Media Representations and the Palestinian Experience of the Intifadas - Research Proposal Example

Media representations and the Palestinian experience of the intifadas The first Intifada, which took place from the year 1987 - 1993, could be considered as an unprompted explosion of popular resistance of the Israeli occupation. This was a resistance which had started more than five decades ago. The Palestinian people constructed a mindful and resolute choice to combine their efforts in the fight headed for independence, in spite of of the cost. The organization of resistance activities through a body referred to as the United Leadership of the Intifada, demonstrated the profundity and extent of Palestinian aspirations for freedom. The force with which the Intifada started and carried on for the last eight years shocked not only Israel, but indeed, all countries of the world. One of the consequences of this first Intifada was the international conference in Madrid. No matter how regularly the negotiators conversed in Washington and elsewhere throughout this time, Israel did not attempt to fulfill the fundamental requirements for peace. United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 were unexpectedly not suitable for Israel, not to mention Resolution 194, which demands for the right of refugees to come back. The Madrid Conference served to redirect the increasing public consciousness of Israel as an occupying authority with an aggressive, tyrannical, expansionist, colonialist, and racially prejudiced character. Two years later, the world was taken by shock at the declaration of the Oslo Accord, signed in September 1993. Whereas the world was deceived by "peace myth," the reality was something rather different. The main intention of Oslo was to kill the Intifada and to guarantee that Israel acquired as many political benefits as likely, all the while changing its identity into that of a peace-making country. Israel did not withdraw from the taken territories, as it had been decided upon at Oslo. Hebron was separated. An immense span of land was confiscated. Jerusalemites were strained to give up their residency rights. Settlements augmented at breakneck speed, which constructed the notion of Israeli pulling out almost impracticable. Lastly, Palestinian lands were divided into areas A, B, and C, constructing easily- controllable and easily-suppressible bantustans. Provided with all the confusion, the majority of Palestinians were waiting tolerantly for Oslo to bring back their national freedom which was lost over three decades ago. They were waiting for Oslo to carry peace as well as prosperity. They were expecting to see how they could at last move without restraint within and outside the country. They were also expecting for their prisoners to be freed. They were even excited at the though that they could finally find peace and security in their own state. They were waiting for family reunions which would bring together families who had not been together in 50 years. The reality, on the other hand, swiftly bumped their patient waiting. In its place of wealth, the economic situation worsened down to a level worse than in 1987. Instead of having The Palestinian people were put under a pretense of evil and deceit. Additionally, the Palestinian leadership, which appeared powerless in the face of Israeli assault, came into agreement of apparently unrestricted concessions to Israeli demands - until they could no longer provide anything else. Instead of setting the stage for Palestinians to move in the direction of freedom and sovereignty, Oslo was pulling them in the direction of disintegration and surrender. Negotiations with the Israelis were beginning to cater to the four points that had been delayed seven years earlier, specifically: Jerusalem, the settlements, refugees, and the organization of a state. Not only is Israel reluctant to provide back occupied East Jerusalem and to discontinue its settlement action it is not capable even to make out its moral as well as historic accountability for the catastrophe of the Palestinians people. Israel refutes any accountability for the Palestinian refugee dilemma. A Palestinian state could be "acceptable" to Israel, only if it is bereft of all the distinctive components of a workable state, primary among them, independence. Unexpectedly, there was the observed the transformation of the institution of a Palestinian state into an Israeli precondition for the achievement of its domination. The first lesson: adapting to the needs of the media The first lesson of news presentation of the second Palestinian intifada could be attributed to the progressively more influential belief on both sides of this disagreement that the fight over the news media could be taken into account as just essential as the fight on the ground. Israelis and Palestinians are both extremely conscious that they are playing to an international audience and, as constantly, there is a foremost fight over who ought to be cast as aggressor and who as victim. The reliance on the global news media is particularly tough for the Palestinians. Serving as the weaker side, the media is one of the only methods in which they the power to persuade other countries to mediate. One of the most influential roles the news media could take on into such conflicts is when they turn out to be “equalisers” through the permission of the weaker party to solicit the support of third parties. This was definitely what took place in the first intifada in which the Palestinians were extremely triumphant at positioning their dilemma on the international agenda. Israel’s primary goal however, is by and large damage control. Media images of Palestinian dead and wounded served as direct warnings to Israel’s relations with the US, Europe, as well as the rest of the Arab world. The objective for Israel is to persuade the world that the Palestinians are employing terrorism to get hold of what they could not accomplish negotiations. Since the majority of Israelis presume that the international press is in opposition to them, conservative wisdom holds that no news is good news. Possibly the most ghoulish effect of this common concern with the media is the continuing competition for visual domination in the presentation and promotion of pain and suffering. The early stages of the second intifada resulted to two very influential images. The first was the theatrical images of Mohammad al-Durrah being shot and killed as he and his father tried protecting themselves from the crossfire. The second were the scenes of Israeli reserve soldiers being lynched by an irate Palestinian crowd in the city of Ramallah. Each of these scenes turned out to be powerful icons for the two societies; leaders from both sides tried to manipulate these images in an attempt to exhibit the enemy’s cruelty. The Israelis and the Palestinians have constructed the structures to boost their chances of claiming victory of the battle over the news media The comparison provides one with the idea regarding the circumstances under which the news media could take part in a more positive role in the Israel-Palestinian clash. If a extensive consensus materialized in both societies in support of a peace process, the news media could turn out to be essential agents for compromise. Dejectedly, there are very little grounds to consider that any of these changes are expected to take place in the near future. The news media on both sides would almost certainly carry on playing their customary role of fanning the flames of hatred. References: Aronson, G. Israel, Palestinians, and the Intifada: Creating Facts on the West Bank. London: Kegan Paul International, 1990. Eid, B. The Media War Helps No One. Haaretz English Edition, 2000. Farsoun, S. K. & Aruri, H. Palestine and the Palestinians: A Social and Political History. Westview Press, 2006. Hiltermann, J. Behind the Intifada: Labor and Womens Movements in the Occupied Territories. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1991. King, M. E. A Quiet Revolution: The First Palestinian Intifada and Nonviolent Resistance. New York: Nation Books, 2007.    Lockman, Zachary & Beinin, Joel. Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against Israeli Occupation South End Press, 1989 Morris, B. Righteous Victims: a History of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881-1999. New York: Knopf, 1999. Peretz, D. Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1990. Rigby, A. Living the Intifada. London: Zed Books, 1991. Shalev, A. The Intifada: Causes and Effects. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Post & Westview Press, 1991. Zeev Schiff, Ehud Yaari. Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising: Israels Third Front. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989. Read More