August/September 2005

http://alawda.newjerseysolidarity.org

Palestine in Context: Media and Activism

As I read the mainstream coverage of the Gaza "disengagement," I knew I was supposed to take pity on the "poor" settlers who were being cautiously cajoled from their illegally occupied homes. I should have felt a tug at my heartstrings when I read that this was an "operation filled with hugs and wails of anguish." I knew that the murder of Mohammed Mansour, Bassam Tauase, Halil Salah and Osama Moussa Tawafsha in the West Bank should have warranted no more than a brief paragraph amidst the sad, sad reports of illegal settlers being moved from one settlement to another. (And I certainly knew better than to learn the names of the Palestinian martyrs from the U.S. mainstream media.)

But then a thought occurred to me. The U.S. media was using the word "settlement!" Furthermore, an explanation of the illegality of settlements was being provided.

While the word "settlement" has been in use, even by CNN, Robert Fisk reported in "The Independent" on September 3, 2001 that CNN headquarters had issued a directive to its employees that the "Gilo" settlement should be referred to as "a Jewish neighbourhood on the outskirts of Jerusalem, built on land occupied by Israel in 1967." The order explicitly stated "We don't refer to it as a settlement."

A young Palestinian holds the flag aloft to confront Zionist occupiers as they leave Gaza.

Several films about Palestine and the media, including Nicholas Dembowski's "TV's Promised Land," provide a multitude of examples of other networks following CNN's lead, misleading viewers by referring to illegal settlements simply as "Jewish neighborhoods."

The reporting of the so-called "disengagement," even from a sympathy-for-settlers perspective, would not have made any reality-based sense had the settlers been called "neighbors." The viewer or reader needed to understand the context of the illegality of settlements, in this case on land occupied in 1967, to understand why these "neighbors" were being removed.

This reminded me of the need for those who advocate for Palestinian rights to provide the proper context when spreading awareness about and reporting on the Palestinian struggle for national liberation - namely, the context of the Right to Return. Our audience cannot be expected to grasp the true nature of the conflict when this central issue is left out of the discourse.

Choosing to instead focus only on the additional territories occupied on 1967 leaves the audience with an incomplete understanding of the Palestinian struggle. It is necessary to explain the creation of the Palestinian diaspora in 1948. It is necessary to explain that those made refugees in 1948 are still refugees today, and that no "facts on the ground" have changed this. Providing this context allows the Palestinian struggle to be understood. It is true that we should talk about the 1967 war and the expansion of the occupation. We should talk about daily life under occupation.We should talk about human rights abuses. But we should also always talk about the Right to Return.

Some contend that the Right to Return is a complicated and confusing topic. In reality, it is as simple as this: The indigenous people of Palestine were dispossessed of their homes and land. They and their descendants have a basic human right to go back to their homes and land. There is no just reason they should be prevented from returning. Nevertheless, they are being militarily prevented for one reason: because they are Palestinian.

It is true that those who have an interest in the maintenance of a state apparatus via racist, oppressive policies and practices will be opposed to the Right to Return. But this interest is not held by those who are simply uninformed about Palestine. Most people are not committed to the continued maintenance of an apartheid state. Most people, when having the conflict explained in the most simple of terms - that of self-determination and the right of refugees to return to their land - will agree that Palestinians are correct to demand these rights. In other words, most people are not zionists. Zionism is a political ideology to be learned, then accepted or rejected. Zionism is not an innately held belief.

Our discourse must not be tailored to the approval of zionists. We must not assume that zionism, or any other form of racism, is an inherently held trait, or a trait held by the masses. It is neither. We must talk about the Right to Return in our work not only because it is the central demand of the Palestinian liberation struggle, but also because it provides the necessary context for informing the unaware.