiltrated and dismantled by authorities before they could do any damage. But we should never forget that the worst act of domestic terrorism ever committed in this country was authored by a member of the government-hating right wing: Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City.

It is dishonest for right-wing commentators to insist on an equivalence that does not exist. The danger of political violence in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction — the right, not the left. The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day — and, quite regularly, at Tea Party rallies — is calibrated not to inform but to incite.

Demagogues scream at people that their government is illegitimate, that their country has been “taken away,” that their elected officials are “traitors” and that their freedom is at risk. They have a right to free speech, which I will always defend. But they shouldn’t be surprised if some listeners take them literally.

In order to decrease the anger and the potential for real violence, the conservative members of congress need to stop encouraging the fringe elements of their camp toward violence. More than that–now that the threat of violence from these fringe elements is real, the conservative congresspeople need to act toward diminishing the anger and minimizing the possibility for real violence if they want to avoid responsibility for their earlier exhortations.

Filed under: Violence in America, Militias, Politics and Anger, Politics and Violence, Violent Christians

More on East Jerusalem

This article by Lara Friedman needs to be widely disseminated. The whole argument is worth a read, obviously, because it’s great to see sensible support for this perfect final paragraph:

The notion that a peace process can survive such an Israeli approach in Jerusalem is not rational.  The notion that Israel can be taken seriously as a peace partner while acting this way is farcical.  And the notion that the United States can be a credible steward of peace efforts while tolerating such behavior is laughable.

I can’t do anything personally about Israel or this conflict, but the United States might be able to. And while my influence on what this country does is minuscule, it could be bigger. More diligence will help.

via Matthew Yglesias

Filed under: Israel and Palestine

Tough Talk Toward Israel

Israel continues to push for expansion into Palestinian territory and the world continues to watch it happen–or maybe not. If any nation is going to exert any meaningful pressure on Israel it will be the United States, and this week US officials have given Israel an earful.

Vice President Joe Biden was the first to comment on the announced plan to expand East Jerusalem housing, and both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and envoy George Mitchell have spoken out against the plan. This is good for a number of reasons, but primarily because it signals that the US, despite being a staunch ally of Israel, will not condone the mistreatment of Palestinians.

Filed under: Israel and Palestine, George Mitchell, Hillary Clinton, Jerusalem settlements, Joe Biden

The Dangers of Helping Part 2

World Vision Office After March 10, 2010 Attack

The point that I was trying to make yesterday (I guess) was that some efforts to help people cost more than others. Some of that is determined by the kind of sacrifice and some of it by degree of sacrifice. From the reports coming out of Pakistan regarding the attack on World Vision’s office, the people who were killed were likely members of the community in which they worked, who hadn’t traveled from the West to work among foreigners, who wanted their own people to be better off.

That kind of commitment doesn’t require a special kind of sacrifice, but it does demand a high degree of commitment. In working with a Western organization, a Christian organization, in Pakistan, these workers exposed themselves to danger. Since the main danger in the region is the Taliban, violence based on religious ideology is a real threat. The killers were supposedly heard yelling about the immodesty the workers had been spreading–that is a central Taliban concern, one taken from Sharia law.

Hopefully, World Vision will find a way to continue doing their work in Pakistan. They aren’t the first organization to suffer this kind of loss–in the report linked above InterAction claims that “122 humanitarian workers [were] killed around the globe in 2008 alone.” The threat has always been there.

These people, the ones who commit to dangerous work helping people in war zones, demonstrate a level of bravery and compassion I’m not sure I’m capable of, but I’d like to think I can do at least a little. Most peace activism doesn’t require this kind of risk. There’s a lot of space between risking my life and engaging in discussion. I need to move closer to the former.

Filed under: Violence Against Relief Workers, Pakistan, World Vision International

The Dangers of Helping

While I sit in my comfortable apartment typing about what can be done, there are other people getting off their rear ends and doing what needs to be done, and doing it in dangerous parts of the world. One of the most dangerous places for relief workers to be is obviously in proximity to a major military operation, and the charity organization World Vision International have been engaged in development and relief activities in Pakistan since 1992.

At about 9:30 am today, gunmen attacked World Vision’s offices, killed six aid workers, injured seven others, stole equipment, and used explosives on the building. The attackers were allegedly heard accusing the workers of “spreading immodesty.” If this is true, then the attackers decided that their notions of ideological purity were more significant than either the lives of the aid workers or the work those people were doing for the Pakistanis.

I don’t share Richard Dawkins’s conviction that all religion is dangerous because it encourages the violent fringe, but it seems that more moderate voices within religions might try harder to counter the violent elements in their ranks. Nobody has taken responsibility for the attack, but if the overheard admonishments are accurate, it sounds like religious extremists were involved.

More importantly, it will be interesting to see what World Vision does in response to this attack. Will they pull out? It would be hard to blame them if they did. Will they continue their work? Time will tell, obviously.

Filed under: Violence Against Relief Workers, Ideology, Pakistan, World Vision International

Military and Taxes: What Can Be Done?

There’s a great, extensive, thorough post by RandomNonviolence at DailyKos about US military spending, the dangers of such military fixation, and what people can do to reverse this trend.

The whole thing is worth reading (it takes some effort, because it is so complete, but do it anyway), but here’s the most pertinent part to me:

Six Things You Can Do

1. On Tax Day (Thursday, April 15), distribute leaflets to people dropping off their tax returns at your local Post Office. Write your own leaflet, or use ones prepared by the War Resisters League or FCNL.
2. Write to your members of Congress and urge them to cut the military budget. FCNL provides an easy form.
3. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. FCNL makes it easy.
4. Make a presentation to a church or civic group based on the “Out of Balance” materialsprepared by the National Priorities Project.
5. Support an organization working for peace.
6. Join the local chapter of a national peace organization like Peace Action or Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).

Important ideas.

Filed under: Defense Spending, DailyKos, RandomNonviolence

Violence Against Anonymous Victims

News out of Dallas this afternoon involves a small plane flying into the side of a building housing IRS offices. The pilot has been identified as Joseph Stack, who seems to have left several messages on the internet concerning his situation, and who may have set his house on fire before leaving. This appears to be a suicide, but one intended to “send a message” by causing as much destruction as possible, and intended to inflict as much material damage as possible.

Among the messages Stack allegedly left is this one: “Violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer . . .” I have to wonder what has to happen to a person (not restricted to the specific trauma triggering the event) before that even makes sense. I’m saddened.

The sadness comes by degrees. It’s likely that nobody in that building knew Stack, or knew of his situation, and couldn’t have done anything for him. And although the building housed an IRS office, even if there were some in the building who knew Stack’s case, most didn’t. And even if all of the IRS people in that building knew Stack’s case, the IRS was only one of a number of resident organizations in the building.

No matter how this ends up, Stack’s targeting of this building involved many more people than deserved any anger, let alone this act. Our political and social culture increasingly suggests violence as a reaction to the feeling of being wronged. And that needs to change.

Filed under: Uncategorized