28 AUGUST 2011 - MATTHEW BISHOP
The Coming of a Palestinian State: A Summary of Arguments for the Established Independence of Palestine and an Exploration of the Flawed Argument Against that Establishment

1: A Practical Look

Palestine does not require the approval of the UNSC to become a state. The United States is therefore, from a technical point of view, unable to forbid the formation of a Palestinian state. Palestine has embassies and ambassadors around the world at this moment, and many nations already recognize its sovereignty. This September, a majority of the world’s countries will recognize Palestine’s sovereignty and independence in the forum of the United Nations General Assembly. And yet the ever-lethargic United States will not be moved. AIPAC is as strong as ever, and against the vast majority of the world’s populations, the vast majority of the world’s nations, and the vast majority of the dictates of international law, the United States now stands almost entirely alone in proclaiming that Palestine may not hold sovereign status.

The coming of a Palestinian state is not something that the United States has the power to prevent. It is something which will come with the general consensus of everyone and everything from the world’s most powerful nations to its least empowered individuals in every corner of the world. It is therefore inadvisable for the United States to remain in opposition of an independent Palestine, and necessary that the US Congress recognize Palestine as a sovereign state this coming September-- at the latest.

2: A Moral Look

The issues of human rights which revolve around the arguments of Palestine’s sovereignty should be familiar to anyone who keeps up with such events. The label of “sovereign” will, we all hope, grant an ear to those whose complaints have been unheard, the complaints of those Palestinians who are forced to endure violations of their natural rights every day of their lives, people who are born into a life where they must accept that they, as people, are not worth as much as Israelis. Recognizing Palestinian statehood will bolster the legitimate complaints of those who suffer violations of human rights and international law every day. Furthermore, we hope it will bring the crimes of Netanyahu into the open light, crimes which offend Israeli and Palestinian alike, and any other conscious human being.

In summary: From a legal standpoint, the United States is powerless to prevent the coming of an independent Palestine this September. From a moral standpoint, the United States is in fact obligated to recognize an independent Palestine. From a practical standpoint, even should the United States remain fervently opposed to an independent Palestine, an independent Palestine will come all the same—the world has already made up its mind, with or without the United States. It is, then, inconceivable that the United States should refuse to recognize an independent Palestine, and yet the lobbyists and religious zealots behind the opposition remain firm, and hide behind the most vulnerable defense: “we oppose such a unilateral move”.

3: The Argument Against an Independent Palestine

They refer, of course, to the “unilateral move” of Palestinians to proclaim their independence. It is not, in fact, a “unilateral move” when more than four of the almost seven billion of the world’s people and more than 2/3 of the world’s nations proclaim their support for an independent Palestine (as many as 170 of the UN’s 192 nations are expected to proclaim support for a sovereign Palestine, with 2/3 being the lowest estimate). It is not “unilateral” to follow the dictates of international law or the declarations of the United Nations. There is nothing in any way “unilateral” about the Palestinian bid for statehood, and yet pro-Israeli pundits hide behind this fallacy-ridden argument time and time again.

It is “unilateral” to presume that Israeli law may ignore human rights. It is “unilateral” to presume that Palestinian issues can be handled exclusively by an Israeli government. It is “unilateral” to presume that Palestinians have no legitimate voice, and that a coalition of US and Israeli politicians may say what is and is not right for a Palestinian nation.

I might also remind our readers that America’s independence was, in fact, a unilateral movement, and that even if I had simply made up all of these arguments, those who oppose an independent Palestine would do well to take a history class before making such terribly unfounded accusations. They suppose that unilateral movements are inherently unjust. The Palestinian bid for statehood, requiring the majority consent of the world, is the furthest thing possible from “unilateral”, but even were this not true, their bid for statehood could not be regarded as unjust simply for being a unilateral movement—which again, it is not.


4: A Brief Look into the Costs of the US-Israeli Alliance and Why Things Don't Change

The United States has been hiding behind its pro-Israeli arguments for far too long. Religious, political, economic, and strategic interests have all kept the US-Israeli alliance firm. But every moment of this alliance has in fact worked against long-term economic, political, and strategic interests of the United States. This alliance has come at the cost of positive US-Muslim relations in every corner of the world. It has isolated entire segments of the world’s populations. It has caused countries from the poorest to the richest to publicly proclaim the United States as a nation which thinks itself above international law, a nation which has destroyed any idea of human rights. This alliance has cost us more than three billion USD a year. It has cost the lives of dozens of thousands of unarmed Palestinians. It has cost us a potential alliance with the new democratic governments emerging across the Middle Eastern and North African world, democracies which now regard the United States as a backward and tyrannical nation unfit to be trusted. This alliance has manifested in the Taliban, al Qaeda, and an ISI which is more interested in cooperating with a terrorist than with a US Senator. It has manifested in the soul of every person who is raised to hate the United States by being shown video clips of American-made, American-funded bombs on American-made, American-funded planes destroying Palestinian homes, villages, and refugee camps—and then being told the truth: That these planes and bombs are approved year after year by the US Congress, and every year they are used by an Israeli government against an almost-Palestinian-nation which lacks the ability to keep itself alive.

Israel has treated the United States as an inferior: While the United States sends messages to Netanyahu’s Israel time and time again, condemning illegal Israeli settlement policies, Netanyahu, knowing that the United States Congress cannot really stand up against the Israeli foreign lobby, continues with settlement policies. As soon as the US condemns Netanyahu, he issues another statement proclaiming the establishment of more illegal settlements in Palestinian land, and if a US Congressman does not jump up to applaud Netanyahu’s flagrant abuse of power, he or she is attacked by the Israeli lobby.

Meanwhile, Palestinians and Israelis alike live in a world where it is illegal to express social or political dissent, where they are prohibited from gathering in public to protest Israeli policy. They live in a world where if they protest the ambitious designs of the Israeli government, they are more likely to be run over by an Israeli bulldozer and called a “terrorist” than to be remembered by the world as who they were and what they stood for. This is the real cost of our alliance.

In summary of those last two paragraphs: While US Congressmen feel trapped by the Israeli lobby, Palestinians and sympathetic Israelis alike feel just as trapped by their own abusive governments.

5: Conclusions

We have explored the downsides of the alliance and recognized that its expenses are huge. The arguments against US support of an independent Palestine do not withstand even the most minimal level of scrutiny. There is, furthermore, in fact every reason to support a Palestinian state, from an economic, political, legal, pragmatic, or strategic point of view. Even if all of this were not true—even if this entire essay was, in fact, entirely devoid of truth—it is still plainly impossible for the United States to alone withstand the will of all the other nations and all the other people of the world. Palestine will become a nation. The United States can accept it or not, but to not accept it will be nothing less than another crime added to its record—a crime which the emerging nations of the new Middle East and North Africa will not easily forget—a crime which the imminent Palestine will remember forever.

27 AUGUST 2011 - KRISTIN BUDD - The framing of the War on Terror under the Bush administration as an intentional domestic policy used to transform and influence US foreign policy.


Framing is a central organizational idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding sequence of events and that weaves a connection among them.  It also suggests what the controversy is about, giving the heart of the issue.  Framing includes the process of emphasizing and omitting information in a story so that the media can form the events into a dramatic or twisted story to attract and influence an audience.  In my opinion, American journalists frame the war on terrorism in a biased way that portrays the events as patriotic and positive for the United States.

            The catchphrase “War on Terror”, coined by the Bush administration shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, set a retaliatory tone in order to validate homeland security policies and rationalized military involvement in the Middle East.  In the Washington Post Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote that President Bush consciously used this phrase to frame the fight as “war” against our attackers.  President Obama said in a public address that framing the event in this light destroyed any hope of unity (vanden Heuvel).  Shortly after bin Laden’s demise, however, Obama framed the killing as the “end of war” when, in fact, it significantly advanced the fight against terrorism but did not end the war.  During his address, Obama also brought back the emotion from 9/11 in order to make the American audience feel unified and give justification for continuing the war (vanden Heuvel). 

            Such overarching themes phrased by governmental officials strongly coerce the news media to quickly pick up on implications without questioning their accuracy.  Journalists immediately frame news coverage in the same vein as politicians.  After 9/11, journalists took the lead from President Bush’s rhetoric to frame revenge against our attackers as the War on Terror. Their news coverage not only swayed public opinion to believe in our country’s mission but also brought about changes to public policy.  In her article, “Terrorism as a Context of Coverage Before the Iraq War”, Amy Fried wrote that Time’s and Newsweek’s coverage of Iraq policy was framed by the 9/11 context, as well as stories about terrorism in general.  As an example, Fried pointed out that news magazine articles used photographs and graphics that linked Iraq to terrorism. As Table 1 shows, the September 16 cover stories about Iraq were preceded by cover stories about 9/11 and then followed by a Time September 23 cover about al Qaeda terrorists. Newsweek’s cover story on September 23 emphasized Iraq, with the title ‘How We Helped Create Saddam and Can We Fix Iraq after He’s Gone?’ with a large picture of Saddam Hussein’s face taking up most of the cover.  Just before the cover story, a four-page photo spread focused around September 11 commemorations, including flags, a kneeling police officer at Ground Zero, flowers, and President Bush’s words from his speech of commemoration, with the quote ‘What our enemies have begun, we will finish’ (Fried). This biased display of photojournalism promoted patriotism and drew on people’s emotions from the 9/11 attack to ensure that the American people would stand behind the war. Newsweek decided to depict the coverage in this light to show that the devastating effects of 9/11 justified the fight with Iraq and the hatred of Saddam Hussein. 

            As another example, Hetherington and Nelson indicated in “The Anatomy of a Rally Effect,” that President Bush quickly took advantage of the “rally-around-the-flag effect” to promote American patriotism and increase his falling approval rating.  The media promoted his image as positive by framing news coverage to endorse our government’s mission to fight terrorism because the President believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that would obliterate America.  The news media framed their news coverage by reporting that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction without ample investigation.  Fried pointed out that people simply assumed that Iraq possessed these weapons because media coverage reported a declaration of war on Iraq and Saddam Hussein to protect Americans from total obliteration. Fried wrote, “Both news magazines used graphics that strongly implied that Iraq posed a threat to U.S. national security” (Fried).  In reality, the media wanted to show that Iraq posed a threat and skirted the issue with implications rather than reporting actual facts (Fried). 

The media has also chosen to pacify the American people by portraying our military in a positive light.  In The Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Schwalbe wrote that the media dramatically reports war by appealing to visual senses through photographs, videos, graphics, icons, and maps.  News articles are framed to influence audience reaction to news about the war and provide an accounting of the war for those who are not there (Schwalbe et al.).  The media selectively chooses what to show about the war in order to censor negative information in favor of facts that cause audiences to see the war in a positive light.  For example, the media shows positive images of U.S. soldiers helping people in Iraq instead of photos that portray U.S. bombing of innocent Iraqi civilians. 

            To further appease Americans, the media often depicts Arabs as the enemy and creates an image in the minds of American citizens that Arabs are violent.  Most journalists on the battlefield in this war have chosen to omit footage of the casualties of war and innocent people dying in favor of showing more images of soldiers helping the local citizens than in any previous US war.  The media and our government censor news coverage by choosing not to frame war stories in a negative light in order to justify starting and continuing the war.  In her article, Schwalbe concluded by following the footsteps of previous scholars, and realizing that television journalists are more likely to report war news in a positive manner.  In addition, she wrote that both the Associated Press and U.S. newspapers choose biased reporting by framing anti-war demonstrators in a negative light while associating pro-war demonstrators with harmony (Schwalbe et al).

            In contrast to the philosophy of American journalists, Al Jazeera, the news station founded by the Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani, reports supposedly unbiased news as an option to the government-run television that is popular throughout the Middle East.  Al Jazeera’s goal is to frame their news as truthful, fact-filled broadcasts about political events at the risk of threatening leaders in their own county.  The station claims to report uncensored news by showing actual footage of controversial events, such as the aftermath of bombings and prisoners of war to ensure that the public knows the truth (Control Room).

            When considering the impact journalists have on people when framing their stories, one might suggest they “dig a little deeper” for the truth in order to appropriately inform their public.  Unfortunately, it seems that the media frequently chooses to remain upbeat and selects the path to positive-light reporting.  In direct disagreement with this philosophy, news audiences have the right to complete, uncensored, and unbiased news so they can decide for themselves whether to believe or disbelieve what they hear or read.  It is not surprising that deep-thinking and probing American citizens look for alternative news sources and turn to Al Jazeera for what they hope to be the truth about the war with the Middle East, a pattern to which American news outlets have reacted in a most hostile manner.
WORKS CITED

Control Room.  Dir. Jehane Noujaim. Writers Jehane Noujaim and Julia Bacha. Noujaim Films, 2004. DVD (documentary)

Fried, Amy. "Terrorism as a Context of Coverage Before the Iraq War." Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 10.125-132 (2005): Print.

Gershkoff, Amy and Kushner, Shana. “Shaping Public Opinion: The 9/11-Iraq Connection in the Bush Administration's Rhetoric.” Perspectives on Politics, 3, pp 525-537.

Hetherington, Marc J. and Nelson, Michael.  “Anatomy of a Rally Effect:  George W. Bush and the War on Terrorism.”  PS: Political Science and Politics.  36. 1 (January 2003): 37-42.

Schwalbe et al. “Visual Framing of the Early Weeks of the U.S.-Led Invasion of Iraq: Applying the Master War Narrative to Electronic and Print Images” Journal of Broadcasting and Elextroni Media. (September 2008).

Vanden Heuvel, Katrina.  “A Chance to End the ‘War.” The Washington Post.  03 May 2011,  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-chance-to-end-the-war/2011/05/03/AFugChgF_story.html