Blog Assignment #8 - the Promised Land

BEFORE VIEWING THE FILM, answer the following questions:

1. Write down some brief notes here about what you know of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

·         I know that it is a conflict that has taken place for a very long period of time. The Palestinians and the Israelis are fighting over the Gaza strip which is located in Israel. There are rockets being fired and the conflict is very violent.

2. What understanding do you have of the word “occupation”? Can you think of any places that are “under occupation” today?

·         The place that I think of when I hear "under occupation"  is Palestine. For me, the word "occupation" means when a piece of land is being taken over by someone who does not own it.

3. How do you define these terms: propaganda, public relations, lobbying. Are there differences between these concepts?

·         Propaganda: Bias information meant to influence people.

·         Public relations: With the goal of maintaining good understanding and communication between organizations and the public. To market and present something within a special market.

·         Lobbying: the act of trying to influence decisions made by the government and their officials. 

AFTER VIEWING THE FILM, answer these questions:

1. This film concentrates on the different British and American news perspectives about the conflict in the Middle East. What is the Swedish news perspective on this conflict? Can you give some evidence of this?

·         In blog assignment #5 there was a similar question and my answer there was  as follows:

According to me and what I have seen at home on the news, the pro-Palestinian story is the most alike to my view of the conflict. However, I do not have feel that Sweden has chosen a clear side at all. For me, it feels more like Sweden and the news displayed here are more concerned with showing the unfairness and often the weaker side rather than on specific side of the conflict in question. Sweden has through time kept a quite neutral position and opinion about conflicts around the world, this including the one concerning the Gaza strip as well. 

2. This film is particularly critical of bias in reporting about the Middle East in the American news. Is this relevant information for non-Americans? Why? Why not?

·         For me, I understand what most Americans feel and think about the conflict. I do not think that it gives relevant information about the conflict itself since the information is so biased. Everyone should have the opportunity to form their own opinion of the conflict and the American news is clearly biased towards the Israelis.

3. Do you agree with Alisa Solomon that there is an absence of representation of Palestinian voices in the media? Why or why not?

·         Yes I do think so. To get a clear picture of the truth, there has to be information on both sides and from both sides. I do not think that the Palestinian voices are heard as much as they should. There is no chance of creating your own opinion when there only is one story you hear and from one specific point of view. The examples that were shown in the movie made this even clearer, especially in the US media.

4. Discuss what you think the historical and cultural background might be to explain America’s staunch support of Israel.

·         The USA have a lot of Jews in their population, especially since many emigrated there from Germany after the Holocaust. Israel and the United States have a close relationship and therefor it is clear that they show the pro-Israeli video in the US as well as hold the US´s support in the conflict.

5. Journalist Robert Fisk discusses the “fear factor” in American journalism. Discuss the culture of fear in American politics today, using examples you can think of from media and from speeches of politicians.

·          All news that is being published has gone through multiple filters. The government, politicians, other organizations and news corporations want to review the news before the whole world can read/watch them. Because of this, the world does not get the full true story at all time but a censored version which might even be biased some times.

Fear can be used as a weapon in many situations and there have been actions that have increased this fear. For example, the attack on 9/11 made people and the whole US scared and I do no personally think that no one feels more safe in that country after that horrible attack.

6. Describe at least 3 instances of polemical language used to describe this conflict named in the film. What effect do such words/phrases have? What alternatives could be used?

·         “Neighbourhood” – the US media use the word neighbourhood when they refer to Israelis living on Palestinian territory.

·         “Relative calm” - this is a phrase used in the US media when no Israelis have been killed over a period, meanwhile Palestinians are still being killed but this is not being recognized in the media.

·         “Anti-Semitic” – when people are called this for not supporting and agreeing with the Israeli perspective.

7. What, according to Dr. Jensen, has been Israel’s PR strategy since 9/11? What issues and emotions does such a strategy seek to tap into?

·         Since 9/11, the Israelis have been focusing on making all actions from Palestinians seem as acts of terrorism. By doing this, the Israelis strengthen their relationship with the US, the government and its people, especially people who knew someone who was affected personally by the 9/11 attack and making the Palestinians look as terrorists.

8. Why is labeling a protester of Israeli policy anti-Semitic particulary a) dangerious and b) effective?

·          Dangerous: Could become a respective label if everyone keeps using it.

·         Effective: no one wants to be called this – best way to silent voices.  

9. All the speakers in the final segment of the film see American public opinion as a crucial element. Yet the thesis of the film is that media shape this opinion. How can this chicken/egg situation be resolved?

·         I am not sure that this situation can be resolved. I do think that there can be improvement, but I have no idea to what extent because in the end, media is dependent on our opinions and media is something that we are dependent on. To try to make the US media less bias is something that I think would be a positive change. At least to make sure that there are different newspapers (perhaps from other countries that usually not are bias, at least not bias about the Israel-Palestine conflict), so that people can have the opportunity to read articles that has not been censored in the US before the publication. Opinions and bias is everywhere in today´s world and it is not easy to just take them away, which maybe not would be the best solution either. News is coming from people and people have opinions. It can almost be seen as a vicious never-ending cycle.

10. What is the current status of the conflict in the Middle East? How do you know this? Which media do you rely on for information about the conflict?

•             This is not a conflict that I follow regularly but I think that there was an attack quite recently, which was the first one since the seize fire in November 2012. When I want to know something about a specific conflict or other news, I always check a couple of sources and not just one. When I do this, I get slightly different versions depending on the media sources political bias and other opinions. When I then put all stories together and compare them, I can draw some conclusions to what seems to be the core story without having to think about the bias and political opinions. I usually look at the Swedish sources “SvD” and “Dagens Nyheter” and some international sources such as for example “the Guardian”, “BBC” and “the Economist”.