Posted: 10/13/2004 6:15:20 AM EDT
Here's my abstract for a major research paper I am doing. The professor is Dr. Azmat Hassan ( bio) so I have to tread a bit carefully. He's good people in terms of we like each other, but man he is exactly what you think he is academically. Of course, just coming out and saying what my paper will be about would prejudice him against it, so once again, i had to tread lightly......
Mxxx Wxxxxxxxx The Politics of Terrorism Research Paper Abstract
It seems that mainstream media, in their effort to avoid charges of bias, have dedicated themselves to ‘balanced’ reporting. E.g. if CNN runs one story on ‘up’, they will devote equal time to ‘down’. If MSNBC devotes a segment to ‘black’, they will do a similar one on ‘white’. As such, media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems focused on ‘cycles of violence’: Palestinian violence is the result of Israeli persecution. Israeli actions are really reactions to Palestinian attacks. This balanced form of reporting tends to place all violence – state and non-state, military or terrorist, religious or secular - on the same level. Most conservative pundits charge that this balancing is an attempt at moral equivalency, that is, placing the two sides on an artificially equal footing. Their liberal counterparts maintain that the cycle of violence is fact, and that violence begets violence no matter from whence, where or whom it comes.
As the argument proceeds, comparisons are inevitably drawn between the Israelis and Palestinians. To do so requires the balancing mechanisms of the media elevate Palestinian actions to meet, as it were, Israeli actions (e.g. Hamas as a quasi-governmental social services provider similar to the Israeli government) while simultaneously lowering Israel’s standing (e.g. Sharon as war criminal as opposed to Arafat). Thus the balancing mechanisms, whether purposefully or not, are indeed dedicated to the concept of moral equivalency, including prematurely referring to the Occupied Territories as the State of Palestine, recasting terrorists as freedom-fighters, soldiers as terrorists, settlers as invaders and religious figures as demagogic leaders hell bent on Jihad or Transfer – whatever the daily taboo may be.
Moral equivalency eventually demands two presuppositions. The first is that Jewish terrorism exists today and the second is that Jewish terrorism was instrumental in the creation of the Jewish State. The first presupposition relies on the Baruch Goldstein incident and the Ka’ch party. While the massacre at the Tomb of the Patriarchs was textbook terrorism, it was an isolated act carried out by a lunatic, acting on his own, carrying out an atrocity that no religious, nationalist or even fringe group would condone or promote. The Ka’ch party, though dedicated to the Transfer lunacy and a single Jewish state, never advocated terrorism. And while the movement is a convenient scapegoat for Israeli revisionists, it suffered a deathblow with the murder of its leader in New York and is all but defunct after the murder of his son during the modern Intafada. What interests me is the second presupposition, and that is what the focus of this paper will be.
I will disprove the myth of pre-State Jewish terrorism as well as pointedly and methodically dismiss the modern-day implications that moral equivalency, in this regard, creates in terms of Palestinian terrorism and eventual Palestinian statehood in comparison to Jewish terrorism and Jewish statehood. I will do so through thorough analyses from both sides of the political spectrum and academics from both sides of the green line. While my focus will be on pre-State Israel, I will also reference other post-World War Two nationalistic movements, and will draw my conclusions from comparisons of terroristic behavior in terms of methodology, ideology, religious or nationalist legitimacy and outcomes in terms of the intellectual trap that is ends-and-means.
|
|
|