Yizkor, 1943 by Rachel Auerbach

In the piece entitled “Yizkor, 1943”, the author Rachel Auerbach presents a moving piece on the theme of remembrance of the numerous Jewish victims who perished in the Holocaust at the hands of the Nazis. “Yizkor” proceeds to capture in as much detail as possible the individuality of the groups that were targeted. As opposed to the Nazis’ aim which was to target the Jewish people as a group, only regarding them as a collective based on their Jewishness, the message of this piece is that the people who were targeted were babies, children, teenagers, women, men, who had their own individual identities.

The destruction of an entire people is introduced in this piece through a parallel. The piece starts with a description of a tragedy that occurs in nature, a flood in the mountains that carries away wooden huts along with men, women, and children. It shows the uncontrollable way in which nature affects the lives of people. The people who are faced with this flood are helpless, and they’re compared to “a tangle of arms waving from the roof like branches blowing in the wind waving desperately towards heaven, towards the river banks for help. At a distance, one could see mouths gaping, but one could not hear the cries because the roar of the waters drowned out everything”. This description serves as an analogy to introduce the tragedy of the victims who perished in the Holocaust, “And that’s how the Jewish masses flowed to their destruction at the time of the deportations. Sinking as helplessly into the deluge of destruction.” The piece proceeds to describe in detail the hopelessness and endless pain that the masses that are doomed to being murdered underwent with the purpose of remembering these peoples and conveying individuality to those who perished. Furthermore, the author describes those who are helpless and powerless, as “such low branches…the lowly plants of the world….the sorts of people who would have lived out their lives without ever picking a quarrel…” and yet, they are the ones who are doomed to destruction.

The piece asks a series of questions for the reader to ponder, “How could such people have been prepared to die in a gas chamber? The sorts of people who were terrified of a dentist’s chair; who turned pale at the pulling of a tooth.” The author proceeds to describe the little children, who regardless of how small they were, and in spite of all their innocence, were murdered, then continues to include the many people that were doomed for destruction, such as “the two-  and three-year-olds who seemed like newly hatched chicks tottering about on their weak legs….five year olds, and six year olds. And those who were older still…” Auerbach further identifies “boys who, in their games, were readying themselves for achievements yet to come. Girls who still nursed their dolls off in corners…Girls who eleven, twelve, thirteen with the faces of angels (…) The Rivkas, the Rebbeccas, the Leahs of the Bible, their names recast into Polish.” After the imagery of those who perished, the author notes that, “it was these, and such as these, who went into the abyss—our beautiful daughters”. She then proceeds to describe the Jewish young men, many who were ”tortured in camps even before the mass murder began”, then the religious folks, the “pious Jews in black gabardines (…) Jews who were Rabbis, teachers who wanted to transform our earthly life…and then there are other groups such as “Artisans, workers. Wagon drivers, porters….”. The message of the author is to point out that there is a long list of people who can be identified in many ways, who carry an identity, who existed. Then, the author shifts attention towards the elderly, the “grandfathers and grandmothers with an abundance of grandchildren. With hands like withered leaves (…) They were not destined to decline wearily into their graves like rest-seeking souls (..) like they would get to see the destruction of all that they had begotten; of all they had built.” She wants to stress out the point that they were all killed only because they were Jewish. The author elicits empathy also for groups that otherwise would be forgotten like the beggars who were “the first to be rounded up”. The last to be described are her own relatives who also perished. She writes “I have so many names to recall”, people who were “killed on the spot” in the gas chambers. 

The purpose of this piece is to remember those who perished, the message being that “Each of them hurts me individually, the way one feels pain when parts of the body have been surgically removed”.  The  piece ends with a call to God to remember” the “souls of those who passed away from this world horribly, dying strange deaths before their time”.

The title of this piece Yizkor is the name of the memorial prayer service that is recited four times a year in remembrance of those who passed away. This piece ends with the location of where this may have been written, “Aryan Side of Warsaw. November 1943”. The message of this piece is to bring to light the atrocities that have taken place during the Nazi times, and to recall as much as possible those who perished “because they were Jews”. The author hopes that the victims would be recalled individually and remembered, as their remembrance is a way for others to learn that tragedies like this are not to be repeated. This piece can also be characterized a form of resistance against the perpetrators who committed the ultimate crimes, and who may want to hide their atrocious crimes they committed.

Divan by Pearl Gluck

The movie entitled “Divan” is directed by Pearl Gluck who is also the narrator. In this movie, Gluck delineates her trip back to Hungary, in search for a couch where Hassidic Rabbis used to sleep on. The search for this couch is symbolic of Pearl Gluck’s search for her own heritage and her desire to adhere to the identity she chose for herself in spite of the fact that those in her surroundings try to shape her identity to determine her to come “back to the fold”. Though she was born in Brooklyn in 1972, in the milieu of a Hassidic community, Gluck left the community and became less religious and more secular in her outlook and observance. As she leaves to Hungary, she interacts with various characters. Some of these characters are more religious than her and they do not agree with the path she has chosen for herself, to be secular, as opposed to her very religious Hassidic father. She also presents in the movie the perspectives of other Jews like herself who chose to leave the fold and be less religious, and more involved with the outside world. In certain places in Hungary, she interacts with Hassidim and she is not allowed to film the surroundings, and at times, she interacts with individuals who point out to her she is not adhering to the strict dress code of ultra-Orthodox tradition. When she is finally able to bring back the couch home, she only brings back a replica of the original couch, and not the real couch. She informs her audience that one of these reasons is that her family back in Hungary would not entrust her with the original couch because she is not as religious as expected, and their desire for her is to get married to a Hassid and settle down.

 

The Refuseniks and The Party Line on Soviet Jewry *Documentaries*

The documentary Refuseniks appeared in 2008, directed by Laura Bialis, and it delineates the activities that took place in the Soviet Russia during the 1960’s and 1970’s to help those who wanted to emigrate from the Soviet Union to Israel, but were forbidden from doing so. There were activists in the Soviet Union who communicated with international organizations to gain support the right of refuseniks to emigrate out of the Soviet Union. Once they had their exit visas refused, the refuseniks were persecuted in their jobs, as it was considered to be an unpatriotic act to want to leave the Soviet Union.

A well-known character that appears in this film is Natan Sharansky. He was a former refusenik who was sent to jail for his activity of supporting the cause of the refuseniks. Finally, after being released from jail in 1986, he was able to come to Israel where he was reunited with his wife.  He was released by Mikhail Gorbachev due to international pressure from Ronald Reagan. He wrote his lifestory in his memoirs entitled Fear No Evil. The movie presents the scene when Sharansky lands in Israel. As he exits the plane, there is great joy among everyone who was awaiting his arrival. 

The Party Line on Soviet Jewry is a documentary that shows how good life was in the Soviet Union, and that the Jews who were lured to emigrate to other countries were very much grateful to the Soviet Union when they were allowed to come back. There are scences in the movie where Soviet Jews are depicted kissing the land upon which they walk as sign of joy for being allowed to return. It is a propaganda documentary sponsored by the Soviet Union in order to show how successful and happy Soviet Jews were in the Soviet Union. They warn against emigration to Israel, what they regarded as an unpatriotic act against the motherland. This documentary is supposed to bring support for the position of the Soviet Union which was forbidding Jews from emigrating elsewhere. It is meant to improve the image of the Soviet Union locally and internationally.

These two documentaries both highlight the desire of Soviet Jews to leave Soviet Union, but in different ways as they diverge in the perspective they assume. While the documentary Refuseniks shows the positive aspects of leaving the Soviet Union and deems emigration to be a violation of human rights, the documentary The Party Line on Soviet Jewry tries to convince the public union of the negative aspects of leaving the Soviet Union and how emigration proved to be a bad choice for those who emigrate and who actually wanted to come back, and felt blessed to be granted the right to return to the Soviet motherland they had abandoned.

A Study of Former Soviet Union Jewry

The piece entitled “E Pluribus Unum? Post-Soviet Jewish Identities and Their Implications for Communal Reconstruction” by V. Chervyakov, Z. Gitelman, and Vladimir Shapiro deals with the issue of reviving Jewish community life in the Former Soviet Union and the challenges and implications that surround this topic. The matter at hand is that there are different points of view when it comes to assessing the feasibility of reviving Jewish life in the former Soviet Union and whether this can be regarded as a feasible option. Research was done to assess the attitudes of the Former Soviet Union Jews, especially for Jews living in Russia and Ukraine, in regards to their Jewish identity. This research sheds light on the various factors and attitudes that resolve around the question of Jewish identity.

The attitude of the Israeli government as evidenced by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s perspective in 1999 was that Russian Jews should emigrate to Israel. However, in the former Soviet Union, Jewish self-awareness among particular Jewish communities, as the article points out, encompasses a different perspective

The piece presents the findings of an empirical study that assessed the conceptions of Jewishness of Russian and Ukrainian Jews. Its conclusion is that it is “radically different from both historical understandings and contemporary notions held by most Jews in the Diaspora and Israel” (p. 61-62).  It is interesting that this research found that “For FSU Jews, the Jewish religion is hardly a factor of Jewishness…” (p.62). The Russian and Ukrainian Jews emphasize different aspects of their definition of what makes a Jew a “good Jew”, highlighting factors such as “knowledge of history and culture, especially feeling pride in one’s Jewishness and a duty to remember the Shoah, or Holocaust”. The Jews of Former Soviet Union emphasize both aspects of their ethnicity, Russian and Jewish. Though they maintain ties with Israel, they’re not as closely attached to Jews in other places.

The research found an overall decline in interest in Jewish matters between the findings of the two surveys that were done in 1992/1993 and 1997/1998. However, the interest of those who are actually interested in their Jewish identity has increased from one time period to the other. However, overall, there is no conclusive answer as to whether Jews are more or less “communally active and engaged”. There are certain transitions that occur. The article forecasts that a demographic erosion is occurring, and that the result may make the Jewish community “distinctly more secular” (p. 62) and it is a question that awaits an answer in the matter of how Jewishness “divorced from religion and not imposed by the state can ultimately be evolved and sustained” (p. 62). The research interviewed Russian and Ukrainian Jews, and it was performed by the Jewish Research Center of the Russian Academy and Sciences. It surveyed three Russian and five Ukrainian cities. The cities that were surveyed were Moscow, St. Peterburg (Leningrad), Ekateringburg, Kiev, Odessa, Kharkov, Lvov, Chernovsty, and the persons interviewed were at least 16 years old. It noticed a distinct change, a negative birth : death rate ration and the emigration of younger people. They interviewed people who had both parents Jewish, half or quarter Jews, and those with more remote Jewish roots. The sampling noticed a decrease in the Jews with two Jewish parents. One reason being that those with stronger Jewish roots passed away or emigrated. There was also increase in intermarriage.

A finding of this study is that partial Jewishness seems to influence one’s behavior and how Jewish the next generations will be, noticing some underlying trends such as that partial Jews have a higher tendency to intermarry. This survey makes note of the fact that under Soviet ruling, Jews were forced to chose one’s nationality when parents had different backgrounds.  Now, those who are intermarried had two or more identities. They identified especially however as Russian and Jewish.  Those who were fully Jewish were more likely to identify as Jewish, whereas those who were partially Jewish were less likely to identify as Jews, and it was even less likely for part Ukrainian Jews to identify as such than for Russian Jews.

As of October 1917, in Russia, a law was passed where it is no longer to required to register one’s nationality in the passport and as such, those who identify as Jewish in public on their passport is declining. The impact of this in the past was that Jewish identity was registered in one’s consciousness as one had to deal with this on a daily basis. As such, many disapprove nowadays of being identified as Jewish in their documents because Jews suffered ethnic discrimination in the past. Two other trends that the surveys observed were that the elderly are more likely to identify themselves as Jewish, whereas those of mixed nationality are more likely to become aware of their nationality later in life. Antisemitism is also a factor that strengthens the bonds among pure Jews. Pure Jews are more influenced by holiday observances and Jewish foods whereas part Jews discover their Jewish consciousness later and through more abstract means and processes (p. 68). They are also made self aware through negative emotional experiences. There is also a decrease in the influence of the environment in shaping one’s Jewish identity. Ukrainian Jews are more likely to identify with Russian culture than with Ukrainian culture. What is unusual is that the concept of Jewishness among Russian and Ukrainian Jews is “radically different from both historical and contemporary understandings of most Jews in Diaspora and Israel. Judaism is largely irrelevant to Jewishness…” (p. 71).

The article concludes that when it comes to revival of Jewish life in FSU, the definition of what it means to be a Jew challenges the hierarchy of values between what the Western “normative” definition of a “good Jew” is and that one held by the Jews of Russia and Ukraine. There is a duality between a Jewish and another identity. There is also an erosion of Jewish identity. The Russian Jews are more distant from other Diaspora Jews, and they don’t regard Israel as the only place to live in. They don’t place much emphasis on Judaism and practice. Because the definition of Jewish identity for the Jews of former Soviet Union is different than that of Jews in Israel and Diaspora, it may present “problems of mutual recognition and understanding” (p. 74).

Everything is Illuminated-Best Movie I've seen in Ages

Reading Response: Emigration in the Soviet Union

In the piece entitled “Fear No Evil” By Natan Sharansky, the narrator discusses his struggle with the restrictions and persecutions imposed on him by the Soviet Union for his struggle to help the Jewish nationalist movement and Jews who wanted to emigrate to Israel but they were refused a visa and persecuted for wanting to leave. He was “charged with espionage and treason against the Soviet Union”, and he was sentenced to 9 years of prison and labor camp. The regime of the Soviet Union was very authoritarian punishing those who sought to emigrate from the Soviet Union to Israel. The narrator sought to improve the situation of those who sought to emigrate to Israel and who were forbidden to do so in Soviet Union and then they were singled out, even though it was a violation of their human rights.

The piece starts with a date March, 15, 1977 when the narrator explains how he was abducted by the KGB and he was interrogated in a very harsh way so he would confess to crimes he didn’t commit. He advocated for the right of Jews to leave for Israel and of the dissidents who sought that their human rights would be respected. He delineates episodes of anti-Semitism that occurred since he grew up as Stalin had revived anti-Semitism and his mother was afraid of pogroms. He had to adopt a vigilant attitude in the face of an authoritarian regime that would be suspicious of Jews.  Though he didn’t grow up to have a religious education. He was accepted into the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, and he remarks that the acceptance requirements were more challenging for Jews. He says that it was anti-Semitism that made him aware of his own Jewishness, and identity as a Jew. He translates an article about Andrei Sakharon who had formed a Committee for Human Rights and wrote a letter to the Soviet leadership and so the narrator was summoned to respond to the KGB official at the Institute to be interrogated. He mentions the Holocaust and the Six Day War as events that made Jews feel united with each other. In spite of the anti-Israeli propaganda in the Soviet Union, the author notes that there was respect for Israel and the Jews.

The Jews of Russia were beginning to realize that in order for them to achieve their personal freedom, they had to reclaim their historical roots. He comes to the conclusion that the Soviet mentality is that the Soviet system is responsible for controlling the destiny of other peoples and this is their way in which they derive their own authoritarian power while they want people to ascribe to the Soviet mentality in order to maintain “the consciousness of the slave who looks for guidance to the good czar, the leader, the teacher”. The Soviet regime was anti-Israel and anti-Zionism and viewed Israel as a “fascist” state. He relates how he applied for an exit visa to Israel and he was denied, and how many like him where also not allowed to leave Israel and afterwards they were persecuted for applying for their exit visas, they were called ‘refuseniks”. They considered those who applied for exit visas to be “traitors”. Moreover, he started to demonstrate against the unfair policies of the Soviet Union and he made contacts with people who would be able to inform the foreign press about the dire situations that the Jews were subjected to. During this time, the KGB would keep a close watch on him. The narrator and his group kept in touch with other refuseniks and they knew what was happening to them to ensure their safety. They were jailed for their desire to emigrate from the Soviet Union to Israel. The author was put on trial. The proceedings of the trial showed that the evidence against him was fabricated and unreliable. The witness testimony was not accurate and the judge was interfering with the witnesses’ testimony in order to get them to accuse the narrator. There were obvious discrepancies and contradictions of the testimonies in terms of date and place of locations, yet in spite of these ambiguities, the goal of the prosecution was to condemn the narrator rather than grant him a fair trial. The prosecutor makes the case that “Israel….was not a country but an armed camp. The economy lay in ruins, and religious terror was unbearable. The Sabbat was a silent period of morning that stretched for twenty-four hours. Israel required cannon fodder in order to oppress other peoples and conquer new territories, which explained why international Zionism was in league with the Soviet Jewry movement” (p.  217).  He was charged with “aiding capitalist states in conducting hostile activity against the USSR” (p.219). The narrator defends himself by saying that “Our open activity in informing world public opinion has been presented as clandestine and conspirational, and organized and coordinated from abroad”. (p. 219). The narrator talks in his defense about the struggle between the two system that is taking place, the Soviet system and capitalism, and about the “struggle of peoples for their national liberation, for the right to live in accordance with their own national culture and religious traditions, and for the right to live in their own state” (p.218-219). He presents in a clear and objective way the inconsistencies in the accusations that were brought against him, and how this treatment Jews receive is “anti-Semitism in its purest form.”  He was given 13 years in prison. The foreign press covered the event and his brother who was present in the courtroom informed him that he has the support of the foreign press. At the end of the story, the narrator sits in his cell with his cellmate and he weeps over the injustice, symbolic of the fact that the Soviet system tries to quench those who speak against injustice.

In the piece “Congress of Jewish Organizations and Communities in the USSR” by Lukasz Hirszowicz, the focus is on presenting information about Jewish organizations in the Soviet Union.  There were organizations that represented the Soviet Jewry from all aspects of Soviet Jewish life, except for the anti-Zionist organizations who did not attend. The Congress of Jewish Organizations and Communities in the USSR met on December 18-21, 1989 in Moscow. The significance of this is that it portrays the reaction and involvement of the Soviet government to Jewish life in the Soviet Union.

It appears noteworthy that for this gathering the Soviet government granted visas to the foreign visitors who wished to attend this meeting, with the exception of Natan Sharansky, the author of the piece “Fear no evil” who is symbolic of the struggle of the Soviet Jews to obtain the freedom and right to emigrate to Israel. Among the organizations represented there were members of the World Zionist Organization, World Jewish Congress, and officials from the Jewish Autonomous region of Birobidzhan. It was emphasized that this meeting is a continuation of the emigration movement and it has an independent character. They wanted to strengthen a Jewish national movement that would resist anti-Semitism, to help Jews fight for their rights, and to enable emigration in order to unite the Jewish people. They created the Vaad as an umbrella organization that would unite the cultural bodies on a confederative basis. They also discussed the proper remembrance of the Holocaust in the Soviet Union. They wanted to organize in order to be able to combat anti-Semitism and the anti-Zionist propaganda. It called for abolishing the practice of the Soviet Unions to deprive the emigrants who were refused entry into Israel of Soviet Citizenship, and that their human rights be respected as according to the Helsinki and Vienna Agreements, and to ease transition of their belongings to those who were to emigrate. In exchange the position of the anti-Zionist organizations was that Zionists and anti-Semites were hand in hand, and that the Jews were settling on Arab territories, and Zionism was equal to racism.  They were aware that in order to maintain Jewish independent activities they would face much opposition from the Soviet government.

The piece entitled “Perestroika and Jewish Cultural Associations in Ukraine” by Vladimir Khanin discusses how the perestroika impacted ethnic revival among the ethnic groups, such as the Jews of Ukraine. The perestroika was an attempt of the Soviet Communists to restructure the Soviet system and which in turn granted some independence, and this stimulated nationalism in the Soviet republics.

The Jews in the Soviet Union sought to gain independence and legalize Jewish organizations. The first official Jewish organizations appeared in the Baltic republics and in Lvov in 1988, where there was strong nationalism. The Vaad (Committee of Jewish Organizations and Communities in the USSR) was established in December 1989. There were trends that supported Zionism and emigration to the land of Israel and trends that supported cultural autonomy and directed at reviving the cultural and public life in the Soviet Union. There was significant emigration at this time. Though these activities were banned before in the early 1970’s and 1980’s, at this point the government offered a path for these activities to be legal under Gorbachev liberalization movement. The communist authorities were also hoping that with this, they would gain control over the “Jewish cultural, historical, and Zionist organizations” (p. 7).

In Ukraine, the Jews as a minority were very significant as they were “one of the key communities” and after Ukrainians and Russians, the Jews were “third in number” (p. 8). The authorities were concerned with the “upsurge of Jewish activity” and they wanted to set in place loyal leaders through which they would be able to monitor these activities. For this reason, the state was trying to use their means to control the indepence of the Jewish organizations. For this, they established Jewish Culture Associations (JCA’s). They founded JCA’s in Lvov and elsewhere, the hope being that like this they would be able to control the activities of the Jews and it would improve the image of the regime at an international scale. Those in charge of JCA’s were supposed to appear traditional, with Yiddish as their mother tongue, with schooling in Russian, Ukrainian, or possible received in Yiddish schools, and they would be loyal to the Soviet system. There were some conflict in terms of leadership that wanted to support at anti-Zionism agenda and supporters of Zionism. There were JCA leaders who regarded emigration as an “unpatriotic step” (p. 21).

Overall, the activities of the JCA’s were significant as they initiated Jewish activities and help establish Jewish ethnic cultural organizations, Jewish newspapers, monuments and ceremonies for remembering the Holocaust, gave lectures on Jewish topics and had Yiddish and Hebrew language courses. They attracted the Jewish intellectuals in Ukraine who were interested in reviving Jewish culture. The reaction of the authorities was to support the JCA’s in order to increase control of Jewish public life through them and to get rid of the other groups. However these Jewish organizations sought to strengthen the Jewish consciousness.

Reading Response: In Private: The Daily Lives of Jewish Women and Families

The piece “In Private: The Daily Lives of Jewish Women and Families, 1933-1938” by Marion Kaplan delineates the reaction of Jewish women in the face of the changing environment of Nazi Germany, which was characterized by restrictions that effected family life and altered the role of women and men. Kaplan points out the ways in which the roles of women changed, the transition that occurred in reversals of gender roles, and how men reacted to this situation.

Kaplan points out that certain values received more emphasis. The milieu of the Jewish family became a refugee in the face of persecutions as the family members sought emotional comfort. The author points out that women interceded for their husbands in the public sphere with state officials. Women also showed greater insight than men in sensing the danger that they were facing in Nazi Germany. The way the Nazi policies affected family life can be analyzed on two planes, at the group level and at the individual level. She points out that in 1941 there was a Harvard study that assessed the attitudes that men and women assumed in the face of the mercurial environment in Germany. Jewish organizations attempted to deal with the restrictions placed on the “Jews as a group”. According to the Harvard study, there was increased emphasis on the importance of the family and friendships, reliance on the self, as well as “the lowering of ambitions, increased planning and action; and a change in life philosophy” (p. 51). The Harvard study found that the perspective of men also shifted to place more emphasis on family life. Friendships among Jews also provided some comfort. However, socially, the Jews had to limit their interactions to the milieu of “their own homes or organizations, staying away from public theaters, and museums, but still, occasionally, frequenting movie houses.” (p. 51). Among the topics discussed there was the “worsening situation for Jews, the emigration of friends and children, and details about visas, foreign lands, and foreign climates “of an existence where they would no longer be frightened to death when the doorbell rang in the mourning, because they would be certain: it is only the milkman!”

Factors that contributed to the shift in gender roles came with the change in status of men. There was increased unemployment so the men would gather with other male friends to comfort each other. They had to be careful because they were being watched by the Gestapo or other informants from among the neighbors. Social life was very difficult during the period between 1933-1938. Wealthier Jews could afford to leave for vacations outside of Germany. The laws that emphasized restrictions directed towards Jews resulted in an increased awareness of one’s identity as a Jew. Religion was also a factor that received more attention than before as it provided comfort. There was increased synagogue attendance. Jews also turned to Zionism and there was increased membership as Jews sought a new homeland.

Another way in which Jews sought to cope with this was emigration. The attitude of men and women towards emigration differed. The expectations of the society towards women were that they should endure and seek ways to cope with this situation. Women were “to prepare less expensive meals, to repair their homes and clothing themselves, and to make do with less help around the house.” (p. 54). Women’s organizations encouraged women to keep their “moral strength to survive” and suggested that when cooking, they should cook vegetarian menus as kosher meat was expensive and hard to obtain, and they should have their daughters help their mothers in the kitchen. In terms of men, they were “expected to pitch in— but only minimally. Despite women’s new responsibilities, the “domestication” of men felt illegitimate to women and men alike” (p. 55). The press advised women to hire young men to help with household choirs since the Nuremberg laws forbade Jews to hire Aryan women below 45 years of age. The Nazi laws were taking a deep psychological burden on Jews. In terms of emigration, women wanted to emigrate while their husbands tended to resist and did not want to leave Germany.

In terms of role reversals, “Jewish women took on new roles as breadwinners, family protectors, and defenders of businesses or practices (…) The Nazis essentially destroyed the patriarchal structure of the Jewish family, leaving a void to be filled by women” (p. 59). Women became the representatives of their husbands in public matters, and often saved them as “it was always assumed that the Nazis would not disrupt gender norms: they would arrest or torture Jewish men but would not harm women” (p. 60). As such, as a result of this, women ended up having more “assertive roles in public” (p. 60).

Jews were also migrating due to the hostility they encountered in villages and smaller towns and so they headed for larger cities were they would have some privacy.  Women had to cope with the “new urban environment: crowded apartments, unskilled jobs, and public constraints, not to mention deteriorating political circumstances”. They also joined social welfare activities in the Jewish community and Jewish women’s organizations who sought to help the newcomers adjust to the new life.

Women were more insightful in interpreting danger signals, and they attempted to convince their husbands to emigrate. Kaplan makes the argument that women were not as attached to their life in Germany as men were because they were not as integrated into the public sphere. Marion believes that women were not as attached to their status in Germany since “their status had always been determined by that of their father or husband anyway” (p. 64). Women picked on warning signals coming from their neighbors and children, servants and they took on these signals seriously. In exchange, men had a different interpretation of events; they were trying to analyze things. It is interesting that “a widespread assumption that women lacked political acumen—stemming from their primary role in the domestic sphere—gave women’s warnings less credibility” (p. 64). Men believed that singling out the Jews was Hitler’s ruse to gain power in Nazi Germany, but once he would have this power, he would stop. There was much confusion in interpreting what the Nazi policies really meant. Marion notes that there was prejudice in interpreting women’s reaction to the Nazi dangers and they were viewed as “hysterical”, they were considered “too emotional in general” and their attempts to convince their husbands to emigrate were being discredited. The ultimate decision to emigrate belonged to their husbands. However, there was a shift in this with the November Pogroms, where “some wives broke all family conventions by taking over the decision making when it became clear that their husbands’ reluctance to flee would result in even worse horrors.” (p. 69). The Nazis wanted the Jews to emigrate between 1935 and 1939 and they regarded this as the “territorial final solution” (p. 70). However, Jews faced very harsh limits in emigrating, such as there were restrictions on immigration and the Nazi government wanted to enrich themselves by placing cumbersome emigration taxes forcing people to sell everything they had to be able to pay these taxes. Moreover, the Jews who were emigrating were obligated to buy foreign currency at rates that were exploiting them. Furthermore, there was much corruption as the Nazi officials as well as those working in foreign consulates demanded bribes. Besides financial exploitation, Jewish women were also sexually exploited by Nazi officials who demanded sexual favors in order to grant them emigration visas. Overall, one quarter of German Jew fled before 1938. 

The Plight of Soviet Jewry after World War II: Reading Selections

         The piece entitled “Soviet Jews as Economic Criminals” from the Journal of the International Commission of Jurists relates that the Jews of Lvov have been there since the thirteenth century. Lvov had been under Polish rule, and it was not under Soviet influence until the end of World War II. There were 30,000 Jews in Lvov and though they did not pose a political threat to the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union viewed them as an ideological threat so they were either deported to Russia, killed by the Germans, or evacuated to Poland as the Tehran Conference decided to hand in the city to the Soviet Union.  The Jewish inhabitants of the city of Lvov were attacked in the press in seven articles that criticized the remnant of the Jewish community in Lvov. These articles carried anti-Semitic and biased perspectives. The synagogue was depicted as the site where “anti-Soviet activity” took place and as the “center for illicit currency dealings” where “Jewish speculators from Lvov and foreign towns met and carried on their trade and concluded their transactions” (p. 116).  The leadership of the synagogue was regarded as “speculators”. The ritual slaughterer Kntorovich is attacked for making “religion and its rites the source of his personal income”. He was put on trial and received the death sentence. Moreover, the Jews are accused of carrying out a “black market”. The articles also criticize the fact that Israeli diplomats visited the synagogue and distributed “Israeli propaganda material”. The Rabbi is also sentenced to death along with other members of the synagogue council. In analyzing the proceedings of these trials, it is evident that injustice was done against them. There was no fair trial and the accusations were fabricated.  The Soviet regime condemns those who have relations with people from abroad and regards them as suspicious. The attacks are also directed against the Jews of Moscow who are deemed “a large group of parasites who do not wish to encumber themselves with work useful to society” (p. 119).  The articles report other cases in which Jews are said to “go to any length in order to help their kind” (p. 120). There are other reports were Jews are depicted as being dishonest, thieves, exploiters, wanted to get rich quickly, corrupt, willing to use bribes, immoral, “whose only God is gold”. This anti-Semitic propaganda hides the true facts and relates things only one sided casting the blame on the Jews.  The goal of this is to portray how beneficial communism is and that capitalism is “both evil and less successful” (p. 126).

              “The Jewish National Movement in the Soviet Union: A Profile” by Yossi Goldstein portrays the Jewish national movement that emerged in the Soviet Union after World War II and the reasons for its emergence. An activist desired to leave the Soviet Union to emigrate to Israel and was willing to petition the government in regards for this.  The activists tended to have a better education and a better economic situation than the non-activists. Thought they did not identify with traditional religious values, they were motivated by the recent events that had emerged attacking the existence of the Jewish people, such as the Holocaust, the Six Day war, and the experiences in the Soviet Union, which included anti-Semitic incidents. They protested to be allowed to emigrate to Israel, which was forbidden to them by the regime of the Soviet Union.

              “Jewish Freedom Letters from Russia” are a collection of letters in which Jewish intellectuals were appealing to higher authorities requesting help so they would be able to emigrate to Israel when the Soviet authorities forbid them to do so, and they had no one else to turn to. The Jews of Lithuania appeal to the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist Party pointing out their fears given the rise of anti-Semitism and reminded to the Party that the 25,000 Jews living in Soviet Lithuania are aware of the mass murders that have been carried out against their tens of thousands of their brethren. The point that the anti-Israeli propaganda that is carried out leads to the rise of anti-Semitism in their midst and they point how Jews face significant restrictions in their daily lives, such as not having access to higher education and jobs, not being able to teach their children Hebrew, being publicly humiliated and oppressed, even Jewish cemeteries being desecrated in Lithuania, something that did not happen not even under the Nazis. Another letter depicts a similar situation in the Soviet Union, where anti-Israel propaganda prevails. Moreover, the Jews of Georgia address a letter to the Prime Minister of Israel Golda Meir and to the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations were they delineate their plight and request help to leave to Israel. Boris Kochubiyevsky’s letter points out his plight as a Jew living in the Soviet Union who is harshly punished with 3 years of forced labor for his support of Israel. He lost his job as an engineer and his wife was dismissed from the Pedagogical Institute of the Young Communist League. In his letter, he points out that his relatives were shot by the fascists, and he is forbidden to teach his children Hebrew, to read Jewish newspapers or to attend a Jewish theater. Under the Soviet regime, he was accused like a criminal of “slandering Soviet reality”.

          The excerpts from “Fascism under the Blue Star” from Theodore Freedman’s  “Anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union are directed at attacking the ideology of Zionism that the Jewish people, regardless of where they were born and where they live, form one undivided nation. It claims that the ancient Hebrews have disappeared a long time ago, and therefore the “slogan of Zionism” in regards to “the ingathering of the nation from the Diaspora” is unfounded. The argument is that a Jewish nation is being created by the Zionists now in the “national home” they claim, but this did not exist before. They say that the countries in which Jews live have welcomed them like brothers and the Jews have prospered in these locations intellectually and economically, and therefore the Jews belong to these social milieus. It claims that Zionism wants to instill anger in the midst of the other people where the Jews live so as to compel the Jews to leave their countries and come to Israel where a new nation would be built.

Alexander Rybak - "Europe's Skies" (Official Music Video)

Hodl by Shalom Aleichem and Yentl The Yeshiva Boy by Isaac Bashevis Singer

Shalom Aleichem’s story Hodl is set in Tsarist Russia. Hodl is the name of one of the 6 daughters of Tevye, a religious Jew who works as a dairyman. He lives in the village of Yehupetz. Through Tevye and his daughter Hodl, Shalom Aleichem depicts in a humorous and satirical way the traditional Jewish life and the changes that take place in the mentality of the younger generation, heading in new directions. Tevye becomes the voice that exposes what the younger generation seems to fail to see—their revolutionary actions carry idealistic aspirations.

The story begins and ends in a witty way— the narrator of the story Tevye addresses directly the author of the story Shalom Aleichem, as Shalom Aleichem seems to give in a humoristic way some independence to Tevye so he would be able to speak to the author when no one else seems to listen to him. The author himself becomes the audience, the one who is asked and willing to listen. The narrator of the story Tevye is well versed in the Torah, and quotes witty passages from the Torah. His wife however prefers to ignore this and focus on the issue at hand, what she regards as the more practical aspect, which is finding suitable matches for marrying their daughters. Tevye describes Hodl, his second daughter, as “prettier than a picture”. She knows Yiddish and Russian, “and swallows books like hot cakes”. In terms of the education of Jews in tsarist Russian, he points out that Jews are not allowed to attend Russian universities, “Why, a cow can sooner jump over a roof than a Jew get into a Russian University! Al tishlakh yodhko: they guard their schools from us like a bowl of cream from a cat”. Furthermore, he meets a young man named Pertchik, nicknamed Peppercorn. The narrator is irked at the idea that this suitor thinks of himself as a “student” , which was an “unsuitable” role for a Jew given the constraints that the Russian society imposed on the Jewish youth. This was something unlikely, a rather idealistic aspiration even for those who had the intellectual abilities to study.

As such, in their first meeting, there is a dialogue between Tevye and the young man who also replies through witty answers—he explains that he is a “human being”, his family is the “human race”, and he is a “child of G-d”. This description serves a dual purpose. It is a witty answer for Tevye who is concerned in finding out this young man’s origins, but perhaps it is also an indirect criticism at the Russian society which does not grant the same equal rights to Jews as to Russians limiting the choices of Jewish students to pursue a higher education. Therefore, the young man who would be able to excel appears as an idealistic character. Then the young man identifies himself as the son of the cigarette maker. Furthermore, Tevye invites the young man to his house for supper. Tevye says that he enjoys talking to this young man because, “I’ve always liked a man I can have a Jewish word wit; here a verse from the Bible, there a line from the Talmud, even a bit of philosophy or what-have-you; I can’t help being who I am”. In terms of an occupation to earn a living, the young man tutors children. Then, he would come to Tevye’s house to eat where he would also tutor Tevye’s daughters. Tevye nicknamed the young man “Peppercorn” for his looks and “wanderbird” for his custom of disappearing without a word. The young man holds to certain principles that strike Tevye. Peppercorn believes that a rich man is worthless, but a beggar and a workingman are important. Moreover, he informs Tevye that “money was the source of all evil”. Tevye’s reaction is to describe this as “talking like a madmen” (p. 58). This ideology that is presented here is something that is emerging in the traditional Tsarist society of the time, that is the emergence of Marxism ideology, which stresses the role of the working class and criticizes the bourgeoisie.

Another character that makes its appearance is Efrayim the matchmaker who approaches Tevye about a match for his daughter to a bachelor from Boiberik. The matchmaker is symbolic of traditional values in Judaism, where a matchmaker’s role is to be the intermediary in arranged marriages, as young men and woman are not supposed to date directly. After meeting the matchmaker, on the way home, Tevye spots his daughter holding hands with Peppercorn, something that again is not acceptable behavior for those who are not married to each other in a traditional society. When Tevye confronts them, he finds out they are engaged and they’re going to get married. Tevye remarks that Peppercorn has taken an unconventional approach as he became engaged to Tevye’s daughter without the use of a matchmaker and without an engagement party or notifying his future in-laws. They’ve done this in secret. Peppercorn tells Tevye the only reason he tells him this is they’re about to be parted, he is leaving to a secret place that is “confidential”, which worries Tevye and would like to protest, though he ends up having to conform to this choice. Moreover, the couple foregoes the traditional customs of the time in terms of matchmaker, engagement and marriage ceremony. Tevye describes their wedding ceremony with “A funeral would have been jollier” (p.62). Within hours after the wedding, Tevye takes his son-in-law and his daughter to Boiberik where they have to part ways as Peppercorn is leaving to a place that he does not want to disclose. In the description of the relatives who say goodbye to Peppercorn, there is a youngster who is described, “wearing his shirt down over his pants and looking more like a Russian than a Jew”. Tevye seems to be more practically inclined in his reaction— “I do believe, Tevye, I told myself, that you’re married into a gang of horse thieves, or purse snatchers, or housebreakers, or at the very least, highway murderers….”. His daughter’s description of them is that “they were the best, the finest, the most honorable young people in the world, and that they lived their whole lives for others, never giving a fig for their own skins (…) that one with the shirt hanging out; he comes from a rich family in Yehupetz—but not only won’t he take a penny from his parents, he refuses even to talk to them” (p. 63). Moreover, Tevye adds, “Why, with that shirt and long hair, all he needs is a half-empty bottle of vodka to look the perfect gentleman”. His daughter praises her husbands’ relatives and friends because they’re the “working class”. Yet, the storyline continues to be tense as she still does not want to reveal her husband’s whereabouts. Tevye’s daughter foregoes giving an explanation to her father based on her belief that “it’s not something you can grasp with just your head (…) You have to feel it—you have to feel it with all your heart!”. This tension that exists between the father and his child reflects the new trends that are emerging in tsarist Russia—on one hand the young are seeking changes in their society and are willing to defy tradition and their family’s expectations, on the other hand, their aspirations are not practical and they seem idealistic, and they carry negative consequences as evident from the outcome of the relationship between Hodl and Peppercorn. Eventually, Hodl does confess to her father that her husband ended up in prison. Tevye is depicted as a loving father, as his heart aches for his daughter.

During the holiday season of Succot, Hodl receives a letter from her “jail bird”. Tevye would like to find out the contents of the letter but he does not inquire as he himself puts it “If she wasn’t talking, neither was I; I’d show her how to button up a lip. No, Tevye was no woman; Tevye could wait…”. As she approaches her father, Hodl tells Tevye she is saying goodbye to him “forever” (p. 65). Tevye thinks she may want to kill herself like a Jewish girl had done when she fell in love with a Russian peasant boy whom she was not allowed to marry. As a result, her mother died and her father went bankrupt, while the peasant boy found someone else instead to marry. Hold informs her father she will be joining Peppercorn who will be transferred from jail and sent to Siberia. She leaves the night after Hoshanah Rabah, while her entire family cries for her departure. Though up to this point, Tevye did not cry because he did not want “to behave like a woman”, in the end he does cry for his daughter. Upon his daughter’s departure, Tevye ends with an invitation to the author Shalom Aleichem to talk about “something more cheerful”, such as a question if he has “any news of the cholera in Odessa”. The choice of Hodl to follow her husband to Siberia is symbolic of the fact that the young generations was very much influenced by the revolutionary ideas that emerged in tsarist Russia and they embraced these ideals in spite of the fact that it meant they had to leave their parents’ homes and their existence.


In the story entitled Yentl the Yeshiva Boy by Bashevis Singer, the main character of the story is Yentl, the daughter of a rabbi from Yanev. Yentl appears as a traditional character who faces a gender and identity crisis, and who takes an unconventional approach to defy the expectations that a traditional society has for a young woman—to be a housewife and a mother. Instead, she seeks to liberate herself from these expectations by taking the path that young men are expected to take, she pursues advanced Talmudic studies disguised as a young man.

After the death of her father, Yentl refuses to get married because a voice inside her tells her “What becomes of a girl when the wedding’s over? Right away she starts bearing and rearing. And her mother-in-law lords it over her.” The expectations Yentl describes of a woman in her social milieu are to sew, to knit, and to cook. Instead, she favors activities that are expected of males. Along with her father, she studied the Torah, Mishnah, Gemarah, and Commentaries as if she was a boy. Her father would tell her “Yentl—you have the soul of a man” (p. 149). She says that her physical description also resembles that of a man as she was “tall, thin, bony, with small breasts and narrow hips”. At times, Yentl would dress in her father’s clothes while he was sleeping, and she says she looked like a “dark, handsome young man”. Furthermore she describes her decision to pose as a man based on the fact that “she had not been created for the noodle board and the pudding dish, for chattering with silly women and pushing for a place at the butcher’s block. Her father had told her so many tails yeshivas, rabbis, men of letters! Her head was full of Talmudic disputations, questions and answers, learned phrases. Secretly, she had even smoked her father’s long pipe” (p. 150).

Moreover, Yentl sells the inheritance from her father, and she wants to head for the yeshiva in secret, disguised as a young man in spite of the expectations of others of her as a woman—“the neighborhood women tried to talk her out of it, and the marriage brokers said she was crazy, that she was more likely to get a good match right here in Yanev”. Instead, without anyone knowing, she dresses up as a man and leaves for Lubin, where she introduces herself as a male student by the name of Anshel.
On the way, she stops at an inn with young men who were journeying to study with famous rabbis. Here, she meets a yeshiva student, Avigdor, who studies in a yeshiva of 30 students in Bechev and is in his fourth year. Avigdor tells Anshel that the people of the town provide board and food for the students. This was a traditional practice of the Jewish community, to support the education of young men in Torah studies. Avigdor describes to Anshel how he was engaged with Hadass, the daughter of the richest man in town, Alter Vishkower, but the father broke the engagement because of rumors.

When Yentl alias Anshel arrives in Bechev she received boarding one day a week at the house of the rich man. Anshel and Avigdor become study partners in the yeshivah and close friends. Avigdor does not suspect Anshel of not being a woman. Even more, no one else in the community realizes that she is disguised as a male. Furthermore, Avigdor would like Anshel to marry Hadass the girl he loves while he will have to marry Peshe, a widow. While at Hadass’s house, Anshel finds out from Hadass that the reason her father broke the engagement with Avigdor was he had a brother who committed suicide by hanging himself. After the arrangements for his marriage were made, Avigdor did not come anymore to study in the yeshiva and Anshel studied alone. Even though he is disguised as a male, Anshel still fosters feelings associated with his identity as a female—she falls in love with Avigdor. When she takes off her male clothing, she sees herself as a girl in love with Avigdor. A this point, she realizes that the Torah’s prohibition “against wearing the clothes of the other sex” has consequences as “Even the soul was perplexed, finding itself incarnate in a strange body.” Yet, when Yentl dresses back as Anshel and goes to the house of Hadass, Anshel tells Hadass “he” wants to marry her. And so he proceeds with the deception and will be marrying her.

Yentl’s actions denote an identity crisis. When Avigdor hears about Anshel’s engagement with Hadass, he comes to the study house to congratulate Anshel. Furthermore, he confesses to Anshel that he is still in love with Hadass and cannot forget her. At this point, they begin again to study together and their bond is compared to the one between Jonathan and David. Yentl herself is surprised that her deception continues and no one discovers this. When both get married, it is rather ironic that Hadass treats Anshel well while Peshel misteats Avigdor. It seems that Anshel, even though he is a woman, is better at fulfilling the role as a husband. Yet, Anshel is tormented due to the ruse she has to keep up with.

During the holiday of Pesach, Anshel and Avigdor leave together on a trip to Bechev where Anshel tells his secret to Avigdor that he actually is a woman whose name is Yentl. To prove it, she undresses herself in front of Avigdor. Then she proceeds to tell him the whole story. She explains that the reason she dressed as a man was that she did not want to waste her life with what women do, whereas she married Hadass for his sake so that Avigdor would divorce Peshel and then marry Hadass. In terms of her gender, Yentl describes herself as “neither one nor the other”, and he wants to go away to another yeshiva to study instead where no one would know him/her. Then they proceed to discuss in Talmudic arguments how Anshel can be divorced of Hadass, and the narrator comments that “Though their bodies were different, their souls were of one kind”, and as they proceed further debating, “All Anshel’s explanations seemed to point to one thing: she had the soul of a man and the body of a woman” (p. 165). Avigdor advises Anshel to simply send Hadass a divorce without other explanations. As Hadass receives the divorce papers, Avigdor returns to the town feeling ill and Peshe asks for a divorce to which he agrees to.

Since there is no explanation for the divorce, the town comes up with rumors and theories as to why these matters would’ve happened in this manner, such as maybe Anshel was converted to Christianity, or perhaps he found another woman, he may’ve come to be possessed by evil spirits since he never went to the bathhouse or the river, or maybe he had done penance for some sort of transgression. Tevel the musician comes up with a more plausible hypothesis that Avigdor never forgot Hadass and that Anshel divorced Hadass so that Avigdor could marry her. Avigdor married Hadass, and they had a baby boy, who was named Anshel.

The drama of this story depicts issues that may confront women living in a traditional society. There is the question of gender identity and the conflict of the role of women expected in a traditional society and the actual role that women are willing to assume when they have different aspirations. In a traditional society that has well defined boundaries for the role of the women as wives and mothers, the main character forges an identity, which depicts this tension. In her male disguise, Yentl proves that she is able to fulfill the role of a man when it comes to education and, except for her biological restraints, she is able to excel without any of the males whom she interacts with on a daily basis suspecting she is actually a female. Her character shows that she is able to establish a bond with a member of the opposite sex and she possesses intellectual abilities that enable her to study Torah at an advanced level. At the same time, a tension still remains in the end as she cannot fulfill the role of the husband and she is tormented by her choice, defining herself as “neither one nor the other”.

The Palestinian Bid at the UN: New York Times vs. Al Jazeera Coverage

The media outlet Al Jazeera and New York Times both covered the Palestinian Bid at the United Nations in September 2011. They both presented to their audience a significant amount of articles before, during, and after the event that they considered to be relevant to their audience. However, each one chose to emphasize the perspectives that they regarded as relevant. In order to assess the effectiveness and objectivity of their coverage, it is relevant to note the background and reputation of al Jazeera as a network, the perspectives involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the perspectives that the media sources chose to expose during their articles. Al Jazeera adheres to a Code of Ethics available on their website defined as “internationally recognized”. Yet, they are also regarded as having an anti-American bias in their coverage. In regards to the New York Times, regarded as the “gold standard”, al Jazeera has published an article critical of its coverage. By exploring the history of the Al Jazeera channel, in both Arabic and English, the articles published on the Al Jazeera English media outlet, and the criticism and praise that al Jazeera received, one may find they have certain similarities with the New York Times as well as certain significant differences of perspective and focus.

By researching the history of Al Jazeera’s coverage of events, one may find that al Jazeera underwent a transition from covering only in Arabic to extending its coverage to also provide coverage in English, from being perceived as carrying a certain bias towards the West to being perceived in a more positive light given the latest events. As such, according to BBC News (2003), Al-Jazeera in Arabic was launched after the Arabic language TV newsroom of BBC World Service was closed in 1996. Its English language channel was launched in 2006, and it is stationed in Doha, Qatar. A significant amount of the staff from Al Jazeera learned their techniques as journalists with BBC London. However, in past reports, Al Jazeera has been perceived as anti-American and supporting Islamic militancy. It is very popular among Arab TV viewers who perceive it as “an independent news channel” that shares their vision of the world, as “Western broadcasters are seen by many Arabs and Muslims as pro-western and uncritical of Israel” (BBC, 2003). Al Jazeera also featured interviews with Tony Blair, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Ariel Sharon. Several Arab regimes criticized the reports and the channel, and it was banned or harassed in countries such as Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. In terms of its reputation in United States, the Al Jazeera network channel has been regarded as having an Anti-American bias. For example, it was criticized by the US Department of State during its coverage of the Haiti disaster, for having "falsely suggested a US militarization of Haiti" (CAMERA, 2011). Moreover, it also broadcasted footage of American soldiers who were killed during the war in Iraq. Being accused of publishing images that other networks would not, Al Jazeera’s Yosri Fouda responded, "I can see why American and British politicians and military leaders don't like us showing these pictures. They show a side of the war that they don't want projected because it may affect public opinion in their country negatively" and that "the coalition leaders are disapproving because it is becoming more difficult for the US and UK to manage the reporting of the war” (BBC, 2003). Lately, however, Hillary Clinton has praised al-Jazeera English for its "fine news coverage", by saying that "In fact, viewership of Al-Jazeera is going up in the United States because it is real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you're getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news that is not providing information to us, let alone foreigners" (CAMERA, 2011). So far, however, al Jazeera is only broadcasted on “scattered cable systems in Vermont, Ohio and Washington, D.C.” Al Jazeera’s motto is that it tries to give “a voice to the voiceless.” It was also praised for its intense reporting of the Arab uprisings. According to its director of communications Satnam Matharu, “The revolutions would not have happened without al-Jazeera (…) our cameras protected those voices calling for democracy. We gave them a sense of security.” On May 4, 2011 al-Jazeera English, received the Columbia Journalism Award for its coverage (Washington Post, 2011). However, its critics point out that when covering the anti-government demonstrations of its neighbor Bahrain, its reporting was only “sporadic and markedly neutral”, which called into question its independence and ties with the Qatari government, which owns the network, and it is believed that it may be an “instrument of Qatar’s ambitious foreign policy” (Washington Post, 2011).

In order to zoom in more closely on the perspective that al Jazeera focuses on in reporting the events of the Palestinian bid, it is noteworthy to explore a certain criticism that appeared in Al Jazeera’s Media Watch Section, and which is directed at the New York Times. Al Jazeera published an article entitled “Anti Palestinian bias” by Kathleen Christison. Christison is an ex-political analyst of the CIA, who worked for 16 years with the CIA and then resigned in 1979, becoming a freelance writer who deals with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this article, she describes what she regards as anti-Palestinian biases in the New York Times. She puts forth the perspective that in any Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli issues which appear in the New York Times, from any type of article, whether “straight news reporting, to analysis, to editorial/op-ed coverage—tilts distinctly toward Israel”. She says that the New York Times is reporting from an Israeli perspective, without taking the Palestinian perspective into account also. Her perspective is that New York Times reports events related to the Israelis as if this is the concern of the readers, whereas the Palestinians are described as if they’re a “different, foreign people”. Her conclusion is that The New York Times fails to report “the impact on Palestinians of the occupation and all its aspects—the civilian deaths, the roadblocks, the land confiscation, the curfews, the depredations by settlers, the shootings by soldiers, the destruction of olive groves, etc.” She also says that the New York Times reporters spend little time reporting from West Bank or Gaza, whereas in terms of word choice, the New York Times does not use words such as “occupation” in referring to Israel, does not describe East Jerusalem as “occupied territory”, does not report that the settlers in East Jerusalem are living on land confiscated from the Palestinians, does not report on the expansion of Israeli settlements, and does not define the Intifada as an “uprising against Israel’s occupation”. She says that when reporting news about the West Bank or Gaza, the New York Times is reporting from Jerusalem instead. She notes that the Washington Post would be better at reporting about what’s happening on the ground, as they follow the Israeli solders when they perform house-to-house searches, and they catch the “uncomfortable realities of Israel’s occupation practices”. She believes that the New York Times has an “inability to fathom where the Palestinians are coming from and what the Palestinian perspective is.” She notes that, “The Times understands historic Jewish fears and the impact these have on American Jews when they see Israelis under attack, but it generally isn’t able to apply this same level of understanding to Arabs and their sense of solidarity with fellow Arabs under attack”. She says that the Times has a tendency to emphasize the blame of the failure of negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, on the Palestinians, while its op-eds are criticizing Palestine, therefore influencing public opinion and policy-makers to support Israel. What is noteworthy about this article is that in the coverage provided of the Palestinians Bid at the UN, al Jazeera seems to increasingly focus on the Palestinian’s interpretation of the conflict, which Christison accuses the New York Times of lacking. However, when exploring the way the New York Times covers the Palestinian conflict, it seems that the New York Times takes a more diplomatic and formal approach, whereas al Jazeera prefers to shift focus from the events at the United Nations to a more informal approach, so as to emphasize more the emotional side of the events. While Christison’s objections to the New York Times may convey a certain credibility to al Jazeera and cast some doubts on New York Times, the evidence shows this is not exactly the case when exploring the articles that both the New York Times and al Jazeera have published in regards to the Palestinian Bid at the UN.

New York Times publishes an article entitled “U.S. Scrambles to Avert Palestinian Vote at U.N.” on September 13, 2011 written by Steven Lee Meyers reporting from Washington and David D. Kirkpatrick from Cairo. As such, the reporters are located in two distinct locations in covering this event. The perspective of this article focuses on the tension that United States is facing as the Palestinians are seeking recognition of statehood at the United Nations. However, the article also provides other perspectives, as it reports that the Arab league believes that the Palestinian Authority and the Arab countries are inclined to go to the General Assembly where “a successful vote could elevate the status from nonvoting “observer entity” to “observer state”, a status equal to that of the Holy See.” It presents the perspective of the Turkish prime minister who told the Arab League ministers that there’s an “obligation” to recognize the Palestinian state. Then the article presents the position of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton who announced that the Americans are going to the Middle East to meet with the Israeli and Palestinians to avert the upcoming UN vote on the matter. The perspective of US and of European Union’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Tony Blair are seeking to create a platform of negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis. The article then shifts back to present the position of the United States which is that lasting results in the region can only be achieved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, and not through a UN note, which even if favorable would not change the situation on the ground. Without direct negotiations, the United States will cast a veto on the application for membership of the Palestinian Authority. The article outlines that the perspective of the Palestinian and their allies is that if they go to the UN to get a vote favorable for their statehood, this would preserve the idea of a two state solution. The article proceeds to delineate the quandary in which president Obama is facing, who is put in the position of having to oppose the Palestinians aspirations for self-determination and faces pressure from Israel’s vocal supporters in Congress to block the vote and cut off economic and military assistance to the Palestinians. The article remarks that United States and Israel are becoming isolated internationally, as there are European nations from Russia to France who support a General Assembly vote for the Palestinians. Turkey is also sympathetic to the Palestinian request. Moreover, the article specifies that the Arab League would press for the Palestinians to go to the General Assembly to elevate their status from “observer entity” to “observer state”. The Palestinian position is then quoted, in which the Palestinian say there are open to go to the General Assembly and not to the Security Council where United States can veto their claim. Moreover, the article points out the meaning behind this decision— by going to the General Assembly, the Palestinians would not obtain a state, but rather they would be able to submit certain resolutions, participate in certain meetings, and they would be able to go to the International Criminal Court. It also quotes the position of Mr. Abbas, who says that Israel was unwilling to take sufficient steps to create a Palestinian state. This would change the nature of the conflict, according to Mr. Abbas, from one “about existence to a conflict about borders”. The European diplomats’ position is that the Palestinians should go to the General Assembly where the Palestinians are more likely to get something than to the Security Council where the bid would be vetoed. As such, the United States is seeking to severe aid to the Palestinians if they proceed with a vote in the Security Council. The article ends with Representative Kay Granger, in charge of overseeing foreign aid, who informed the Palestinian Prime minister, Salam Fayyad, in a visit to Israel and the West Bank, that if they go to the Security Council, United States would no longer send aid to the region because this means they’re going outside the peace process. Her prognosis for the confrontation in New York is “a train wreck coming”. With a similar theme, Al Jazeera published an article entitled “Middle East Palestinians set to submit UN bid” on September 23, 2011, which begins with the line “Despite US threats to veto the move, President Mahmoud Abbas will go ahead and ask the UN to admit Palestine as a state”. The word choice that they use is “threats”, which tends to carry rather negative connotations, which the New York Times Article of September 13, 2011 described as the “position” of the United States. Their interpretation is that US is “resigned” now despite all its efforts to prevent this from happening. The position of US is that the parties should continue direct negotiations, consistent with the New York Times coverage. Al Jazeera’s correspondent Mike Hannah reports from the UN that the Palestinian delegation believes they already have the majority needed in the General Assembly if they would like to upgrade their status to non-member status. The article reports that the Palestinians reacted with anger at President Obama’s speech in the UN as he insisted that the only way to achieve the Palestinian dream of statehood was through negotiations”. Al Jazeera reports from the ground, saying “more than 1000 Palestinians” demonstrated against US saying, “It’s shameful for America to support the occupation”. In West Bank, more than 1000 Palestinians demonstrated, whereas in the Gaza city 300 women protested outside the UN headquarters, shouting slogans against Obama. Abbas believes he will win majority vote in the Security Council, although US would be vetoing and is putting pressure on other states to do this also. The article reports that the French president would like the Palestinians to get “nonmember observer state status” with negotiations to conclude in a year. The word choice of these two articles is different, where it seems that al Jazeera emphasizes much more the discontent of the Palestinians with the decision of the United States, by quoting positions that regard the position of US as “shameful”, and in which Israel is regarded as “occupation”. Al Jazeera puts emphasis on Abbas’ decision to go to the United Nations and on the reaction of the Palestinians on the ground, whereas The New York Times emphasizes the position of authority figures.

In assessing the implication of the UN Bid for the Palestinians, the New York Times publishes an article entitled “Palestinians See UN Bid as their Most Viable Option” by Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner, which appeared on September 17, 2011. What is noteworthy about this article is that it is reporting from Ramallah, West Bank as it delineates the options that the Palestinians had to chose from, “surrender, return to violence or appeal to the international community”. It outlines that the Palestinians’ delegation thinks that their move would change the “rules of the conflict”, and that when it comes to the position adopted by United States and Israel, the delegation warns “the Arab uprisings should make them reconsider”. The position of Netanyahu on this matter is that Israel would be a “genuine partner for direct peace negotiations” if the Palestinian Authority would engage in more “futile and unilateral measures at the UN”. The Quartet is hoping to come up with a statement that would restart the negotiations. Though a statement had already been presented, the Palestinian delegation rejected this because it believed that it “violated the six parameters of the peace process”: the Israeli settlements, accepting Israel as a “Jewish state”, the discussing of the right to return of the Palestinian refugees to Israel, and rejecting efforts to unify Fatah with Hamas, the rival party. Therefore, the article reports, for President Abbas it was the “final straw” that determined him to go to the Security Council. The Palestinian delegation blames Israel for not cooperating and wanting all “for free”. The article also reports there were supporters of the bid in the West Bank demonstrating during this time. Al Jazeera also published an article explaining the meaning of the choice of the Palestinian entitled, “Palestine Bid for Statehood Background: The Facts behind the Bid” published on the same date as the New York Times article, September 17, 2011. This article delineates the reasons for which Abbas went to the UN. It explains that the PLO only holds “observer status at the UN”. The reason they want to go to the UN is according to Abbas “20 years of US-led peace talks have gotten nowhere and wants a vote in the United Nations to bestow the Palestinians with the cherished mantle of statehood”. It then explains the technical details of how UN would approve the request, with the exception that US has the power to veto this request even if they achieve majority vote in the Security Council. They want the territory they claim as a state to be called “occupied” rather than be regarded as “disputed”. They want the ability to go to the International Criminal Court and pursue legal cases against Israel. They say that it would be only a symbolic victory because an approval would “neither end the occupation nor give Palestinians full control over their state—borders, airspace, etc”. The disadvantages of doing this would be that Israel can also bring charges against the Palestinians for firing missiles from Gaza into Israel, which could put in jeopardy the possibility of Palestinian refugees to return to the state of Israel as well as question the status of the PLO. There may also be additional limits on travelling for Palestinians, annexation of West Bank settlements, and cutting aid to the Palestinian. As opposed to the Al Jazeera article, the New York Times article tends to focus more on authority figures. However, the New York Times article presents the meaning of the bid from a variety of international perspectives, whereas al Jazeera focuses more on the implications of the conflict for the daily life of regular Palestinians. The New York Times points out that Abbas was given options to chose from, and he refused the offers he was given, it points out that the Palestinians are casting blame on Israel instead for the failure of negotiations and it presents also Netanyahu’s position who believes that negotiations would’ve been possible if the Palestinians would’ve been more open. On the other hand al Jazeera points out that Abbas believes that the negotiations did not work out because United States was leading them for a long time, and it emphasizes the authority and power that United States holds to veto this choice. It does not emphasize, however, that the United States has offered options to the Palestinians, which they refused. The New York Times chooses to present a variety of positions in its article, whereas the al Jazeera article tends to focus more on the technical details, briefly, but without more detailed explanations.

Both the New York Times and Al Jazeera chose to bring up the perspective of Hamas, the rival party in Gaza, which criticizes the Fatah’s decision to go to the United Nations. The New York Times’ Article of September 18, 2011 entitled “A Nervous Hamas Voices Its Issues with a Palestinian Bid for U.N. Membership” is written by reporters Fares Akram and Ethan Bronner, contributing primarily from Gaza, with other sources in Jerusalem, Amman, Jordan. It focuses on the perspective of the other more radical Palestinian party, Hamas, which is not represented by the Fatah party seeking recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN. It is only the West Bank Palestinians going to the United Nations, and Hamas, which is ruling Gaza, is displeased of not having been consulted. The fear of Hamas is that Fatah may recognize Israel or yield the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. Ismail Haniya, the Hamas prime minister, declares that he supports establishing a Palestinian state as long as Israel is not recognized and without giving up an inch of Palestine. Another branch from Damascus, Syria, also objected to the Palestinian delegation going to the UN because it was a “unilateral” decision. Hamas accuses Fatah of being too lenient, as they believe only in resistance. The New York Times reports that the Damascus group favors a Palestinian state on the borders before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, with East Jerusalem as capital, the refugees going back to their former houses in today Israel, dismantling all settlements, and without recognizing the “Zionist entity”. The Hamas charter states that Israel should be eliminated, but the Hamas party has not been publically clear if this is their ultimate goal. Its leaders want Palestinian sovereignty based on the 1967 lines and a 20-year truce without recognizing Israel. The perspective of Prime Minister Netanyahu is then quoted, who says that the Palestinian effort at the United Nations would be fruitless. Hamas is holding seminars and workshops in Gaza in which its supporters point out that if the Palestinian delegation accepts the 1967 borders, then the Palestinian cause would be in danger because it yields the other 80% of the territory to Israel. According to Mushier al-Masri, speaking at the Palestinian Engineers Syndicate, Palestinian refugees would be denied the right to return to today’s Israel and would have to find homes instead in Gaza or the West Bank. The New York Times interviews Gaza representatives of both Fatah and Hamas. The Fatah official in Gaza says that the Hamas officials have forbidden any public support for Abbas’s move. Al Jazeera also reports on the reaction of Hamas in an article entitled “Hamas keeps aloof from PLO statehood bid”, by Gregg Carlstrom published on September 14, 2011 reporting from Gaza City. The article reports that Hamas is distancing itself from the PLO’s move at the UN for both “political and ideological reasons”. In Ramallah, there will be a campaign to promote the bid. The article reports that for the Israelis this is a “diplomatic nightmare”. Hamas complains that the Fatah party took this decision on their own without consulting them, so they do not take the issue seriously. As such, the article reports that “active opposition of the bid places Hamas in the awkward position of campaigning against a Palestinian state”, and though they want the Palestinian people to get their rights, they neither support not reject this step, and they are frustrated with the UN. The atmosphere in Gaza is that people were doubtful of change, their criticism being that even if the PA gets approval from UN, this would not change life on the ground, as it would not end the Israeli blockage, neither ease the travel restrictions for Palestinians nor improve their economy. The article points out that the two Palestinian parties Hamas and Fatah also need to reconcile. Yousef, the deputy foreign minister, says that if the Palestinians achieve their goals at UN they would not be talking about “disputed land” anymore but argue about land that belongs to the Palestinians. These two articles are similar in terms of the theme they cover, they tend to focus on the Hamas party by providing coverage from the ground and directly interviewing the parties involved. On the other hand, al Jazeera seems to emphasize more the extent of the negative impact this would have for Israel, calling it a “diplomatic nightmare”. The New York Times seems to be able to access higher authorities in a better way and represent their position, as they interview Hammas officials both in Gaza and Syria, whereas al Jazeera mentions only the Hammas in Gaza and then proceeds to emphasize the effects on the life of individuals. The New York Times specifies the way in which Hamas differs from Fatah and why they chose a more radical approach, whereas al Jazeera does not bring this up.

The New York Times article that covers the Palestinian Request for UN from September 23, 2011 is entitled “Palestinians Request U.N. Status; Powers Press for Talks” by Neil MacFarquhar and Steven Lee Meyers. It covers the request of President Mahmoud Abbas, which was received with “thunderous applause”, and it discusses the reaction of international powers. It is mainly focused on describing the reaction of the diplomatic powers, how the outcome of the bid may affect the situation in the Middle East, and it also describes the procedure by which the bid can be voted in or out of the United Nations. It presents highlights of the speeches of both President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, warning that the parties need to begin negotiations as this move from the part of the Palestinians can lead to “a spur of violence”. It then shifts the focus to the Palestinians in West Bank who are celebrating this move. Abbas also regards this move as a “form of peaceful defiance against Israel”. It presents the context that resulted to this move, as the “culmination of a months-long tangle involving Mr. Abbas, Israel, and the United States”. The article forecasts however that this is the beginning of a “more complicated diplomatic process at the United Nations” whereas the next several weeks there would be “jockeying and horse trading”. In his speech, Abbas raises the question if Israel will “continue its occupation, the only occupation in the world?” when the Palestinians are only armed with “hopes and dreams. In his speech, Netanyahu reminds the audience that the Palestinians also have “10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran”, and informs that a return to the 1967 borders would put Israel in peril in the face of a militant Islam. Then the article presents the position of the French foreign minister, who raises the question in case of a veto, what might happen on the Arab street, as there is a high likelihood of violence and demonstrations. The Al Jazeera’s coverage of this event appears in an article entitled “Palestinians submit statehood request to UN” on September 23, 2011. They too describe the way President Mahmous Abbas hands over this “historic request” to the UN, emphasizing the emotional aspects of the moment all throughout the article, and shifting focus between what happens at the UN and back in the West Bank as they present the story to make it more dramatic. Their focus is not so much based on what happens at the UN, from where they seem to extract the emotional point, as much as they try to shift focus on what happens in the West Bank as a response. Their word choice is “huge applause and a standing ovation”. The article then shifts focus to the reaction of the Palestinians in the West Bank who “celebrated the formal submission of their bid to become a United Nations member state, despite opposition from the United State and Israel”. It then describes the shows of support that happen in the West Bank, the Friday gatherings and point out there were clashes between villagers and Jewish settlers and how the Israeli army fired tear gas into the crows at the checkpoint between Ramallah and Jerusalem as the rioters were throwing stones at the troops. They also point out that a picture of Obama was burned by the Palestinian activists. The article describes Obama as “siding with Israel” and quotes Abbas to have said that “The American administration did everything in its power to disrupt our project, but we are going through with it despite the obstacles and the pressure because we are asking for our rights”. The correspondents of Al Jazzera in the Gaza city point out that the Hamas took measures to suppress the public from watching Abbas’s address to the UN.

In assessing and reflecting the way in which the perspective of the Editorial Staff presents the facts, The New York Times publishes their editorial opinion in “The Palestinians’ Bid” on September 22, 2011, which portrays how Obama’s speech to the United nations the year before was “full of promise and determination to advance Palestinian statehood through negotiations with Israel”. However, this year he declared that if the Palestinians chose to go for a Security Council vote, Obama would veto the Palestinian bid. The piece points out that though the editors of New York Times agree with Obama’s decision “Obama had no choice but to stand by Israel, this country’s historic ally” in order to obtain a negotiated deal, and therefore “there should be no illusions about the high cost both Israel and this country will pay if this stalemate is allowed to drag on any longer”. It points out in a rather critical way that the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not make any “serious compromises for peace”, and was more concerned with “his own political survival than his country’s increasing isolation or the threat of renewed violence in the West Bank and all around Israel’s borders”. In regards to Mahmoud Abba’s position, the editors point out that his maneuver contains high risks also when he will realize that his people will be disappointed “when it becomes clear that maneuvering in New York cannot deliver a state on the ground”. They are critical of President Obama’s intervention, saying he “misplayed the diplomacy from the start”, though an American intervention will be critical to bringing a solution. While Mr. Abbas is submitting the application for statehood to the Security Council, Washington is hoping to achieve meaningful talks between the parities. They hope that US and its partners will come up with a map and a deal on the table, with a proposal that will be accepted by the Security Council and Arab League, and accepted by the Israeli and Palestinian people in order to avoid a “a complete diplomatic train wreck”. Al Jazeera does not present any editorial opinions from their Editor in Chief on their English language website. However, in their opinion section they have several articles where they run pieces similar in format to the op-ed pieces in the New York Times, which appear with the caption “Opinion”. In regards to the Palestinian Bid, perhaps what could sum up their Editorial Opinion in a veiled way is the captions attached to a slideshow of 9 pictures included on their website, where they feature Palestinians out on the streets protesting against the “Israeli occupation” as a show of support on the streets of the West Bank and at the borders with Israel. In the first picture, a protester is seen painting on the “separation wall” . In other pictures, there are crowds of protesters with Palestinian flags and posters written in Arabic in support of the Palestinians’ decision to go to the United Nations. In Picture#4, there is a message written in English on the “separation wall” with the words, “Death to Israel” while a Palestinian man in the background. Al Jazeera shows this picture with the caption “One protester climbed along Israel’s separation barrier and taped a Palestinian flag near the top”. However, Al Jazeera does not make any reference to the message written on the wall. In another message, the caption in the background discusses a sign in the background “The sign in the background urges Palestinians to reject negotiations while Israel continues to build illegal settlements and the separation barrier”. Picture #6 caption reads “The mural in the background portrays the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat”. What is interesting about this comment is that al Jazeera is selectively choosing what to show and discuss from the mural, since the striking message “Death to Israel” did not get any comment. The pictures only portray the protestors’ “right” to protest the “Israeli occupation”. In Picture #8, al Jazeera shows a few Israeli soldiers,” about 40 Israeli soldiers formed a line behind concrete barricades.”, given the way they are portrayed, they appear as the “other side”. In the last picture, al Jazeera shows car tires set on fire and writes “A group of boys stacked tires near the checkpoint and then lit them on fire, sending a plume of black smoke over the area. After the main group of protesters left, around a dozen young men stayed a few minutes to throw rocks and glass bottles at an Israeli military watchtower, before dispersing”. However, only the tires on fire appear in the picture, and not the actual individuals who actually set them on fire. Overall, this slideshow may leave out details that may cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Palestinians’ criticism of the international powers that are attempting to find a peaceful resolution. This slideshow may contain what Gladstone regards as visual bias.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA has published two articles on their website, one in regards to assessing Al Jazeera’s reporting and one in regards to New York Times’ coverage of the events related to the Palestinian Bid at the UN. The reports of the CAMERA bring up valid points that were not dealt with in the articles presented in the New York Times and al Jazeera. In CAMERA’s article “Al Jazeera’s ‘Real News’ Comes With a Cost” of March 27, 2011 by Steven Stotsky, the article reports that the reason that al Jazeera has not been able to obtain access to American television audiences, is its reputed anti-American bias, while in its news broadcasts, al Jazeera portrays Israel as the aggressor. CAMERA points out that “despite its defiant stance towards many established authorities in the region, Al Jazeera is not an independent entity. It answers to its patron, the Emir of Qatar”. Their anti-American bias has been toned down after complaints in 2004 from then Secretary of State Colin Powell who met with the Emir of Qatar. In January 26, 2011 Fatah supporters ransacked Al Jazeera’s offices in the West Bank as they published the “Palestine Papers”, apparently revealing how the Fatah leaders conspired with Israel to target Hamas members and were willing to compromise on certain Palestinian political positions. Their own anchorman, David Marash, quit after two years for working with Al Jazeera English because of their “anti-American bias” becoming “so stereotypical, so reflexive”. They have a tendency to publish articles from extremist positions, which generate antipathy towards Israel. With certain exceptions, Al Jazeera has a tendency to ignore Israel’s positive accomplishments and “to depict Israeli actions in a negative light”. It tends to ignore the Israeli point of view. In regards to assessing the New York Times’ coverage of the UN Bid, CAMERA publishes “New York Times Spins the Story on Palestinian Bid for UN Membership” by Ricky Hollander of September 22, 2011. They assess the articles on the New York Times and point out that “missing from the newspaper are the facts that point to a Palestinian responsibility for failed negotiation…” as the New York Times tends to “fault Israel for the Palestinians’ abandonment of a negotiated route towards statehood, and to suggest that U.S. support for Israel on this matter is wrong and harmful”. The articles in New York Times tend to reflect Palestinian dissension, but not the “hardening attitudes” and their “continued firing of rockets into Israel and terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, their institutionalized incitement to hate and reject Israel and glorification of “armed resistance”, and most tellingly, their consistent refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state? What about the proclamations by Palestinian ambassadors that a future Palestinian state would be for Palestinians alone (in other words, a Jew-free state) but that Palestinians from anywhere in Palestine should have the right to relocate into Israel’s pre-1967 boundaries”. CAMERA also points out that Abbas has set preconditions to negotiations and refused to meet with the Israeli and American representatives. Abbas requested that no settlements would be built in East Jerusalem, and when Netanyahu granted the request and imposed a 10-month moratorium, PA only agreed to meet with Israel at the negotiating table when the moratorium was about to end, and that’s when Abbas abandoned again the negotiations. It seems that in their articles, the New York Times and al Jazeera have dealt primarily with Palestinian frustrations, pointing out that Israel is responsible for the failed negotiations and not Abbas for setting preconditions, and not pointing out the attempts of US and Israel to negotiate.

When it comes to the chosen sources and their impartiality in dealing with the presentation of this event, al Jazeera and New York Times may suffer somewhat from what Gladstone deems to be narrative and fairness bias, as their news stories do not reflect the entire context. They only present what is happening now, leaving out important points from the historical context as CAMERA points out, such as the attitude of Palestinians towards Israelis, and leave out certain points skewing the perspective of their story. Al Jazeera is suspect of being under the influence of the Emir of Qatar and writing its stories in such a way to abide by the Emir’s foreign policy. Objectivity in these articles seems to be desirable by the sources to some extent, but the range of views and facts that they refer to yield a more restrictive level of objectivity. According to their website, The New York Times’ mission is to abide by the highest standards, as their mission is to provide “Content of the highest quality and integrity--This is the basis for our reputation and the means by which we fulfill the public trust and our customers' expectations”, operating in cities in United States and around the world” since 1851, at their inception. Al Jazeera’s mission is to “adhere to the journalistic values of honesty, courage, fairness, balance, independence, credibility and diversity, giving no priority to commercial or political over professional consideration.” However, the practical application of these values for both New York Times and Al Jazeera may end up being relative to the contexts and issues they present, as their journalistic practice does not exactly always reflect theoretical goals, which may give a certain unwarranted credibility to the sources while leaving out legitimate questions that may arise as articles get published due to the established reputation of the source.

References:
August 2002 Al Jazeera “Anti Palestinian bias” by Kathleen Christison
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Media%20Watch/New%20York%20Times%20anti-Palestinian%20bias.htm
March, 2003 BBC News: Al Jazeera: News Channel in the News by Tarik Kafala
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2893689.stm
March 5, 2011 Clinton Media Criticism Buoys Al-Jazeera By David Bauder
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=13061525
March 27, 2011 Camera 2011 Al Jazeera’s ‘Real News’ Comes With a Cost 2011by Steven Stotsky
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=228&x_article=2014
August 2011 Washington Post Al-Jazeera TV network draws criticism, praise for coverage of Arab revolutions
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/al-jazeera-tv-network-draws-criticism-praise-for-coverage-of-arab-revolutions/2011/05/08/AFoHWs2G_story.html
September 13, 2011 New York Times “U.S. Scrambles to Avert Palestinian Vote at U.N.” by Steven Lee Meyers and David D. Kirkpatrick
September 17, 2011. New York Times “Palestinians See UN Bid as their Most Viable Option” by Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner
September 17, 2011. Al Jazeera “Palestine Bid for Statehood Background: The Facts behind the Bid”
September 18, 2011 New York Times “A Nervous Hamas Voices Its Issues with a Palestinian Bid for U.N. Membership” by Fares Akram and Ethan Bronner
September 14, 2011 Al Jazeera “Hamas keeps aloof from PLO statehood bid” by Gregg Carlstrom
September 22, 2011The New York Times Editorial Opinion “The Palestinians’ Bid”
Septemmber 23, 2011 “Palestinians Request U.N. Status; Powers Press for Talks” by Neil MacFarquhar and Steven Lee Meyers.
September 23, 2011 Al Jazeera’s“Palestinians submit statehood request to UN”
September 23, 2011 Al Jazeera “Middle East Palestinians set to submit UN bid”
September 2011: Al Jazeera Middle East slideshow
http://english.aljazeera.net/photo_galleries/middleeast/2011917175045282961.html
September 26, 2011 Camera 2011New York Times Spins the Story on Palestinian Bid for UN Membership by Ricki Hollander
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=2119.