The first, Man lightly wounded in Jerusalem stabbing, by Itamar Sharon, was from The Times of Israel, a non-partisan news source focused on events related to Jews both in Israel and in the diaspora. It was a short piece that detailed the assault of a young ultra-Orthodox man and mentioned two other similar stabbings by convicted East Jerusalem residents, perhaps insinuating, though not stating, the this attacker is also Palestinian. The piece was accompanied by a photograph captioned "An ultra-Orthodox man in the Old City of Jerusalem". Although the man is in the foreground, the focus of the picture is the wall behind him and the poster on it, both of which are covered in Arabic. The words "Palestinian" and "Arab" are not used once within the piece, but the opinion that the assailant is Palestinian is made obvious through the mention of other attacks by East Jerusalemites and the use of the photograph.
The second piece, from CNN, was entitled Israel approves permits for new settlements in East Jerusalem. The author, Kareem Khadder, makes a clear attempt to write about the "facts on the ground": he states that settlements in the West Bank have been built for many years but are illegal under international law. A slight (although appropriate, given the situation) bias is evident in that he did not include any statements in support of the settlements, while there were multiple quotes from those opposed to them. The photograph accompanying the piece, captioned "A Palestinian man's house was demolished by Israeli authorities February 5, 2014 in Jabel Mukaber", is also placed to engender sympathy for displaced Palestinians as a result of the settlement project. The rest of the piece provides opinions on the effects of the projects on the ongoing peace process as well as a very brief background to the status of East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
I felt that these two pieces paralleled the Issam Nassar article in many ways. Nassar writes about how photograph often can convey either more or less of what exists in reality, and the pictures in both pieces certainly were meant to evoke a particular thought or emotion. The focus on the Arabic on the wall and the poster in the photo in the first piece are unusual when one considers that the only facts in the piece were about a Jew. The second photograph is heart wrenching-- a couple sits among the rubble that was their home until it was illegally destroyed by the government. Without these images, the articles would have had a sterile, unaffected appearance.
The final piece I read was an op-ed column in the New York Times by Thomas L. Friedman. Who's Garbage Is This Anyway? describes a unique tour the author took around the Jerusalem area. Unlike the previous two pieces, the focal point of this article was not the Israel-Palestine conflict, but rather the environmental issues that have developed because of disagreement. Friedman points out that "[w]e've learned in the last few years that the colonial boundaries of the Middle East do not correspond to the ethnic, sectarian and tribal boundaries... But neither do the ecosystem boundaries correspond with any borders or walls." In previous posts I have often noted my belief in the importance of Israelis and Palestinians finding common ground, be it in their love of the city or their desire to protect their families. Maintaining the environment is an excellent example in that it is entirely unrelated to religious differences and everyone, no matter what ID card they hold, will suffer the consequences if the two groups can't work together. Examples in the piece included sewage from East Jerusalem flowing untreated into the Dead Sea, floods in Nablus destroying the security barrier, carcinogens leaking into water supplies in Beersheba and Hebron, and the threat of running out of potable water in Gaza. These are serious problems, and Mother Nature won't wait for a peace agreement.
All three articles offered a glimpse into how the rest of the world sees Jerusalem: not through the eyes of Karen Armstrong and 430 pages of history, but through short headlines and brief articles mixed into all the news from everywhere else in the world. It is a different city, but it is the one present in the minds of most Americans, myself included up until the start of this class-- which leads me to my discussion questions:
1. How does the very limited view of most people in the world affect the way they think about the reality of the conflict? Is it the same problem when you take out the knowledge of the history behind it?
2. Do the opinions and viewpoints of common people in countries faraway even affect the steps towards a resolution, or does it make a difference? Are the thoughts of the people in the country and world powers the only ones that matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment