Israel PR is Censorship

Israel's invasion of Gaza that began in December 2008 resulted in the death of over 1,400 Palestinians and 5,000 wounded (of which a majority were civilians). At the time, I was unaware of Israel's PR tactics, both in Israel and in the West.

As James Zogby explained, Israel was able to define the terms surrounding the debate over the invasion. One of Israel's talking points (which was repeated over and over) was that the war began as a result of Hamas's December 19th actions that ignored the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. However, it was Israel that initially broke the ceasefire agreements a month before Hamas. By defining the starting point of the war, Israel was able to create the appearance that it had the higher ground and reason for aggression against the Palestinians. In reality, Israel broke the agreement a number of times, as Max Kantar explains, and ignored the fact that Hamas did not initially launch any rockets into Israel (in addition to limiting the ability of other groups to conduct rocket launches out of Gaza).

Furthermore, Israel conducted a 'Soft War' in the United States. Hasbara, Israel's PR machine which means 'explanation' in Hebrew, was sent to both Europe and the U.S. to explain Israel's justification for the Gaza invasion. Mel Frykberg of the Middle East Times explains, "Several pro-Israeli public relations organizations also work for Hasbara and are involved in intensive letter-writing and talk-back radio call campaigns aimed at challenging any views critical of Tel Aviv. The Israeli Consulate in New York embarked on a 'website mission' several days ago to "fight search results showing images of war-torn Gaza" when the word "Israel" was typed in a Google search." Israel tried to get Google to remove "distressing images" (Google refused). Just as Palestinians often present pictures to invoke sympathy, Israel attempted to "flood" the Internet with pictures on sites such as Wikipedia to conjure support for a peaceful Israel, appearing as the sole victim in the conflict. Mel explains, "Some 3,500 volunteers, including prominent media names, were recruited around the clock to respond in real-time to online criticism of Israel and to "help counter misinformation about the situation.""

Israel's PR program is one of the most elaborate and comprehensive state systems of disseminating propaganda. In my opinion, this is a form of censorship because it prevents citizens (of not just Israel) from seeing all sides of the debate -- it attempts to suppress the truth. By altering the content of sites such as Wikipedia or attempting to deny web-users specific search results, Israel is censoring voices and material in order to control our ability to fully understand and comprehend the events surrounding the Gaza invasion.

Hamas's You Tube and a Jihad Mascot

Our discussion in class today regarding Middle Eastern youth is a topic whose importance is not always obvious. As our professor explained the situation—there is a huge percentage of unemployed and bored youth throughout the region—its potential ramifications became very apparent. Perhaps Hamas has picked up on this . In addition to its television station al-Aqsa TV, which plays to an older audience, Hamas has introduced PAL Tube to attract younger audiences.

But Pal Tube isn't Hamas's only attempt to attract a young audience: meet Nassur.

He is the newest addition to al-Aqsa's children's station. Appearing on the show, he proudly announces, "I have come today to the Gaza Strip... God willing, I will be one of the mujahideen, one of the fighters. I will join the ranks of the ‘Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades, and I will wage Jihad among them and carry a gun. Do you know why?... to defend the children of Palestine."

Wow.

Comparison: Representation in Arab and American Television (and the need for further research)

After diving into Lynch's Voices of the New Arabic Public once again, it occurred to me that al-Jazeera often includes representatives from the United States in its debates -- not only on foreign policy relating to the U.S. but on domestic, "Arab" issues as well. These representatives come in the form of U.S. government officials, MENA scholars, Middle Eastern Americans as well as others. The opinions expressed by these Americans vary widely and provide an array of Western perspectives to the vast Middle Eastern audience.

This doesn't occur nearly as often in American debate and news shows. Beyond the occasional visit by an Arab or Muslim who supports U.S. policy, their voices are seldom heard. Some are expressed, as was Bandar bin Sultan's ("Bandar Bush" as some know him) on Larry King Live, pushing rhetoric that seemed published by the Bush administration; but it isn't often that a real voice from the region is represented in the United States. The only other voices from the Arab or Muslim worlds are those of radicals who don't represent the general population.

Although I have formed my opinion on the matter -- that too few Middle Eastern representatives are made visible on American television -- systematic analysis to represent this would be interesting and useful. One could conduct content analysis to compare the number and content of appearances on American television by Middle Easterners (Arabs, Persians, Muslims, Christians...) and vice-versa. (This need not be limited to the Middle East but to other regions of the world as well). This would not only provide insight into which region provides better representation but could also be expressed by individual shows. This is the kind of research that could provide an objective and empirical look at the comparisons between American and Middle Eastern media.