Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/13/2004 5:15:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 5:15:50 AM EST by chapperjoe]
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.

Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:16:22 AM EST
If you find typos, let me know.

arfkom, my personal spell checker.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:21:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 5:23:06 AM EST by POWER03]
Good luck with that. Can you say "C" paper without your professor even having read it. He won't even bother after read his bio. I doubt you could even convince a guy like him that Arafat is guilty of stifling the peace process when it's obvious.

But, I love the idea of a well organized, factual, easily sustainable argument rejecting the notion of equality between the Jewish struggle against Palestinian terrorism and Palestinian desires for statehood in the face of Islreali terroruism and land-grabbing.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:26:49 AM EST
intafada = intifada

Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:27:37 AM EST
A man jumping on the "liberal media" bandwagon does not a maverick make.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:30:50 AM EST

A man jumping on the "liberal media" bandwagon does not a maverick make.


english. do you speak it?
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:33:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Tortfeasor:
A man jumping on the "liberal media" bandwagon does not a maverick make.



For a tortfeaser, you seem to be rather uneducated. Either that, or you simply did not read the initial post.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:15:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
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......



Read his Bio... Good luck with that.

I might avoid this particular topic if I liked my grade. (I'm not saying that it's fair, but do you honestly think that a career diplomat from Pakistan is going to think anything other than 'Isreali's are Evil'?)
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:42:11 AM EST
well, the point is to make the argument a) as balanced as a can, b) as factual as possible. Undeniably factual. factual factual. did i mention factual yet?

Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:10:51 AM EST
Your professor is Dr. Azmat Hassan.....



If he worked for my company, his network login ID would be HAZMAT.


Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:14:23 AM EST
The abstract looks intriguing, and I'd be interested in reading the final paper.

-z
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:17:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By POWER03:
Good luck with that. Can you say "C" paper without your professor even having read it. He won't even bother after read his bio. I doubt you could even convince a guy like him that Arafat is guilty of stifling the peace process when it's obvious.

But, I love the idea of a well organized, factual, easily sustainable argument rejecting the notion of equality between the Jewish struggle against Palestinian terrorism and Palestinian desires for statehood in the face of Islreali terroruism and land-grabbing.



In 1987, I wrote a paper for my final class in Poly Sci at Michigan State.
When I got it back, the only comments were from the TA about how "Reagan is destroying this country" and that his foreign and defense policies were "dangerous". I took the "C" paper to the course instructor, and asked him 1) if it was academic policy for TAs to grade final papers and 2) if it was academic policy for TAs to use personal opinions when grading papers they shouldn't be grading.

My grade was pushed up to a B+, which is probably what I deserved, cuz I was drunk when I wrote it.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:26:58 AM EST

cuz I was drunk when I wrote it.


heheheh,
my study aid of choice has always been cabernet-merlot... I think better when my palate is happy.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:35:22 AM EST
dechiper it so I can understand it then ...damn college kids
Top Top