Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Getting a little political
I guess I will have to comment on this one in a separate post! Alex- thank you for the post. It only goes to manifest the lack of democracy in the US- as radical as this sounds. In my essay for this class, I've looked at Hollywood and its role in militarizing the American popular culture. While doing my research, I came across numerous sources that confirmed much of my prejudice against the political culture in the US- sadly. Americans call for freedom of speech, open dialogue, and diversity of opinion. Yet, it's only when some of them do it that they are shocked. I don't want to get into a political debate over the influence of the Israel lobby in the US (I recommend Mearsheimer and Walt's art ice "the Israel Lobby", posted on the library scholars' portal database website), but suffice to say, US follow double standards in dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Why can't an academic (like Prof. Finkelstein) express their political opinions? Even if they are wrong, there is no need to "get radical" about it! it is astonishing how the American media completely buys into the government's visions and worldview. The way I see it, something like that thing Alex mentioned demonstrates that there is some "dangerous" merit to Finkelstein's argument- something that must remain hidden.
Ignorance is bliss, but not when it comes to politics. Even the second article (posted by Alex) that criticizes DePaul's move mentions that "On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah militants raided northern Israel and, without provocation, killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two. This attack was unjustified and a clear violation of Israel’s territorial sovereignty; however, Israel’s survival was obviously not endangered by the Hezbollah raid. Yet it responded with extensive air strikes and shelling inside Lebanon that indiscriminately targeted civilians and civilian objects (homes, bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, gas stations) and far exceeded any legitimate requirement of self-defense.". There is lack of contextualization there. Hezbollah did not do that just because "they felt like it". Israel still occupies a considerable piece of land in Southern Lebanon (called Shebaa Farms) and there are tens of Lebanese detainees in Israeli prisons. It is an on-going conflict between equally victimized sides, unlike the Western depiction of Israel as the innocent benevolent country in the region, constantly threatened by "terrorists".
Any thoughts?!
Ignorance is bliss, but not when it comes to politics. Even the second article (posted by Alex) that criticizes DePaul's move mentions that "On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah militants raided northern Israel and, without provocation, killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two. This attack was unjustified and a clear violation of Israel’s territorial sovereignty; however, Israel’s survival was obviously not endangered by the Hezbollah raid. Yet it responded with extensive air strikes and shelling inside Lebanon that indiscriminately targeted civilians and civilian objects (homes, bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, gas stations) and far exceeded any legitimate requirement of self-defense.". There is lack of contextualization there. Hezbollah did not do that just because "they felt like it". Israel still occupies a considerable piece of land in Southern Lebanon (called Shebaa Farms) and there are tens of Lebanese detainees in Israeli prisons. It is an on-going conflict between equally victimized sides, unlike the Western depiction of Israel as the innocent benevolent country in the region, constantly threatened by "terrorists".
Any thoughts?!
# posted by Najat @ 2:01 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Najat, thanks for your reply. I was a little troubled by that passage as well - I'm glad you picked up on it, it made me feel not crazy. On the other hand, it suggests the complexity of the region in a way that might be illustrative. Sure Hezbollah's action was illegal. What about the entire occupation of Palestine (from before 48 through to the present)? Israel is in violation of international law and by attending to that law perhaps we can hold them to the standard they use to legitimate their own aggressive actions but refuse to accept.
Alex- i think we might just get along very well. haha! you speak my mind. i'm glad there are still people who think rationally and independently of the media. unfortunately, that's something that is becoming rarer and rarer, especially in N.America, and it would naturally result in low tolerance for these who do.
Post a Comment
<< Home
