Israel and Gaza: Over-Democratizing the Debate
An Oxford professor once commented to me, "there are two Arab-Israeli conflicts, one between the Israelis and the Arabs, and the other between the scholars." Since then, I have heard this same point made on a number of occasions. As I watch the current conflict unfold between Israel and Hamas, the discourse seems to be generated not by scholars, but by ordinary people including students, bloggers, online social networkers, and I-reporters. As a part of a demographic that gets most of its news and information through digital media, this is how it occurs to me. What my professor said to me was accurate four years ago, but now it seems elitist. The advent of digital media has democratized the debate and opened the third and largest front of the Arab-Israeli conflict: concerned citizens around the world armed with mobile phones and computers. Gone are the days where the public debate can only take place between elite intellectuals like Dershowitz, Netanyahu, Mearsheimer, Schlaim, and Chomsky. These individuals will continue to write bestselling books, provide content for university syllabi, and write editorials for major newspapers but the playing field is leveled so that anyone with information, images, and ideas can emerge onto the scene.
The accessibility of the debate stage means there are more opinions, stances, and causes out there now than we have previously seen. Everyone from the kid with a mobile phone taking a picture, to the university student blogger can make his or her assertion. However, this new and all-inclusive front of the Arab-Israeli conflict means that the discourse is also being overrun with credibility issues and superficiality. The substance of the debate has degenerated into a competition of who can produce more, at a faster pace, with more flash and imagery than the other side. An afternoon on YouTube searching words like "Israel" and "Hamas" will lead any Internet user into the battle of videos that is taking place between both the pro-Israeli and the pro-Hamas sides. This is not a substantive debate, but a vanity contest won by whichever user can post the most graphic and dramatic video accompanied by the most chilling music. Dramatic images of blood and dying children propagate more hits, shares, and comments to the posted video. That is not news.
The same thing can be said for the online social networks. Groups with the most members are not necessarily those with the most balanced missions, or the most rigorously intellectual debates. Instead, they are the ones with the most provocative titles, the most emotion evoking images, and the most incendiary language. These groups often overshadow the more boring, intellectually rigorous and balanced groups and blogs, which fall victim to the reality of what gets a hit on the Internet. But online social networks are being used in this conflict to do more than create groups and share opinions. Along with Twitter, they are facilitating the dissemination of news alerts. For instance, there is a site which allows Facebook users to donate their status to individuals who change their status to real-time updates about how many Qassam rockets are hitting Israel. Ironically, the donation of status updates was first used in the 2008 presidential campaign to help get out the vote.
It is not just the traditional online social networks that are being leveraged in the debate. Advanced social networks like Second Life, which is a platform where the online social network environment is brought to life in a virtual world, has become a key platform for nefarious participation in the debate. IslamOnline, a group based in Qatar and affiliated with Al-Jazeera has used Second Life to create a "Palestinian Holocaust Museum." Israel's daily Yediot Aharonot reported that in just 24 hours, over 6,000 people visited the new online museum. According to its creators, the Palestinian Holocaust Museum is modeled after the Washington Holocaust Memorial Museum and will "feature the photos, names and stories of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in the context of a new Holocaust."
In another example of digital instigation from Iran, the conservative Combatant Clergy Society built a password protected web platform where young Iranians can volunteer to become "martyrs" in Gaza. This call for volunteers online is a supplement to elements of the regime distributing registration forms throughout the country. The regime claims to have 70,000 young Iranians ready to martyr themselves, but in what is likely a robust propaganda exercise, President Ahmadenijad is allegedly not permitting them to leave Iran for this cause.
Another tactic being used in the debate is "Google Bombing", or the organized attempt to skew Google search returns by inundating the blogosphere to links of a particular site or message. Hamid Tehrani, a Europe based Iranian blogger, recently uncovered a series of organized Iranian "Google bomb" campaigns designed to support Hamas. One such Google Bomb was an appeal to bloggers around the world: "You, oppressed people of Gaza know that we Muslims of Iran and all over the world haven't forgotten you and will not cease until complete breaking of the surrounding of your city. In the path along freedom of Gaza and our common value which is the freedom of Palestine, we will not cease and will go on."
Tehrani also discovered an association of Islamist bloggers called Paygahe Blogeraye Arzeshi, which has collected 500 links to already published posts on the Israel/Gaza issue. Their strategy is to skew Google returns, information, and news toward links that favor their perspective. This is almost impossible to influence in America, but in places like Iran or other parts of the Middle East, it is not only possible, but also happening.
The aforementioned digital media interactions reveal just some of a long list of activities that have elevated concerned citizens around the world to the status of reporters and information feeders. We saw a glimpse of this in the July 2006 war between Israel and Hizballah, but digital media was not global in the same way that it is today, or will be tomorrow.
With so many forums to post, feed, and publish information, the overcrowded environment is both hungry for information and desperate to get noticed. These thousands of digital media outlets means there is no shortage of customers for bogus content as they gobble-up false reporting, images and quotes taken out of context, and straight up fabrications to get that coveted search return. This uncontrolled media environment means that any small group of extremists can use these platforms to draw wide attention to their agenda. The unfortunate reality is that it is often the squeaky wheel that gets the oil.
The Arab-Israeli conflict between concerned citizens of the world will fundamentally change the nature of this age-old debate. The diffusion of the discussion throughout online social networks, blogs, Google platforms, and other digital media outlets raises the question of who is responsible for overseeing the credibility and the civility of the debate? The answer is you. We are witnessing the first world wide, user-generated debate of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This will not be the last.
Read previous columns from Jared Cohen's Dorm Room Diplomacy series.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Great article.
"... We are witnessing the first world wide, user-generated debate of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This will not be the last."
Agreed. There are many credible sources of information on the Web. Americans no longer have to rely exclusively on the American news media which has been traditionally biased toward Israel.
Because we are finally able to access a broader variety of news sources such as Haretz, Israel's daily print news and other reputable media outlets around the world, we are able to have an informed perspective of current events and more easily evaluate the effect of our actions and policies on the rest of the world.
Also, because we are now able to instantly fact-check information that comes through the American media we can reasonably analyze new information and develop more effective tactics for participating in the governance of our nation. This includes organizing and sharing ideas by way of the Internet.
Last week Gallup conducted the first poll that measured American's attitudes towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It found that Americans are not as blindly supportive of Israel as was generally perceived. Also, we are generally more aware of the plight of the Palestinians than most of us were previously.
A paradigm shift is beginning to develop and the our approach to Middle East policy decisions will eventually be modified. In my view, that is a good thing.
"The Arab-Israeli conflict between concerned citizens of the world will fundamentally change the nature of this age-old debate."
I agree and it's about time.
Simply tragic photos were posted on the blog of a Canadian activist in Gaza yesterday.
She's been blogging from Gaza since july of last year and her posts are heart breaking.
In yesterday's blog, she has photos of the home of the Deeb family where you can see rounds of dough laid out for baking. "When the missile struck, it killed her and 9 others in the extended-family house, including 2 boys and 3 girls. Another 4 were injured, one having both legs amputated.
The only way you can see this kind of information from Gaza is to get it from private posts and blogs because the information just isn't being disseminated by the MSM. If the bloggers in Gaza weren't dedicated to sending out the information, we wouldn't see it.
In his blog, http://gaz
I neglected to post the blog mentioned in the first part of my post. It can be found here:
http://ing
Thank you.
Something that bothers me a bit about your article, is that early in the article you mention that both sides are engaging in a contest to see who can produce the more horrific imagery, and yet, most of your examples of the insinuated nefarious chronicling of violence is coming from the Palestinian side of the conflict. I think both sides are guilty and therefore both sides should be called out. It makes your argument seemed weighted.
It should be noted that the Israelis have killed as many and more of it's people than it's enemies during this conflict.
Where else is someone supposed to get the news and view differing opinions? I like being able to see different sides to a conflict and learn how the "common folk" are doing. It's a shame that the people who govern our countries care so little about the people! While they hide away and go to their "peace talks" people are dying. And why does the U.S. think that everyone should be a democracy? The Kingdoms in the Middle East have been there for centuries.
I respect the arguments in many of these comments but am not seeing the relationship between the observation stated by the columnist which is the affect of unverified news has on the developing opinions. Specifically, in a world with endless sources of news online, where we find facts. Posting links to blogs spreads the problem. Instead of using a circumstance to prove a point, do your homework and question authority, the media, etc.
"...In another example of digital instigation from Iran, the conservative Combatant Clergy Society built a password protected web platform where young Iranians can volunteer to become "martyrs" in Gaza.."
I know Farsi and i can tell you that the website you are linking to belongs to a religious-political party and has existed for a couple of years and it mostly operates as a news website.
The initial report of the "registration form for martyrdom" was FALSE. What was on the site was only a poll asking visitors "how would they contribute to the fight against Israel's invasion" and the option included, "financial help, propaganda (by informing others) or armed resistance", which has been removed since by the way. And again, think about it, how are you supposed to register if you need a username and password to enter the registration system at the first place?
This inaccurate piece of information (I know it was first reported by Reuters, but still) combined with the fact that there is not even one single mention of any similar measures by pro-Israel groups in your piece, might give one the notion that maybe you yourself are subtly trying to skew the readers opinion on which side of the argument to expect this "low quality" information from.
I want to know, since when did the State Department hire high school students to advise them. This guy looks like he doesn't even have any peach fuzz yet! It was a decent article though, which brought up some interesting points, the main one being, news can be and will be skewed by whom ever is viewing it. Life is way too subjective for there to be a true right and wrong, but only a percentage of each. It is time for our planet to come together though, this is getting rediculous. The poor of one country killing the poor of another country, truely a shame.
Hamas = Iran
Hezbollah = Iran
Israel is at war with Iran.
The US has been in a war with Iran since the downfall of the Shah and clearly is involved with Iranian proxies and IRG in Iraq.
Iran uses proxies. Iran sends it's own IRG. Iran is winning.
Iran will likely end up not just the dominant power in the Middle East (may already be).
Iran will likely end up being a Middle Eastern Superpower.
When Bush eliminated Saddam, he removed the last effective rein on Iran's major influence, if not dominance, in the area.
Iran can't be directly attacked, because in the looming recession/
Get used to it, Iran is now a major player in the area. Meanwhile, the Arab governments who are silently supporting the Gaza offensive are putting their own necks in a noose. The Egyptians, beset with high unemployment and corruption, are furious. The Jordanian population is restive. The Syrian "peace" deal is dead for the foreseeable future. Even Turkey is furious with israel.
All this creates the kind of dissatisfaction that the Iranians and their proxies can use to their advantage.
There is no objective reason for the US to be at odds with Iran. In fact, they helped us initially after 911, as did the Syrians. Their reward was hostility from Bush, added to his numerous stupidities. We need to start working creatively with them to find common ground -- which is peace and stability in the area. If the Saudis and other Sunni nations want to avoid internal uprisings, they would best support our efforts.
The US has mistakenly stuck its nose into a religious conflict. We give recognition to corrupt Sunni governments while nearly all the oil producing areas of the Persian Gulf have dominate Shiite populations.
Ha! "Over-demo
Translation: too many people with views Israel doesn't like are evading the US media "shield." Our "minders" are getting upset.
Actually!
Re-post
Exactly! The propagandist and the censors are worried.
Well, yawn, you can always do what the main stream media has told us for so long. If you don’t like what you see, read, hear, you can always turn the channel.
See Jared Cohen's Profile
There is an important point that must be raised, which while I didn't mention in my blog, I believe is of the utmost importance. This current generation of young people, is the first to be brought up in a news and media environment in which information can be accessed from outlets and forums other than print media, television, and radio. Generation X is accustomed to getting information from Facebook feeds, blogs, You Tube, twitter, etc. It is interesting to speculate about how this will shape their opinions over time. They are overwhelmed and inundated with information on their phones, computers, and all the other usual places where people can get their news. This is a generation that seems to be immune from being overwhelmed with opinions, data, and feeds. Each individual is accountable for what they read and how it influences their opinions. With so much to read, watch, and listen to, more than ever, the information one chooses to believe or not believe is a choice. In this sense, news has gone from reporting of the facts to choosing which of the facts one wants to listen to. Those who are truly getting the news are the ones who make the choice to cross-reference sources and perspectives.
Truth is a matter of perspective. Yes, sometimes even facts are a matter of perspective - contrary to conventional wisdom. Arvay's above protest of "over-demo
I'm afraid that in your own clear bias and one sided presentation of examples, you have become that which you are warning against. If it truly is only a response, and not just a perpetuation of a conflict from both sides. The fact of the matter is that this is Russia and Georgia all over again. If Israel is acting on what it sees as their rightful response, then the response has far outweighed the initial contact, going as far as to attack UN schools. What would the stance be if it was Russia bombing those schools? Like it or not, civilians, men, women and children alike are being killed on both sides. I fear that the scale of this response has been in the weighting. I fear that the change in Presidents have prompted Israel to take action based on their own paranoia of the new Administration. I also fear what the severity of this response will ignite.
Interesting points Mr. Cohen. I think that raising them now adds clarity to your article and provides us with more fodder for our decision making. Your points are well taken. We really do have to be more discerning and selective of the source of our news. Our failure to do so will inevitably lead to the perpetration of false rumors and baseless accusations that we saw so much of during the 2008 election cycle.
"The advent of digital media has democratized the debate and opened the third and largest front of the Arab-Israeli conflict: concerned citizens around the world armed with mobile phones and computers.
That stands out to me as a very true statement, but it needs to go deeper. Deeper in the realization that it's the accessibility of digital media, ways to digitally communicate, and most of all, internet access. That is one of the driving forces. About 10 years ago during the Kosovo/Serbia campaign, I was limited to IRC chats trying to get at information. Nothing is quite as surreal as chatting/debating with someone from the other side when they suddenly say the air raid sirens are blaring and they sign off. Later they come back, talk about what they saw and heard.
In this day and age, with the widespread accessibility of the internet, combined with digital goodies, more and more this is becoming a visible thing. Used to be news was just text on a page. Now, a photo will simply say it all. Or a short video.
There are other things to consider too. Alot of the "democratization" boils down to the fact that the "have nots" are now on more equal terms digitally with the "haves". And poor folks tend to relate more to the plight of a peoples than the rich. Then there's the "control" aspect, such as net neutrality, which the US is very much against.
You are upset that you can't control that information any longer. I also appreciate the slant geared towards criticizing the arab or iranian views as some how not as "intellectual". BS.
I especially like how he only gives 2 groups, pro-Israel and pro-hamas, I find that like saying pro-life and pro-abortion. I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion" but I do know many people who understand why abortions exist, the same sentiment goes for hamas. The author could have said pro-Palestinian but Ironically he chose that verbiage for a similar reason those youtube video's chose their material, emotion.
"Gone are the days where the public debate can only take place between elite intellectuals like Dershowitz, Netanyahu, Mearsheimer, Schlaim, and Chomsky"
Pining for the days when the only recognized authorities on the subject were intellectual Jews tips his hand a bit. Still, it's a decent effort at appearing to be impartial in his message of caution.
The flaw in this is one of assuming the "elite" the Dershowitz, and the Kissingers and the Clintons of the world are actually clued it. All in all, a widspread sense of what people think, know and feel is to be preffered to being spoonfed someone elses agenda, presented as the truth, solely because that person has the megaphone.
Bush, et al, were able to bamboozle the public so much as they did for precisely that reason.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
