Tuesday, October 22, 2024

 

Western Distortions of the Palestinian Struggle

“This is Where the Problem Starts”

Western colonialism and imperialism are the roots of the Palestinian struggle. A common characteristic of western powers is their shared history of colonization and oppression of indigenous populations. This distinction is important because it is clear that there is heavy bias against Palestinians in both western political policy and western mainstream media. The United States and Israel share similar histories and politics as settler colonialist nations, each established through the violent dispossession of indigenous populations. Both countries utilized dehumanization of the indigenous populations they displaced to obtain the land they have settled upon. Native Americans were called “merciless Indian savages,” while Palestinians are called “animals” and “terrorists.” Examining relevant histories with a broader view will demonstrate how western interpretations of Palestine are biased. The prevailing western standard has been nonobjective and heavily promotes dishonest and biased narratives, omitting relevant histories and current event considerations. This biased narrative reads as a prejudiced tale meticulously designed to promote the interests of the more powerful side, an oppressive colonial regime and its imperial supporters.

Framing as a Tool of Erasure

The Palestinian struggle and foundations of Israel are a matter of modern-day colonialism achieved through atrocities. Israel is widely supported by the west over their imperialist interests and maintained by political and media propaganda. Criticism of a brutal occupying force is often harshly censored. The matter is frequently mischaracterized as a religious matter, labeled as complicated, or described as a conflict. Framing the Palestinian struggle as a “religious matter” generally encourages people to reduce politics to faith-based tensions. Dismissing something as “complicated” deters any type of engagement because the implicit message is that the issue is too difficult for most people to understand. Referring to the matter as a “conflict” implies symmetry, leaving no conceptual room for the disparity of power that defines a colonial struggle. It is none of those things. At its core, this is an ongoing process of colonization, resulting in the displacement of the Palestinian people and the violent military occupation of Palestinian land.

The strategic framing of Palestine has been used to support zionism for over 76 years. During a 1970 interview with renowned Palestinian activist and author Ghassan Kanafani, Australian media correspondent Richard Carleton referred to the matter of Palestine as a conflict. Kanafani countered that it is not a conflict, but a liberation movement fighting for justice, continuing, “This is where the problem starts. Because this is what makes you ask all your questions. This is exactly where the problem starts. This is a people who are discriminated against fighting for their rights. This is the story.” Fifty-four years later, these same issues about the framing language persist.

Foreign Policy and Domestic Repression

There are several elements to consider when examining the western distortion of the Palestinian struggle. First, we must look at United States foreign policy as it pertains to Middle Eastern, North African, and Muslim-majority nations. Interconnected to these foreign policies are United States domestic policies designed to target American citizens of MENA and/or Muslim backgrounds. These policies are rooted in the Palestinian struggle. Secondly, we must take a closer look at zionism, a western colonial project supported by the US in large part due to its imperialist goals and American interests in the MENA region. Interconnected to the matter of zionism is the strategy of intentional false conflation of antisemitism to criticism of zionism or Israel intended to suppress and silence criticism so that zionism can continue without accountability. These propagandist tactics are supported and reinforced by the United States over their imperialist goals in the MENA region. Third, we must look at the state of Israel more closely, the brutality in which it was created and maintains itself, and Israel’s influence on American politics and media. Interconnected to the matter of Israeli influence, we must look at lobby and special interest groups such as AIPAC and the ADL. These powerful groups use large sums of money to influence media organizations and exert influence and control over American elections and US policy both foreign and domestic.

United States foreign policy in the Middle East has always been in the absolute interest of western imperialism. This has continuously come at the cost of the suffering of MENA nations and their civilians for over a century. President Joe Biden, while serving as a United States Senator, gave a speech on the Senate floor on June 5, 1986, speaking to US foreign policy in the Middle East. He stated that the US should “operate and move in the naked self-interest of the United States of America.” Referring to Israel, he said, “It is the best three-billion-dollar investment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect our interests in the region.”  His current position and statements regarding Israel and the Middle East remain unchanged thirty-eight years later. Biden has openly referred to himself as a zionist to the media on numerous occasions for several decades. He has made repeated statements of support for Israel, even as Israel has been accused of the ongoing genocide of Palestinians, and after several decades of its numerous violations of international law. In December of 2023, Biden stated, “I got in trouble many times for saying you don’t have to be a Jew to be a zionist, and I am a zionist. I make no apologies for that. That’s a reality.” The statements then-Senator Biden made on the Senate floor in 1986 speak volumes to the reasons behind the United States’ predisposition to show favorable bias towards Israel and, therefore, against Palestinians.

The matter of Palestine has always been at the core of United States antiterrorism laws. Palestinian liberation efforts continue to be a central target of both foreign policies and domestic laws oppressive to Arab Americans. The idea of the Arab or Muslim terrorist was introduced to the west by Israel’s current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu in 1979. Netanyahu used the term in Washington, DC, in 1984 at the “Second Conference on International Terrorism” he organized where he pushed this label and agenda into American politics. On December 22, 1987, he achieved his goal as the Palestinian Liberation Organization was formally declared a terrorist organization by the United States. This was the “first and only time” Congress designated a group as a terrorist organization. These series of events are directly related to escalations that led to the first intifada in 1987. It was also during these conditions that Hamas, a resistance organization, had formed. The region endured continuous turmoil, and heightened escalations continued until the Oslo Accords in 1993.

Journalism vs. Propaganda: A Brief History

While the media is a very influential source in shaping views on important matters, the United States mainstream media has long ago lost its journalistic integrity.  Yellow journalism is a type of journalism that uses exaggerated and sensationalist reporting often based on false accounts of events to boost sales and attract readers. The peak of early-stage yellow journalism began as a competition between the publications of two major newspaper publishers in the late 1800s, Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. To drive public appeal, the two pushed out sensationalist newspapers, which prominently featured political coverage. In 1898, both Pulitzer and Hearst published misleading newspapers pushing a rumor that Cuba had sank a US battleship when, in fact, a coal fire aboard the ship led to an explosion. The US Maine sinking in the Havana Harbor contributed to the outbreak of the Spanish-American War. Propagandist publications have tainted American journalism to this day and continue to incite both conflicts and hate.

The New York Times’ publishing controversies began in the 1800s and include numerous instances pertaining to significant events from the Russian Revolution to the Iraq War. In more recent times, the New York Times has been cited for publishing articles based on misinformation leading to incitement. In 2003, the Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics found that “the New York Times is more favorable toward the Israelis than the Palestinians, and the partiality has become more pronounced with time.” This trend continues today and is an ongoing ethical and moral problem. During the current genocide in Gaza that began in 2023, The New York Times has been cited multiple times for publishing false accounts of events, from false claims of rapes to disproven accounts of beheaded babies. In April of 2024, The Intercept obtained an internal New York Times memo that instructed journalists to avoid “use of the terms ‘genocide’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’ and to ‘avoid’ using the phrase ‘occupied territory’ when describing Palestinian land.” They were additionally instructed to avoid the use of “Palestine” or terms such as “refugee camps.” Numerous other mainstream media outlets have also been accused of both biased and inaccurate reporting on Palestine. This trend is commonplace and has persisted for over a century.

A Definitive Bias

The issue of Palestine is deeply intertwined with the rise of anti-Arab hate, contributing to the dehumanization and stereotyping of Arabs. The Middle East and North Africa have rich cultural variances and diverse ethnicities, but there is a strong cultural ignorance in the west about the geography and geopolitics of the MENA region. To many, “an Arab is an Arab” without any thought or attention to regional or political distinctions. The mainstream media promotes this cultural ignorance, flattening public understandings of MENA communities and struggles as a result. Media bias is not only harmful to the populations they target but is a catalyst driving discriminatory hate within their audience here in the United States as well. Media bias plays a role in contributing to harmful stereotypes toward people of Arab, Middle Eastern, and North African ethnic backgrounds, regardless of their religion. Media bias has also contributed to the western racialization of Muslim Americans and has played a destructive role by inciting Islamophobia, giving rise to hate crimes against individuals from these ethnic groups in the US. Natalie Khazaal, associate professor of Arabic and Arab Culture at the Georgia Institute of Technology, published an article for The Conversation, an independent news organization, highlighting anti-Palestinian bias in US corporate media: “Reporting can prime audiences to see a Palestinian fighter in a mask as either an icon of terrorism or a hero resisting occupation, depending on how the news is presented.” This one sentence encapsulates the issue Palestinians face in the west. Media portrayals are often biased and tend to leave out crucial histories and background information of events they report on, often totally omitting decades of Palestinian suffering at the hands of an oppressive military colonial settler regime. A definitive bias controls the narrative and information available to the public, leading to a widespread impact and sway on public perception. The media bias infects public viewers and drives large-scale public prejudice against Palestinians.

The convenient western amnesia of Palestinians’ history of suffering must end. We cannot only look to condemn Palestinians, who are blamed for their own suffering. We are now over a year into Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians. Media disinformation has played a significant role in justifying Israel’s criminal actions. Media bias has grave consequences. The Palestinian fight for liberation will persist as long as Palestinians continue to be dehumanized by mainstream western media and imperialist political agendas. The ongoing Palestinian struggle for liberation remains in a state of great peril. There is no true peace process without taking a more critical look at histories and current event considerations through a more honest lens.

  • First published at Project Censored.FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
  • Lamees Hijazi is a San Francisco State University senior majoring in history, with minors in Middle East and Islamic Studies, and Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas. Her interests include multiculturalism, social justice, anti-imperialism, internally displaced peoples, diasporic communities, Indigenous studies, global anti-colonial solidarity, and media literacy. In Summer 2024, she worked as a Project Censored intern, conducting research in support of Omar Zahzah’s forthcoming book, Terms of Servitude: Zionism, Silicon Valley, and Digital/Settler-Colonialism in the Palestinian Liberation StruggleRead other articles by Lamees.

     

    Our Feminist Future Includes a Liberated Palestine


    In thirty years, on some fall morning like today, we wake up and turn on the news. No one is talking about banning abortion or “legalizing abortion” because we don’t talk about wombs like they exist to be legislated around anymore. Instead they are announcing the closing of U.S. military bases in the Pacific, and returning the land to its stewards. Once a place of pollution, sexual violence, war buildup, these bases are something else now. And all over the south of the United States, communities have been given billions of billions of dollars to replace their infrastructure to better protect against natural disasters.

    For a couple decades, the world has been working together to slow climate emissions; the only competition is who can save the world the fastest. Something that seemed unfathomable thirty years ago, when Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton destroyed Florida and North Carolina – when the government sent money to Israel for genocide instead of sending money to hurricane relief. Palestinians rebuilt Gaza, and people born in Gaza are free to visit their families in Jerusalem, Tulkarem, or Beitunia. The apartheid walls finally came down.

    Any devastating moment can be the one that makes us change course in this timeline – natural disasters or coming to the brink of a world war could have been it. From the bottom up, the people demanded better priorities. Feminists thought holistically about what women ought to demand. If war and imperialism is killing women and children directly through bombs and indirectly through climate destruction – then feminists ought to demand an end to war. So they did. The money that was so tied up in the war industry every year, over one trillion dollars, flowed into communities to meet beyond their most basic needs.

    The world and its people have a sense of stability. We are all less filled with anxiety and trauma. That’s an example of  the feminist future we can imagine.

    If Utopia is a world where uteruses can’t be legislated or Palestinians can move freely throughout their land, then we are guilty of being utopians. Having a social imagination is useful because we can’t start walking somewhere if we have no idea where we are going, or else we risk walking in the complete opposite direction. The “feminism” of Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris or any other woman of the ruling class has no vision for the future because their feminism very plainly endorses the status quo of endless war and capitalism. This brand of feminism might make it so women have the right to an abortion, but with no way to afford one if they need it, for example. We argue that the co-opted war mongering feminism of this era is leading us down a path that puts all women who aren’t in the ruling class in the line of fire. And we also argue that we can practice our feminist values to create a crawl space to reach a feminist future.

    Any dehumanization is antithetical to feminist values. “Feminists” who haven’t said a word about the genocide in Gaza are leaving out Palestinian women – thus dehumanizing an entire population of oppressed people and giving discursive cover for a genocide. If you look at any atrocity at any moment in time, there were people, even “feminists” justifying those atrocities and injustices. Even if they don’t mention Palestine at all and only discuss abortion rights, omitting it from their demands demonstrates dehumanization all by itself. They are saying aloud who is important to them and who is not.

    With each exclusion, the war machine and patriarchy (they are the same thing) will just go to the next oppressed group of people that feminists are willing to leave behind. The first weekend of November, a Women’s March, hoping to stir the women into the streets like it did in 2017, is planned. It declares it is a feminist movement; “By 2050, we will be a feminist-led movement that ensures anyone and everyone has the freedom to lead empowered lives in safety and security in their bodies, in their communities, and throughout the country.” We wonder if our feminist vision should demand a little bit more, and if it’s really useful to have a vision that only includes “the country”. In a globalized world where our “country” has over 700 military bases and supplies weapons for every major conflict – don’t feminists within the US owe a vision that transcends borders? If our oppression flows to every inch of the earth, so should our solidarity.

    Patriarchy is a stomach that is never satiated and is constantly looking for people to swallow up – so it encourages us and pressures us to leave people behind. At this present moment, we are being encouraged by western feminists to put women in the U.S. ahead of women in Gaza, even when we see videos of pregnant Palestinian women being shot in the street. Western feminists are insisting we try to race to the top,  leaving our sisters in Gaza ailing and starving in our dust. Unless part of the ruling class, Western feminists gain nothing by excluding Palestinian women from their politics and future aspirations – without the practice and value of true solidarity, they will leave everyone living under the boot of capitalism and imperialism  in the dirt.

    Having a social imagination is key to our feminist world view. To quote Bill Ayers’ new book When Freedom is the Question, Abolition is the Answer, social imagination is “the collectively creative, inventive, resourceful forces that embrace all of humanity and are explicitly pro-emancipation and pro-liberation for the many, for all.” Any feminist framework that doesn’t include the masses lacks what is necessary for social imagination.

    Here’s what western feminists are presented with: women in the Senate, women in the House of Representatives, and women in “power” vaguely. Let’s zoom in at the women in Congress who CODEPINK has been educating on the plight of women in Gaza for years now. When confronted with the reality of the human suffering they knowingly support and materially make possible, people like Nancy Pelosi shake their fists at us and insist they are focusing on the issues facing women here in the US. Not only is western feminism exclusionary, it also thinks you’re stupid. Congress, and women like Nancy Pelosi have had multiple opportunities to codify abortion rights in the United States. During this time, and in the last year these same women  have promised iron clad support for the genocidal state of Israel as it destroys families and sexually abuses Palestinian women and men.

    So, what have these “feminists” in power delivered for the people? They give us an image of a woman sitting in the seat of power and “breaking the glass ceiling”. Is having a woman who sat where a man once sat to vote in favor of the same austerity or war spending that the man voted for “breaking the glass ceiling”? Sure. But, what about that is meaningful if the walls that hold up the ceiling  keep the masses in poverty, trauma, and war? Feminists seek to tear the walls down altogether. .

    A plea for the status quo (that includes institutional violence against women) is not liberatory nor is it an example of social imagination. Liberatory values like feminism are all-encompassing, they are aspirational and inspiring. Above all, they are rooted in love.

    We want a different future. So, what’s the alternative to exclusionary, western feminism that doesn’t mind Palestinian women being murdered en masse as long as maybe, one day they can codify the right to an abortion in one, singular country?

    It’s feminism – feminism in practice,  feminism that truly believes every person deserves dignity in this life. Feminism that can actually imagine and cultivate  a future worth living to.

    To begin to break out of the racial capitalist patriarchy is to begin practicing feminist values in our everyday lives. At CODEPINK, we call this moving from the war economy to the peace economy. Here are five simple steps you can start taking today:

    1. Talk to and meet a new stranger every day. On the bus, at a cafe, on the street. Anywhere. Get outside

    2. Practice curiosity. When you hear information relayed to you about another person or issue, ask why that might be the case, or even if that’s the case at all. Curiosity can help us sift through mass media and interpersonal drama with a more critical lens.

    3. Practice patience. Remind yourself to not be condescending to people who know less than you about politics or anything at all!

    4. Practice generosity. When we live from a place of abundance, we are actively rejecting the scarcity the war economy instills in us.

    5. Practice all-encompassing care. You care about the people directly around you. But you also care about the people around them, and then the people around them. You can’t possibly have a feminism that is exclusionary if your empathy reaches everywhere.

    6. More practices and our support of you at codepink.org/peaceeconomy

    Yes, the atrocities the U.S. government carries out in our name aren’t  necessarily our fault. Our politicians are bought off and don’t represent the people, we know that. But practicing our values as we build our movements is critical. If we can see little glimpses of the world we want to live in by just being with each other, then we are tangibly moving in the right direction.

    This constant practice of our feminist values makes sure no one gets left behind and prevents our movement from being sucked into co-option. In the U.S., our struggle is with our own government’s priorities. They thrive on getting rich from war and the power they draw from it – they never had and never will be concerned with life, ours or the planets. When our government’s oppression spans the entire world, the people’s struggle is always one.

    So, when we imagine a world where our priorities shift to the people, and we look past the horizon and over the Mediterranean, there is also a liberated Palestine.FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

    Danaka Katovich is CODEPINK's national co-director. Danaka graduated from DePaul University with a bachelor's degree in Political Science in November 2020. Jodie Evans is the co-founder of CODEPINK and the after-school writing program 826LA, and serves on the CODEPINK Board of Directors. She is the co-editor of two books, Twilight of Empire: Responses to Occupation and Stop the Next War Now: Effective Responses to Violence and Terrorism and a contributor to Beautiful Trouble: A Toolbox for RevolutionRead other articles by Danaka Katovich and Jodie Evans.
    WHY HARRIS IS IN TEXAS ON FRIDAY

    'Politics of division': Texas' biggest newspaper unloads on Ted Cruz

    Alex Henderson, AlterNet
    October 21, 2024 

    Senator Ted Cruz (BILL CLARK/POOL/AFP)

    During the 1990s and 2000s, Republicans typically enjoyed double-digit victories in statewide races in Texas.

    But in 2018, incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) defeated Democratic challenger Beto O'Rourke by only 2 percent. And in 2024, Cruz has been warning fellow Republicans that a victory by Rep. Colin Allred (D-TS) cannot be ruled out.

    In a front-page editorial published on Sunday, Allred picked up an endorsement from the Dallas Morning News — Texas' largest daily newspaper.

    The editorial criticized Cruz for promoting "the politics of division," noting that he "could have supported the peaceful transfer of power in the 2020 presidential election" but didn't.

    The Morning News’ editorial board wrote, "He instead was the first senator to rise in objection to certifying the electoral vote and one of just six to do so. His actions were a catalyst for what became one of the worst days in our nation's history."


    The day the Morning News was referring to was January 6, 2021, which found a mob of Donald Trump supporters violently attacking the U.S. Capitol Building in the hope of preventing Congress from certifying now-President Joe Biden's Electoral College victory.

    The editorial praised Allred's willingness to work with Republicans, arguing that the Texas congressman has "demonstrated over time that both the words and action of bipartisanship matter to him."

    Costas Panagopoulos, who teaches political science at Northeastern University in Boston, believes that the Texas Senate race is very much in play for Allred.

    According to Panagopoulos, recent polls "suggest the race is tied or even that Allred may be ahead."

    Panagopoulos told Newsweek, "Texas voters have had reservations about Ted Cruz for years. He only squeaked by narrowly to win reelection in 2018."

    Read the Dallas Morning News' full editorial at this link


    (subscription required) and Newsweek's coverage here.

    SOCK PUPPET FOR TRUMP
    Exposed: Elon Musk's real reasons for going full MAGA for Trump

    Julia Conley, Common Dreams
    October 22, 2024

    Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk speaks as Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. president Donald Trump looks on during a rally at the site of the July assassination attempt against Trump, in Butler, Pennsylvania, U.S., October 5, 2024. 
    REUTERS/Carlos Barria TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

    Tesla founder Elon Musk has spent his career cultivating the image of a provocateur who's driven by a passionate commitment to free speech and technological innovation—but a new report by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen makes the case that when it comes to Musk's political priorities, there's nothing unique or trailblazing about him.

    Musk, said Public Citizen research director Rick Claypool, is galvanized by the same concerns that lead oil executives to pour money into the campaigns of pro-fossil fuel politicians like Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump: self-preservation.

    Claypool published research cataloguing the numerous business-related incentives Musk has for supporting Trump, whose rallies the billionaire has spoken at recently and for whose campaign he has created a super political action committee.

    At least three of Musk's businesses—electric car maker Tesla, space exploration company SpaceX, and social media platform X—face a total of at least 11 criminal and civil investigations over alleged fraud, labor violations, and other accusations.

    "Enforcement priorities can shift significantly when administrations change," wrote Claypool. "Musk's self-serving desire to thwart the numerous civil and criminal investigations into his businesses seems a likely reason for the billionaire's increased involvement in electoral politics."

    "Trump has promised to put Musk in charge of government efficiency. Since Musk's companies receive billions in government contracts every year—and often clash with government regulators—Musk would in effect be given the power to trim the very agencies that regulate him."

    The report points to federal investigations into Tesla's claims about the "self-driving" capability of its vehicles, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) examining whether the claims constitute criminal fraud, and a case at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charging that Tesla retaliated against Black workers who reported being subjected to racist harassment at work.

    The Securities and Exchange Commission is also investigating Musk's $44 billion takeover of X and the Federal Trade Commission has received reports that Musk gave orders to employees that would have breached an FTC consent decree which the company, formerly called Twitter, entered in 2011 as part of a settlement for alleged deceptive practices and privacy violations.

    SpaceX has been accused by the Environmental Protection Agency of pollution that violated the Clean Water Act, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) last month accused the company of safety violations in its rocket launches in Florida.

    Musk, who is the richest person in the world with a net worth of nearly $250 billion, has attempted to fight federal investigations and cases against his companies by threatening a lawsuit against the FAA alleging "regulatory overreach" and challenging the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board and a DOJ case.

    Last October, as the DOJ was expanding its probe of Tesla and just after the EEOC sued the company over racial discrimination, Musk called for "comprehensive deregulation."

    "As eccentric and provocative as Elon Musk wants people to think he is, he's really just another corporate billionaire who wants to avoid accountability," said Claypool. "Nobody—not government officials or massive corporations or billionaire executives—is above the law. But if self-serving campaigns to the contrary succeed, the injustice of America's two-tiered justice system will only deepen."

    The Public Citizen report comes days after Musk urged his followers to sign his petition supporting "free speech and the right to bear arms," promising a random $1 million payment each day to one registered voter who signs—a scheme legal experts say amounts to illegal vote-buying for Trump.

    At The Nation on Monday, Jeet Heer noted that Trump has pledged to put Musk in charge of a “government efficiency commission” that could help eliminate federal regulations and advised Democrats to fight Musk's attempts to influence voters by calling attention to what he really is: "an oligarch threatening democracy."

    "Musk's eagerness to elect Trump is clearly rooted in a squalid quid pro quo," Heer wrote. "Trump has promised to put Musk in charge of government efficiency. Since Musk's companies receive billions in government contracts every year—and often clash with government regulators—Musk would in effect be given the power to trim the very agencies that regulate him."


    "Musk," wrote Heer, "is the perfect face of the new American robber barons."

    How Did Elon Musk Become the Richest Person on Earth?



     October 22, 2024
    Facebook

    Sam Pizzigati writes on inequality for the Institute for Policy Studies. His latest book: The Case for a Maximum Wage (Polity). Among his other books on maldistributed income and wealth: The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970  (Seven Stories Press).