Photographers Creating Drama
Click here on the word Photographers and watch the video (wait a moment for it to begin). You can see how photographers can become part of the story and help construct images. The media manipulation is part of ethnopolitical conflicts and the extent to which they are intensified by improper coverage of the story. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is intense and complex and deserving of proper treatment.
I’ve seen this myself in Israel on more than one occasion where photographer’s, reporters, and medical personnel show up before the protesters to get “ready” for the event. What gets reported in the news or on television, if it makes it that far, is more dramatic than what actually occurred.
Manipulated photographs gain their credibility by being attached to real photographs or real events. Adages about how a picture is worth 1000 words or how photographs never lie resonate with the public’s belief that pictures are real and tell the truth. The pressure for the public to believe the photograph is powerful so people view images and work hard to find them truthful.
It’s also the case that manipulated photographs make for a gray area of reality. The photograph is of course “of” something and this contributes increasingly to the sense of reality a photograph carries with it. Technology and computerized images are now so sophisticated that the fake picture can be better than a real one. It is so easy to simply “improve” the photograph by sharpening the colors, increasing the contrast, or cropping without encountering any moral questions about the new reality the photographer is creating.
Compare it to writing. If you observe an event or listen to an interaction and then go write a story using those instances, it is not much different than what a photographer does when he or she approaches a subject and constructs a photographic image. Maybe we should begin to think about photography as fictional and begin the process of teaching people to treat it as a story or narrative that has been constructed. Writers exceed the boundaries of truth and are called creative and interesting, why not the same for news photographs. The photographs from the news perspective are supposed to be reporting some semblance of the truth. If the photograph is manipulated or staged in any way it violates the truth to some degree.
I think the manipulation in this video is some of the worst kind because the photographers are going out of their way to replicate a dramatic and violent reality in order to increase the sense of excitement around the photograph. No one is benefiting from this.
Regime Change in Syria
Here’s hoping the Arab spring lasts a little longer so there is time for flowers to bloom in Syria. Regime change in Syria would be a good thing, and it looks like a real possibility. Last week the Arab League decided to suspend Syria’s membership, and to sanction President Assad for his acts of violence. The sense that the Syrian regime is failing to meet the expectations of its people is growing. The list of killed gets longer and human rights group discovered the bodies of 19 people kidnapped. The Syrian government is beginning to panic albeit slightly because they have recently released detainees as a humanitarian effort, including the well-known political activist.
The question becomes what is the next step. Some suggest a Libyan style intervention but the conditions on the ground are sufficiently different to make it unlikely. Other ideas include asking Syria to withdraw its armed forces from various communities, release more political prisoners, and meet with activists to try to solve contentious issues. Still other ideas suggest the UN intervention and the recall of foreign ambassadors.
All of these are a sort of first step which will probably lead to very little change. For now, Syria is requesting meetings with the Arab League mostly in an effort to stall for time. What is particularly incendiary is the fact that most of the Syrian population is Sunni while Syria is closely associated with Shiite Iran. A post Assad government should represent the majority Sunnis but no one expects Iran to tolerate such a representation. Any real transition for the Syrian government will confront the threat of the Muslim brotherhood and the rise of Muslim political parties.
It is too early to start making plans for a new government in Syria. As of now, the rare Arab consensus that led to Syria’s suspension from the Arab League is probably the most hopeful possibility. The decision by the Arab League is a direct confrontation with Assad and can be used for significant pressure. Even though Arab officials have held firmly and claim that their censure is no idle threat, there remains a strong tradition in this area of the world that would discourage any military engagement and surely back off of any direct intervention. This means that the United States will have to take the lead in destabilizing Syria but this also will not be on the White House’s agenda.
Syria is no friend of the United States, except with regard to formal international relations, and has spent its share of time espousing harsh words for the US and the West. But its big brother Iran is an even greater threat. It’s time to see the two of them in tandem. Iran is a world leader in exporting terrorism, is associated with Al Qaeda, and now we have discovered they plotted terrorist attacks on US soil, not to mention their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Confronting Syria and forcing significant change can be a precursor to challenging Iran in a significant manner. Syria has little choice but to continue trying to quash protests but represent itself as a legitimate government. Assad’s competence is increasingly in question in Syria is increasingly isolated. This is a potentially combustible mixture.
Muslim Election Implications
A few posts ago I predicted, along with others, a coming Muslim empire in the Middle East. The early signs are pretty supportive of this prediction. I don’t want to be naïve and appear as if Islam will play no role in governing Middle East countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, or Libya. Islam is a significant cultural category in this area of the world and responsible for the identity of many of the citizens. But even at the risk of sounding alarmist we need to keep our eye on the triumph of Islam in the political process of many states.
We are supposed to be seeing the beginning of democracies in places like Tunisia and Egypt, but such a transition is by no means assured given the results of elections. In Tunisia the Islamist party, Nahda, may present itself as a roadblock to Tunisia’s recently gained freedoms. We might expect Tunisia’s largest Islamic political party to do well in an election, but it still raises worries about the future and whether or not the modern and secular Tunisia will remain that way.
There are instances of Nahda’s founder insisting that the rights of women and others would be respected but then appealing to more religiously conservative members of the electorate. The party is a relative of the Muslim brotherhood with the documented message of radicalism that sometimes contradicts the moderate message.
We are beginning to see a trend in the discourse emerging from many media and academic critics that condemns any declarations of Islam as extremist. It’s becoming the case that if one expresses fear of revolutionary Islam, they’re accused of alarmism at the least and fear mongering at the worst. And even though I do not want to contribute to either, we are seeing the beginning of the Muslim empire I have referred to and the conditions for slipping into revolutionary Islam are delicate. It is the dominant ideology in Tunisia, Iran, Egypt, and Libya, and cannot help but find its way into the political system. There are three interesting links between Islamists and their success in the coming Muslim majority.
The first was a failure of Arab nationalism. When the military took over Egypt in the early 1950s there was the possibility that nationalism would govern as the dominant political ideology in the region. But after economic failures, war losses, and general threats to their identity the nationalist failed to convince a population that they had anything to offer. Waiting patiently in the wings was the Muslim Brotherhood.
Political skill and manipulation, almost in the tradition of American electoral campaigns, is a second reason for the rise of Islam. Increasingly, political leaders express messages of modernity and moderation but behave more extremely. One Muslim brotherhood leader stated that he was more interested in elections than the work of bin Laden because elections were easily winnable. The brotherhood has learned the public relations methods of the West and this has resulted in their claims as victims and oppressed by imperialism, racism, religious intolerance, and Zionism. Note the sympathetic stance toward Palestinians and international condemnation of Israel – a strong democracy trying to defend itself.
And third, American confusions and misplaced international policies have too often humiliated and misunderstood Islamist groups. Even given the oft cited number of times we have defended Muslims (Bosnia, Kuwait, attempts to rid Iraq of oppressive leaders) the US and Western powers have failed to make the case.
There is a tide. The once banned resistance party in Tunisia, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and The National Transitional Council in Libya have all declared support for Shariah law. Perhaps some of these religious campaign strategies are designed to appeal to an electorate and will moderate in the future. Tunisia is an excellent test case. It is far more impressive democratically and economically than many other states. It has a high rate of female literacy and a strong national identity. It was the first to overthrow an autocratic leader and demand democratic rights. Let’s hope that the election of an Islamist political party does not roll back the progress made by Tunisians.
Power outage
Major power outage in Connecticut and I have no access to a computer. Blog posts will continue next week. Don Ellis
Shahira Amin responds to Herb Simons
{Below is Shahira Amin’s e-mail response to Herb Simons. He and I have been in contact with her about the interview with Gilad Shalit. I reprint it here with Shahira’s permission. The post following this one establishes some context.} Don Ellis
Shahira
Gilad Shalit Interview and Journalistic Standards
Gilad Shalit was abducted on June 25, 2006 by militants near the Gaza border who had ambushed an Israeli army post. Hamas and an umbrella group called the Popular Resistance Committees took credit for the capture of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Shalit was held for five years and only once in 2009 did Hamas release a video of the pale and gaunt looking soldier holding a newspaper as proof that he was alive.
Initially, Israel refused to negotiate but then used Egypt to broker talks with the involvement of a mediator. Israel and Hamas reached an agreement on October 11, 2011. Israel agreed to release over 1000 prisoners in exchange for Shalit. The ratio of 1000 Palestinian prisoners to 1 Israeli soldier seems high, but Israel sees itself as surrounded by enemies and as a militarized society who sends all of their sons and daughters to the military to protect the state. All Israelis can identify with the plight of Shalit, as can the Palestinians identify with their imprisoned family members. Consequently, Israel has a policy of leaving no soldier behind.
On the day of the exchange, Shalit was transferred to Egyptian mediators with Israeli representatives present. The Egyptians then transferred Shalit to Israel. But before Sgt. Shalit was fully returned to Israel and transferred to airbase Tel Nof he was subjected to a television interview by the Egyptian journalist Shahira Amin. There was an outcry about this interview and some called it “abuse” and “continued torture.”
The appropriateness of this interview raises an interesting journalistic question. The Israelis have agreed to handle the story with sensitivity by keeping their distance from Shalit and avoiding photography and invasive questions in an effort to ease his transition. The Israelis have objected to the image of the bewildered and emaciated soldier in front of the camera. Did the interview meet any accepted journalistic criteria – newsworthiness, need to know, human interest, timeliness? Clearly, it did. No journalist would pass up the opportunity to interview Gilad. The story was newsworthy, timely, and met about every criteria of interest you could apply.
Then again, there is simply the issue of sensitivity and the circumstances surrounding the interview. The Israeli claim that the circumstances were ethically questionable and generally unfair to Shalit is certainly a defensible argument. A matter of moments before the interview he was in the hands of Hamas and under complete consertive control and there would be no reason to believe at the moment of the interview Gilad was suddenly liberated and free to speak his mind. We would not expect more from Shalit then we would expect from any captive prisoner saying what is necessary to stay alive.
Shahira Amin’s interview with Shalit is available at: Shalit interview with Shahira Amin. Shalit spoke in Hebrew in response to questions posed in English which created some confusion. Amin has been roundly criticized for conducting the interview but claims that she received Gilad’s permission (as if it could be freely offered under such circumstances).
It is important to note that Shahira Amin is in Egyptian peace advocate and resigned her position as a broadcaster in protest of the coverage of Tarir Square. And even though the Egyptian press can be very hard on Israel, even at times blatantly unfair, there is nothing particularly unfair about the questions she asked Shalit.
Why was Gilad Shalit Released Now?
The curious might speculate about why
Gilad Shalit was released now. He was captured by Hamas in 2006 and has been
held for 5 years in Gaza. The prisoner exchange – one Israeli soldier for more
than 1000 Palestinian prisoners – has been a point of discussion for a long
time. Yes, there were disagreements about who should be released and what
should happen to them after release. Hamas wanted Marwan Barghouti (a brutal
terrorist) released but Israel refused. Other released prisoners were required
to leave the area and settle somewhere other than the West Bank or Gaza. Still,
why now?
The exchange is actually quite
significant and expected to reshape various relationships in the area not to
mention the image of Benjamin Netanyahu. Gilad Shalit had become quite a cause
célèbre in Israel. His parents and tens of thousands of Israeli citizens
petitioned the government to do something about his imprisonment and organized
a large and successful social movement around gaining the release of Gilad. I
can remember once being stuck in a particularly nasty traffic jam on the road
to Jerusalem because of a protest march designed to draw attention to the
plight of Shalit. But as the intensity of the support for Shalit increased, so
did his value to Hamas. The more Israel wanted him returned, the more it was
going to cost them. I suspect that Hamas bided its time until Gilad reached
maximum value. Perhaps the rising tide of support for Shalit’s release ended up
extending his stay in the Hamas jail – although it probably saved his life.
Netanyahu was under considerable pressure
to do something about Shalit. His parents requested audiences with Netanyahu
and poured their hearts out in the media. Netanyahu commands respect amongst
Israelis, and his morally unambiguous and fluent English serves him well in the
United States. But Netanyahu is also seen as harsh and conservative by many and
one who does not care sufficiently about the failure of government to help
people: to improve housing and job opportunities. Gaining Shalit’s release on
his watch gave Netanyahu a serious boost. I suspect that Netanyahu figured it
was time to accept as many Hamas demands as he could stomach. It is also true
that the continual protests demanding Shalit’s release were gnawing at Netanyahu
and diminishing the image and effectiveness of this government.
The “Arab Spring” and the
turmoil in the region also play a hand in this game. Turkey who helped broker
the deal is apparently closer to Hamas then we thought. Although Turkey has
been clearly distancing itself from Israel, its connection to Hamas is
surprising. However, Hamas’s political base in Syria is tenuous given the
protests and perhaps Hamas is looking to Turkey for future relations. The
future of the relationship between Egypt and Israel is cloudy. If the Muslim
brotherhood increases its power Egypt will certainly be less congenial. Perhaps
Netanyahu and his conservative government figured it had something to gain by
acting now.
Finally, Hamas gets to look like it
cares about all Palestinians. The tense relationship between Hamas and the
Palestinian Authority is real. Hamas flatly rejects the existence of Israel and
the Palestinian Authority tries to negotiate with Israel; Hamas disagreed with
the United Nations declaration of statehood move by the Palestinian Authority;
yet, the Palestinian Authority gained the admiration of many Palestinians by
standing up to the Security Council and rejecting the American request to
withdraw the application.
It turns out that this particular moment
in time, this particular confluence of events, created a perfect storm of
issues such that both sides thought it was in their best interest to negotiate.
And that is just what conflict management is all about.
Will Jihadist Islam Give Way to Democracy?
The prospect for democracy in the
Islamic world is currently an energized debate that has interesting political,
religious, and practical consequences. One perspective on the problem is most
represented by the noted political theorist Samuel Huntington. Huntington was
blunt about the fact that democracy was quite incompatible with the Muslim
world. He argued that the Muslim world lacks the preconditions for a transition
to democracy. His very popular book, The
Clash of Civilizations, was at least indirectly informed by a pessimism
about democracy and Islam. Islam lacked, according to Huntington, key concepts
such as popular sovereignty, human rights, and market economies.
But the problem with this perspective is
that it is short term. Moreover, this sort of pessimism about democracy and
Islam is overly influenced by current conditions of fundamentalism, fueled by
Al Qaeda, or “Islamism.” In fact, there is another way to think about
the issue. If one simply makes a direct comparison between doctrinal issues in
Islamism and democracy, then Islam will not compare favorably. Islamism in its
current extreme form is antithetical to any idea of democracy. But it is
possible to take different theoretical perspective – one that involves a longer
view of history and looks more to social and economic conditions rather than
doctrinal principles. It is possible to argue that the actual content of Islam
is less important than the conditions that give rise to it.
Michael Walzer, the noted political
philosopher, makes a very interesting argument based on his book from the 1960s
on the origins of radical politics. Walzer argues that radicals (read modern-day
Jihadists) emerge during periods of social dislocation. When societies are confused
about how to organize themselves, when they are confronting change and
transitions that require new ways of thinking and behaving, is when conditions
are ripe for the emergence of radicals, especially those that seek purity and a
return to discipline and order. The radical ideology subsides when peace and
calm are restored.
Walzer points out that the road to
radicalism begins with an individual or group that views themselves as chosen;
this chosen group is characterized by certainty and confidence; their
relationship with the rest of the world is warlike and they turn toward their
internal cohesion with testimonies of formal commitment. The chosen band sees
itself as a saint and free to propose new political organizations. The saints, as
Walzer terms them, carry people through a time of change and offer a form of
stability.
The parallels with Islamic
fundamentalism are easy to recognize in terms of the revolutionary content of
jihadist ideology, its transformative message, and the social origins of its adherents.
If the analysis is correct and has any traction at all there should be in the
future an evolution away from jihadism. Other scholars have made the argument
that modern-day fundamentalists are a departure from Islamic historical and
political conditions. And over time the counter reaction to Islamism will be
what ushers in liberalizing influences. Finally, if it is true that social
conditions are more important than the content of ideology, then perhaps
political theorists and social scientists can figure out ways to nudge history
along.
Islam Is Vertical, Democracy Is Horizontal: Can They Be Reconciled?
Just how much democratic air the Arab Spring
ushers in remains to be seen. The large tent of Islam is beckoning its
followers from around the world to begin building the Islamic state.
Dictatorial rule such as that in Egypt has overshadowed religious activities
for many years, and questions about how to apply the principles of Islam to
society have gone unanswered. In some places the word “Islamist” is
being shunned for more inclusive language. In other places traditionalists are
trying to strictly apply Islamist ideas to the government – ideas such as
obligatory religious taxes, heavy censorship, and conservative treatment of
women. The future will grapple with the demands of the community versus the
demands of Islam, but the struggle will not be between Islam and secularism but
rather between more Islam and less Islam.
One way to pose the problem of religion
and the state is to clarify that religion is vertical with God at the top and
humans beneath. The relationship is one of the individual as the relatively passive
recipient of truth or orthodoxy. Democracy is horizontal where regardless of
race, religion, or creed there is an equality of rights and equal treatment
under the law. Problems arise when the horizontal and vertical axes get
confused or encroach on one another’s space such that the principles of the God
are applied to the horizontal relationships among equals in a society. In the
horizontal world of democracy and the secular state the moral foundation of
political authority rests with popular sovereignty. Democracy is degraded and
diminished when the moral foundation shifts to the vertical axis and relies on
a particularly authoritative God. This is why democracy theorists insist on the
separation of religion and state.
The two axes emerge from very different
conditions of governance. The horizontal liberal democratic process makes
decisions and comes to truth through contestatory discourse. The assumption is
that differences between people are given and problems are solved and reconciled
through the communication process, which regulates beliefs and attitudes. The
primary mode of managing differences is persuasion or the strength of the
better argument. Issues such as tolerance, pluralism, compromise,
inclusiveness, and argument are central to liberal democratic politics. The
vertical axis, on the other hand, backgrounds contestatory discourse and relies
more on proclamations from authority.
There are additional reasons why we
should work to influence liberal democratic processes and limit the power of
the Islamic state. These include the fact that religion is exclusionary and
sets up boundaries and distances between believers and nonbelievers. This
exacerbates the conditions for conflict. The horizontal democratic state, which
is based on membership in a political society rather than a religious one,
emphasizes more what people have in common than their differences. This shared
identity, this strain toward commonality is a well-established mark of low
conflict societies. After all, it could be the case that 100% of the women in society
cover their heads but of what value is this to even the most religious person
if the state is characterized by corruption and nothing works.
Additionally, religion undermines
democratic peace. It seeks to dissipate the differences between the axes and
move God to the center of debate. Still, it’s important to work toward perhaps
some compatibility between Islam and the liberal democratic state if for no
other reason than it is unavoidable. In fact, if there can be some democratic consensus
as to the role of religion in the state then the long-term prospects for the
political system are improved. In the case of Islam it is probably prudent to
recognize a few realities:
One, it may be possible to redefine what
it means to be secular. Nader Hashemi writing in, Islam, Secularism, and Liberal Democracy, explains that there is
not even really a word for “secularism” in classical Arabic, Farsi,
or Turkish that is synonymous with the English term. Hence the term is ripe for
expansion and semantic development.
Second, it is impossible to avoid Islam
because it is so central to the culture and hence liberal democracies cannot
avoid incorporating religious politics. True, religion and democracy are
typically considered antithetical but any intersections of commonality and
mutuality have not been explored. Christianity is typically invoked as a
positive force in the development of Western liberalism so perhaps the same can
be true of Islam the differences between Christianity and Islam
notwithstanding.
Finally, religion has a history in the
public sphere that has been underappreciated by democrats. Religion does not
have to be completely rejected or privatized but it does have to be properly
interpreted. All of these issues provide for the possibility of a healthy
incorporation of Islam into a democratic culture. And even though Western
democratic theorists would like to see the horizontal and vertical lines remain
counter to one another, it’s important that future Arab states making transitions
to democratic processes remain practical with respect to the role of religion.
Otherwise the entire structure is in jeopardy.
Israelis and Palestinians Should Work Hand-in-Hand at the UN
The commotion over Obama’s mention of 1967 lines was fabricated and perpetrated mostly by those who either oppose a Palestinian state out right or who are unfamiliar with the issues. For an explanation of how the borders can work go here.
The Israelis and the Palestinians are
together at the UN and something good should develop. Let’s look at a variety
of solution alternatives that ultimately lead to the selection of the two-state
solution as the only viable possibility. If both Netanyahu and Abbas are
serious about the peace they spoke so eloquently about then they should do
something about it now. The Israelis and Palestinians should go hand-in-hand to
the United Nations and seize the moment by both agreeing to support the other.
Consider some of the options advanced in the past but continue to drain the
energies of each even though they are not realistic. I will dispatch with a few
of these options quickly because they are nonstarters with no chance of serious
consideration.
Return
to Palestine: This is the Palestinian fantasy that
Israel goes away and historic Palestine is reconstituted. Hamas would support
such a position and seek the goal of an Islamic Palestinian territory free of
the alien contamination of the Jews. No one can imagine Israel simply packing
up and leaving and an insistence on such a position would result only in
violence.
Return
to Judea and Samaria: This is the settler fantasy of
greater Israel. It’s the opposite vision of the one above where the
Palestinians disappear. It calls for Israeli control of all territories in the
Jewish state composed of a minority group that are not citizens. The
Palestinians would return to Jordan and receive Jordanian citizenship. This is
equally as naïve since Palestinians don’t see themselves as Jordanian citizens
and, even more problematic, the Jordanians don’t want them. The solution would
leave many Palestinians homeless, with essentially no place to go. It’s a
recipe for mass confusion and violence.
A
Binational State: this is a position supported by
many on the left – the outskirts of the left – where both Palestinians and Jews
live together happily in a state composed of two dominant groups, Israelis and
Palestinians. This would mean the end of the Jewish state called Israel and of
course would not be a Palestinian state either. Israelis and Palestinians would
form a joint government and political institutions. This solution is also
supposed to solve the problem of Israel’s democracy. Israel cannot call itself
a fully articulated democracy when about 20 % of its citizens are
disenfranchised. The solution also has the problem of eliminating Israel as a
Jewish state. Those who believe any political culture associated with ethnicity
or religion is a remnant of ancient tribalism, from which we have evolved away,
are sympathetic to this position. This solution would probably exacerbate the
problem rather than resolve it. The disagreements and conflicts between the two
cultures would intensify and probably result in violence. This solution is
equally as naïve. It means the loss of a Jewish state as well as no state for
the Palestinians. The issues of Hamas in Gaza would be very difficult to
imagine. Israel also worries about the demographic factor; that is, over time
the population of Palestinians would overwhelm the Jewish population.
None of these solutions are realistic or
even in the realm of possibility in some cases. The two state solution is crucial
and the answer to the problems of both cultures. Neither side will get
everything it wants, but that’s how compromise and conflict resolution work.
The peace process has disintegrated, the spirit of Oslo has dissipated, and the
two sides engage in continual mistrust and blame. If the two state solution is
not implemented soon Israel will continue to be at a disadvantage with respect
to the demographic argument, international opinion, and security. True, there
is much yet to be worked out such as refugees, borders (see below), and rights of
return but this is what renewed peace talks must take up.
What
Should Happen: Israel must reverse course and support
the Palestinian aspirations. But do it on some preconditions. The first
precondition is that Palestinians return to the table and begin final status
discussions. Secondly, the Palestinians must agree to bilateral negotiations.
Third, both states must be recognized; that is, Israel as Jewish and Palestine
as the home of the Palestinians. Once issues such as refugees have been
resolved, and once the Palestinians accept a two state solution, they should
have no trouble recognizing Israel as “Jewish.”
The two state solution should affirm the
right of self determination for both Jews and Palestinians, and all historic
claims, and agree on territorial swaps and security arrangements that satisfy
both parties. Israel should assist the Palestinians with further security
developments in the West Bank, and settlement development, and freeze
construction of the security wall. The Palestinians should refrain from
international campaigns against Israel and reject the extreme positions
associated with Hamas.
Two states – one Jewish and one
Palestinian – are inevitable. It’s the only solution to the problem and the one
accepted by the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians. Israel should
support the Palestinians and get on with it.
Peace and Conflict Politics 