Propaganda and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Israel is responsible for the current destruction of Gaza. Israel is also responsible for the current unlawful 8-year blockade of Gaza, the 47-year illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, and the evisceration of the West Bank into de facto bantustans. As of today, Israel has killed 1,831 Palestinians in the current offensive in Gaza with the vast majority being civilians. Israel has bombarded Gaza from the sea, land, and air, destroying critical infrastructure and civilian homes. Israel has destroyed Gaza’s only power plant, smashed its port, bombed its hospitals, mosques, university, and UN-run facilities. After Israel purposely bombed a UN school in Gaza on August 2^nd that massacred ten people, the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon expressed “moral outrage” and called the attack a “criminal act” that is a “gross violation of international law.” Even the United States has condemned the attacks on the UN in Gaza as “totally unacceptable and totally indefensible.”

Despite the overwhelming evidence of Israeli crimes and with the raison d'être for the current war likely untrue, more Americans believe that Hamas is to blame for this war than Israel. According to a recent Pew poll, almost 4 in 10 Americans say Hamas is responsible for the violence and about half believe that Israel’s response has been about right (35%) or has not gone far enough (15%). Why do the American people believe that Hamas is to blame and support Israel’s criminal attack on Gaza?

The American people have been misled by propaganda. According to Patrick Cockburn, a journalist at the Independent/UK, Israel has mounted a sophisticated public relations campaign to shape and influence public opinion in favor of Israel. Based on the work of a Republican pollster, the Luntz report provides Israeli officials with the language, sound bites, and disinformation needed to influence public opinion. Cockburn summarizes the report by noting, “On every occasion, the presentation of events by Israeli spokesmen is geared to giving Americans and Europeans the impression that Israel wants peace with the Palestinians and is prepared to compromise to achieve this, when all the evidence is that it does not.” Israel does not want peace, but it must—for the sake of appearances—claim that it does.

Israel’s propaganda war is aimed to support the “Big Lie”—Große Lüge—to manufacture consent for its untenable actions. Chris Hedges, an independent journalist, explains that “the Big Lie feeds the two reactions Israel seeks to elicit—racism among its supporters and terror among its victims.” This racism has manifested itself in calls by some in Israel for genocide against the Palestinian people. The Palestinians in Gaza meanwhile have no safe place left to hide, as Israel has repeatedly bombed UN-run shelters—seven times so far—in the past twenty-seven days. The people of Gaza are besieged, homeless, and living in the dark.

It is tragic that many Americans have been influenced by insidious propaganda to support the wholesale destruction of the Palestinian people. However, thanks to alternative media outlets like DemocracyNow!, social media like twitter, and Al Jazeera, the reality on the ground is being broadcast all over the world. The best way to fight propaganda is with the truth and the truth is increasingly being seen through a variety of mediums.

This truth has led many Latin American nations to vehemently protest Israeli actions. Five Latin American countries have withdrawn their ambassadors in protest—El Salvador, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru—and Bolivia recently declared Israel a “terrorist state.” It is encouraging to see nations from the Global South denouncing Israel. However, most Arab leaders have not come to the defense of the Palestinian people and the deafening silence from the Obama Administration has enabled Israel to continue its criminal actions unhindered.

The current destruction of Gaza is being spun by the Israeli propaganda machine to advance its interests. Lies are made to appear like the truth. The truth is perpetually being distorted by doublespeak and outright lies. Although Israel could have peace tomorrow if it wanted—see, for example, the Arab Peace Plan of 2002—it does not want peace.

Israel wanted this war and it is to blame for this conflict. Israel is attempting to accomplish its dual goals of destroying Hamas and the infrastructure needed to run a state, thereby preempting a future Palestinian state. Israel does not want a Palestinian state and instead prefers a perpetual peace-process.

Israel behaves with propaganda-enhanced impunity unrecognized by many Americans. The American people deserve to know that this conflict is not about Hamas and its meager capabilities (all driven by a state of desperation), but rather about Israel’s wholesale destruction of Gaza. Israel is comfortable with leaving the people of Gaza in an open-air prison and applying apartheid policies to crush the Palestinian people. This is the reality of the situation in Palestine today, not the misinformation spewed by the Israeli propaganda machine. Latin America and much of the Global South understand this. Hopefully one day America will too.

The High Cost of Education

As an undergraduate, I chose to study in Florida at a public college because it was affordable, Bright Futures provided me with merit-based scholarship money, and because of the high quality of the educational institution. However, when I filled out my Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), I did not understand why the government cared about my parent’s financial situation to determine my financial aid. As an adult of 18, in the eyes of the state I was functionally independent. And yet, any educational aid provided to me was directly related to my parent’s wealth, not mine (because, of course, I had none). But why was this the case, especially since if I took out loans, I would ultimately bear the financial responsibility for having to pay them back? Why should I be denied financial aid because of the financial situation of my parents? These questions bothered me at the time—and had an impact on where I chose to study—but I hadn’t thought about these questions until I heard about the Duke University freshman who is paying for her education by performing in adult films. I was floored by the revelation, but even more so because of the rationale behind why this young woman had decided to do porn to pay for school.

According to the freshman, "I couldn't afford $60,000 in tuition, my family has undergone significant financial burden, and I saw a way to graduate from my dream school free of debt..." The primary reason this young woman decided to do porn was because of the financial burden of school. Leaving aside the question of whether or not doing porn as a career choice is good or not, the real question that stood out to me was: Why is the cost of education so high that this young woman feels that doing porn to pay for school is her only option?

In my mind, this is the case for three primary reasons: 1) the high cost of tuition; 2) financial aid being tied to measures of familial wealth; and 3) the need for young people to get a higher education to get decent-paying jobs.

From Duke University's perspective, the $60,000/year price tag is actually a discount since they claim to be spending $90,000/year per student. But how can any University expect a student to be able to pay $60,000 a year just for tuition? Unless you are part of the 1%, you'll be priced out of this education. UF, in comparison, is a  relative bargain since in-state tuition is $6,630/year. But if you add up all of the additional expenses one accrues during a year, an average undergraduate at UF will still spend $20,000/year on their education, which is still a significant financial burden for most. For this young woman at Duke, paying tuition and living expenses meant that doing porn was her only option.

The second issue here is that a student's financial need is determined by parental wealth. This makes no logical sense. Although our parents have supported us for the first eighteen-year of our life, once we're adults, we shoulder the responsibilities of life, financial and otherwise. It makes little sense that our parents' wealth—which we may or may not have access to—determines the financial aid we get. This young woman's family had financial problems and so she had to bear the brunt of the cost of a Duke University education. But why did she have to potentially pay more based on her parents' financial situation? This should not occur and is a boondoggle that hurts all students everywhere in this country.

Finally the need for a college degree has become a prerequisite for a job in our modern, knowledge based economy. After all, why would this woman feel the need to pursue a bachelor's degree if she thought doing porn could provide her with a stable, long-term career? She wouldn't, because she's smart enough to know that to get a decent job in this economy you need at least a bachelor's degree, which requires a college education. Which leads to the ultimate question: Why do we all have to pay such a high cost for a college education?

I don't know the answer to this, but it is a question that needs to be widely discussed and debated. I was lucky enough to get merit-based scholarships that provided for my undergraduate education. But many students don't get either merit-based or need-based scholarships. Just like this young woman at Duke who decided to finance her education by doing porn, the majority of students in this country have to figure out on their own how to deal with the real financial burden that comes with an undergraduate education.

The high cost of education is morally and intellectually untenable. We, as a society, must reduce these costs so that our society can continue to allow people a fair shake at life. We should all have the opportunity to get an education at a reasonable cost so that we can pursue careers of our choice, not of necessity.

Deconstructing the imminent Anglo-American bombing of Syria

President Obama stated on August 20, 2012 that, "We have been very clear to the Assad regime...that a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of [chemical] weapons moving around or being utilized." Ever since this declaration, the Syrian government has been very careful to repeatedly deny claims that it has used chemical weapons. However, in June of this year the British and French governments claimed that Syria used sarin gas in attacks against rebels. Then on June 13, the United States stated it had “definitive proof" of the use of chemical weapons by Syria. Last Wednesday, several hundred people were killed in an alleged chemical weapons attack. Because of this latest attack, it now appears that that the American and British governments are planning a series of air strikes on Syria. But why are the US and UK getting more involved in the Syrian Civil War now? Does the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syria justify Western intervention? And why is it that the US can get away with using chemical weapons and not see a similar response from the international community?

I’m not entirely sure why the US and UK are getting more involved now, but I suspect it has little to do with the alleged use of chemical weapons. While the Asad regime has committed gross atrocities and crimes against the people of Syria, the West has largely turned a blind eye or delivered empty rhetoric. The West deliberately chose not to overtly intervene in Syria as it had in Libya and instead watched the destruction and brutality worsen. If the US and UK were unmotivated by the 100,000 people who have already died in the conflict, why are they all of a sudden taking a harder line towards Syria? In terms of numbers and overall destruction, the war has already taken its course and the rebels have essentially been defeated. Although the rebels received limited external support throughout the two-years of this conflict, why should the US get more involved on their side now? Is the US really getting involved to help out the rebels and Syrian people, or is it because the US wants to see the further destruction of Syrian society? The latter could definitely be possible, especially since the US has a penchant for destabilizing regimes in order to achieve its strategic aims (see here, here, and here for examples). I don’t buy for a second that the US is getting more involved for altruistic reasons, or because chemical weapons are some sort of “red-line” beyond which Syria must be attacked. Rather, the alleged use of chemical weapons is most probably an excuse to bomb Syria to achieve whatever the strategic objectives are for the US in this conflict. Guessing at what those strategic objectives are goes beyond the scope of my current discussion, but it is important to return to the question of how important chemical weapons are to the escalation of this conflict.

Chemical weapons, like nuclear and biological weapons, are considered weapons of mass destruction. There has been much debate about what constitutes weapons of mass destruction and whether or not the use of these weapons—how ever defined—is a collective red line for the international community. But why is the use of chemical weapons by Syria such a serious concern for the US? In terms of numbers, 1500 people have been killed by the alleged use of chemical weapons, which is just a fraction of the total number of people killed thus far in the conflict. If the opposition to the use of these weapons is not because of their high death toll, then could it possibly be for some moral concerns about the use of weapons of mass destruction?

This answer to this also seems unlikely, particularly since the US has used weapons of mass destruction in its most recent conflicts. The US used white phosphorus—a known chemical weapon—in the destruction of Fallujah. In addition, the US continues to use depleted uranium munitions, which have caused serious harm to civilian populations in Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq. If the US government believes in the extreme moral hazard of using chemical weapons, then perhaps the US should stop using chemical weapons too. Although there is an obvious difference between the use of sarin gas and white phosphorus, both are highly toxic agents and banned chemical weapons based on international treaties. None of these weapons should be used by any government, but for the US to object to their use while simultaneously using chemical weapons itself smacks of hypocrisy.

Just because these chemical agents should not be used, does that give the “international community” the right to intervene when they are used? The answer again depends on who is using the weapons and how the “international community” is defined. The “international community” is short for the US and its Allies, while only weapons of mass destruction used by Western enemies are not tolerated. This, of course, smacks of hypocrisy and lends any actions by the US and its Allies as suspect.

Whether you are a liberal interventionist or a neoconservative in America's foreign policy establishment, the latest calls for airstrikes perpetuate a common double standard in Western political actions. So while the US can use chemical weapons to further its strategic aims, any enemy country doing so “crosses a red-line.” When thinking about this coming intervention, we should again seriously weigh the pros and cons of intervention. If the Anglo-American bombing of Syria does take place, will this intervention lead to positive outcomes? Is it even possible, given the disorganization on the side of rebels and the fractious sectarian violence in the country? Will an Anglo-American intervention be beneficial for anyone involved? Or will it perpetuate a bloody civil war? I’m not entire sure what will happen, but I know it will be a lose-lose situation for the Syrian people. It is important that the people who are now advocating and supporting an Anglo-American intervention in Syria think seriously about the stakes involved and whether or not an intervention is actually worth it. After all, principled diplomacy is the best way out of conflicts and it has proven to be one of the most effective way to manage conflicts throughout modern history. Perhaps it's time for a serious Anglo-American diplomatic push, rather than negotiating through bombs raining down from the sky.