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”.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
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.
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.
Rahel Levin Varnahagen
Rahel Levin Varnahagen was born in Berlin, in 1771, into a Jewish merchant family and was raised in a traditional home. She became famous for the social gatherings taking place at her house, which turned into an informal center for literary, social, and politic discussions. In “O How Painful To Have Been Born a Jewess”, Rahel narrates her struggle with her own identity as a Jewish woman. She describes herself as a “fugititive from Egypt and Palestine”, whose whole life is a “slow bleeding to death (…). Every attempt to stop the bleeding is to die anew, and immobility is only possible for me in death itself….I can ascribe every evil, every misfortune, every vexation that has befallen me from that.” She falls in love with a minor Prussian diplomat Karl August Varnhagen von Ense, and she converts to Protestantism.
In Tewarson’s piece “Rachel Levin Varnhagen: Chapter I Beginnings”, Rahel’s life is described in detail. She grew up in Berlin along with 4 other siblings. During this time period, King Frederic William invited wealthy Jews from Vienna in 1670 to settle in Berlin. The Jewish community of Berlin suffered great loss after the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) and so the King needed Jews to come in and settle in Berlin so they would pay taxes to him. The Jews coming from Vienna were merchants who were accused of having poisoned the wells because the Christian merchants wanted to get rid of the competition. The Jews of Berlin represented 2% of the Jewish population in Prussia. Only wealthy Jews were allowed in Berlin. Overall, the Jewish community had 4 classes: the middle class, about 8%, of artisans, rabbis, and community officials, then 40% petty tradesmen, then 20% household servants and peddlers, and 30% beggars and vagabonds. The wealthy Jews received letters of Protection from the King and they were granted privileges according to their status.
However, they had to pay taxes, they had no citizenship, and they were barred from holding most occupations, such as all trades, farming, and civil service. Only the eldest son and with some exception the second son could inherit the right to live in Berlin if they had enough money, however daughters were excluded from this category.
The policies towards the Jews were determined by the political and economic interests of the Kings who were interested in collecting taxes for wars of conquest. The Edict of 1750 narrowed the occupations of the Jews mainly to the field of banking. There were challenging times for the Jewish community. Most Jews were working as merchants, in money lending and banking jobs which increased their contact with the outside world. In Jewish homes, there were social gatherings in which Jews met with artisans and aristocracy. Rahel learned from these social gatherings taking place in her own home the art of conversation and how to be a hostess. She grew up in a patriarchal family, where her father was the dominant figure. In this milieu, she developed a talent for understanding human nature, and how to have empathy towards others. She had an intelligent and quick-witted nature.
Due to the limited role that society expected of women during her day, Rahel was excluded from all education institutions and professions. As the ideas of the Jewish haskahlah were spreading in the Jewish community, Jewish thinking became more secular and more receptive towards German culture. Through social circles, theater, philosophy, and literature both Jews and Christians could interact and exchange ideas. The Jews became interested in modern thought. Moses Mendehelsohn was one of the pioneering scholars, who came to Berlin and learned German, Latin, mathematics, music, wrote his own philosophical treaties and literary criticism, and translated the Hebrew Bible to German, as one of the first attempts which enabled other Jews to learn German and to acculturate. In the next couple of generations, the young Jews began pursuing a modern education and became increasingly acculturated in the surrounding German society. However as Jews they had a hard time finding jobs. However, girls did not receive a formal education. Their education included household chores, sewing, reading, writing, through personal tutors and from their male siblings.
Rahel was admired for her original thoughts and erudition. Rahel’s father broke with Jewish tradition and practice, and no longer went to synagogue, while her mother was more traditional. Rahel’s father encouraged her daughter to get a modern education. Rahel learned Yiddish, German, French, took music, and piano lessons, she was interested in composition, social dance, learned sewing, embroidery, and household chores. The education of Jewish girls was superior to that of the girls of the Gentile bourgeoisie, and similar to that of aristocratic girls. Rahel adopted the ideas of the Enlightenment and Humanism. She was much more immersed in German culture than her predecessors. As such, she became known for being a salonniere and an epistolary writer. She learned Italian, English, German, and French, violin and composition lessons. Her theory of education emphasized active participation and practical application (31), in order to help children find their talent, to learn the languages from the respective countries where they’re spoken, and to help them acquire a trade. She thought children need to expand their knowledge, guided by their own free will without interference from the part of the teacher except to guide them. Her approach sounds like the approach of the methods applied in Montessori education. However, she did not also envision female education. She criticized the system of learning by rote and learning facts without critical thinking. She emphasized the ethical and social education, and she stressed “the evolution of the self through effort, experience, love and wisdom” (32). She related that her self-education, not going through the system, carried with it certain weaknesses such as insecurity, shyness, no systematic thinking, though she possessed intellectual independence and originality. Her role as a hostess and writers of epistles proved to be more of a profession for her. The education of Jewish women freed them from the narrow lives their mothers were subjected to. Rahel embraced Jewish and Enlightenment thinking on the highest level.
There were also limitations that she had to withstand, from being a woman and a Jew. She established for herself a famous salon and had an extensive network of correspondences. However, throughout her life, she viewed her identity as a Jew as a stigma. Moreover, she tried to rise above the limitations imposed on her by her society. She sought to integrate herself as an assimilated Jew and to seek integration for the marginalized groups. She assumed a circle of friends where she was committed to egalitarian social relations. Moreover, in her “open house” or “society” she stressed the importance of sociability which would enable more egalitarian human relationships, as this contained the potential for social change. The art of conversation was stressed in her circle. She envisioned a “refined society” in which there would be people of mixed social background, different interests and philosophical leanings, yet intellectual, sophisticated, and tolerant. She was also criticized for her openness towards tolerance, and lack of discrimination in choosing the people in her society. She disregarded social hierarchies. Her circle was a mixed society with both men and women, Christians, Jews, noblemen, poets, actors, singers, theater folk (37), where social rank was not emphasized, however, intelligence, character, and talent was. There were other “open houses” in Berlin, out of which at least nine were presided by Jewish women.
However, it is noteworthy to mention that though people from the higher ranks of society came to visit Rahel’s gatherings, there was the absence of reciprocity as she was not invited into their homes also. Rahel was not regarded as being part of the high society. Being a Jew, she was not accepted in the homes of the highborn hosts that frequented her house.
As compared to the salons in Paris which had a political orientation, the Berlin salons represented a social institution, held by the aristocracy and high bourgeoisie, whereas the Berlin ones were not as significant, but rather more modest, and led by women from the margins of society.
These facts show how Jewish women who were assimilated in the German culture sought to stop being outsiders and to integrate the ideas of Enlightenment into the reality of their lives. Women could only achieve equality in terms of education like men, but could not ascend the social ladder on their own. However, there was an evolving gender ideology and the beginning of a process of social transformation. Rahel was challenging this society and envisioned a more egalitarian thinking as she regarded both men and women to be morally responsible for improving the future of humanity.
She stressed sociability “as the essence and point of departure of all that is moral” (43). She viewed the individual as morally responsible for the wellbeing of the others. She believed an individual’s happiness depends on engaging in social justice. She foresaw that marginalized groups should be integrated in a more egalitarian society, and that the social ideology of her society contributed to keeping the rigid class structure in place. The Berlin salons promoted social equality and integration as a model for change. Rahel’s open house also served as a milieu for literary criticism.
Rahel also engaged in epistolary writing. There was a long tradition of women engaging in this activity. A woman’s education included learning the art of letter writing. Receiving a letter was a significant moment, as the letter was read not only by the person to whom it was addressed to, but also by other family members, friends, and acquaintances. This eventually gave rise to the epistolary novel. For Rahel, letter writing constituted a revered form of expression, though she preferred to be anonymous so she would not be singled out as a Jewish woman.
In a world that circumscribed Rachel as a woman and a Jew, Rachel created through her own independent means a social environment where she could bring people together without being circumscribed by their social class, ethnicity and gender. This was her attempt to challenge her society to incorporate the ideas of the Enlightenment further through tolerance and humanistic thinking at a deeper level in spite of the fact that society at large was elitist and insisted on maintaining social and gender divisions.
In Tewarson’s piece “Rachel Levin Varnhagen: Chapter I Beginnings”, Rahel’s life is described in detail. She grew up in Berlin along with 4 other siblings. During this time period, King Frederic William invited wealthy Jews from Vienna in 1670 to settle in Berlin. The Jewish community of Berlin suffered great loss after the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) and so the King needed Jews to come in and settle in Berlin so they would pay taxes to him. The Jews coming from Vienna were merchants who were accused of having poisoned the wells because the Christian merchants wanted to get rid of the competition. The Jews of Berlin represented 2% of the Jewish population in Prussia. Only wealthy Jews were allowed in Berlin. Overall, the Jewish community had 4 classes: the middle class, about 8%, of artisans, rabbis, and community officials, then 40% petty tradesmen, then 20% household servants and peddlers, and 30% beggars and vagabonds. The wealthy Jews received letters of Protection from the King and they were granted privileges according to their status.
However, they had to pay taxes, they had no citizenship, and they were barred from holding most occupations, such as all trades, farming, and civil service. Only the eldest son and with some exception the second son could inherit the right to live in Berlin if they had enough money, however daughters were excluded from this category.
The policies towards the Jews were determined by the political and economic interests of the Kings who were interested in collecting taxes for wars of conquest. The Edict of 1750 narrowed the occupations of the Jews mainly to the field of banking. There were challenging times for the Jewish community. Most Jews were working as merchants, in money lending and banking jobs which increased their contact with the outside world. In Jewish homes, there were social gatherings in which Jews met with artisans and aristocracy. Rahel learned from these social gatherings taking place in her own home the art of conversation and how to be a hostess. She grew up in a patriarchal family, where her father was the dominant figure. In this milieu, she developed a talent for understanding human nature, and how to have empathy towards others. She had an intelligent and quick-witted nature.
Due to the limited role that society expected of women during her day, Rahel was excluded from all education institutions and professions. As the ideas of the Jewish haskahlah were spreading in the Jewish community, Jewish thinking became more secular and more receptive towards German culture. Through social circles, theater, philosophy, and literature both Jews and Christians could interact and exchange ideas. The Jews became interested in modern thought. Moses Mendehelsohn was one of the pioneering scholars, who came to Berlin and learned German, Latin, mathematics, music, wrote his own philosophical treaties and literary criticism, and translated the Hebrew Bible to German, as one of the first attempts which enabled other Jews to learn German and to acculturate. In the next couple of generations, the young Jews began pursuing a modern education and became increasingly acculturated in the surrounding German society. However as Jews they had a hard time finding jobs. However, girls did not receive a formal education. Their education included household chores, sewing, reading, writing, through personal tutors and from their male siblings.
Rahel was admired for her original thoughts and erudition. Rahel’s father broke with Jewish tradition and practice, and no longer went to synagogue, while her mother was more traditional. Rahel’s father encouraged her daughter to get a modern education. Rahel learned Yiddish, German, French, took music, and piano lessons, she was interested in composition, social dance, learned sewing, embroidery, and household chores. The education of Jewish girls was superior to that of the girls of the Gentile bourgeoisie, and similar to that of aristocratic girls. Rahel adopted the ideas of the Enlightenment and Humanism. She was much more immersed in German culture than her predecessors. As such, she became known for being a salonniere and an epistolary writer. She learned Italian, English, German, and French, violin and composition lessons. Her theory of education emphasized active participation and practical application (31), in order to help children find their talent, to learn the languages from the respective countries where they’re spoken, and to help them acquire a trade. She thought children need to expand their knowledge, guided by their own free will without interference from the part of the teacher except to guide them. Her approach sounds like the approach of the methods applied in Montessori education. However, she did not also envision female education. She criticized the system of learning by rote and learning facts without critical thinking. She emphasized the ethical and social education, and she stressed “the evolution of the self through effort, experience, love and wisdom” (32). She related that her self-education, not going through the system, carried with it certain weaknesses such as insecurity, shyness, no systematic thinking, though she possessed intellectual independence and originality. Her role as a hostess and writers of epistles proved to be more of a profession for her. The education of Jewish women freed them from the narrow lives their mothers were subjected to. Rahel embraced Jewish and Enlightenment thinking on the highest level.
There were also limitations that she had to withstand, from being a woman and a Jew. She established for herself a famous salon and had an extensive network of correspondences. However, throughout her life, she viewed her identity as a Jew as a stigma. Moreover, she tried to rise above the limitations imposed on her by her society. She sought to integrate herself as an assimilated Jew and to seek integration for the marginalized groups. She assumed a circle of friends where she was committed to egalitarian social relations. Moreover, in her “open house” or “society” she stressed the importance of sociability which would enable more egalitarian human relationships, as this contained the potential for social change. The art of conversation was stressed in her circle. She envisioned a “refined society” in which there would be people of mixed social background, different interests and philosophical leanings, yet intellectual, sophisticated, and tolerant. She was also criticized for her openness towards tolerance, and lack of discrimination in choosing the people in her society. She disregarded social hierarchies. Her circle was a mixed society with both men and women, Christians, Jews, noblemen, poets, actors, singers, theater folk (37), where social rank was not emphasized, however, intelligence, character, and talent was. There were other “open houses” in Berlin, out of which at least nine were presided by Jewish women.
However, it is noteworthy to mention that though people from the higher ranks of society came to visit Rahel’s gatherings, there was the absence of reciprocity as she was not invited into their homes also. Rahel was not regarded as being part of the high society. Being a Jew, she was not accepted in the homes of the highborn hosts that frequented her house.
As compared to the salons in Paris which had a political orientation, the Berlin salons represented a social institution, held by the aristocracy and high bourgeoisie, whereas the Berlin ones were not as significant, but rather more modest, and led by women from the margins of society.
These facts show how Jewish women who were assimilated in the German culture sought to stop being outsiders and to integrate the ideas of Enlightenment into the reality of their lives. Women could only achieve equality in terms of education like men, but could not ascend the social ladder on their own. However, there was an evolving gender ideology and the beginning of a process of social transformation. Rahel was challenging this society and envisioned a more egalitarian thinking as she regarded both men and women to be morally responsible for improving the future of humanity.
She stressed sociability “as the essence and point of departure of all that is moral” (43). She viewed the individual as morally responsible for the wellbeing of the others. She believed an individual’s happiness depends on engaging in social justice. She foresaw that marginalized groups should be integrated in a more egalitarian society, and that the social ideology of her society contributed to keeping the rigid class structure in place. The Berlin salons promoted social equality and integration as a model for change. Rahel’s open house also served as a milieu for literary criticism.
Rahel also engaged in epistolary writing. There was a long tradition of women engaging in this activity. A woman’s education included learning the art of letter writing. Receiving a letter was a significant moment, as the letter was read not only by the person to whom it was addressed to, but also by other family members, friends, and acquaintances. This eventually gave rise to the epistolary novel. For Rahel, letter writing constituted a revered form of expression, though she preferred to be anonymous so she would not be singled out as a Jewish woman.
In a world that circumscribed Rachel as a woman and a Jew, Rachel created through her own independent means a social environment where she could bring people together without being circumscribed by their social class, ethnicity and gender. This was her attempt to challenge her society to incorporate the ideas of the Enlightenment further through tolerance and humanistic thinking at a deeper level in spite of the fact that society at large was elitist and insisted on maintaining social and gender divisions.
Isaac Babel: Karl Yankel and Eugenia Semyonovna Ginzburg: Journey into the Whirlwind
Isaac Babel describes in "Karl Yankel" a trial in which a Jewish communist father sues his mother in law for circumcising in secret his son Karl Yankel. Babel describes the Jewish life in the Soviet Union and the question of what happens to the traditional life in the shtetl when it clashes with the expectations of communism.
The story opens with a depiction of a smithy living in the Peresyp section of Odessa. The owner was Yoyna Brutman. The narrator remarks that once Yoyna was drunk, “the soul of the Odessa Jew came to life”. The blacksmith had three sons and his wife went to a Hassidic synagogue on Friday evening and Saturday morning. The wife was very religious but the blacksmith did not interfere with her religiosity. Two of the sons joined the partisans. One of them was killed, and the other joined the Red Cossack Division. They were the first of a company of Jewish fighters. The third son became a blacksmith. The wife of the blacksmith wanted a grandson to tell him Hassidic tales to. She reflects traditional Jewish values. She got a grandson from Polya the younger daughter who married Ovsey Belotzerkvsky, a communist Jew who was alienated from his heritage. Ovsey sued his mother in law, Brana Brutman because she had circumcised his son.
The grandmother had taken the grandson to a surgeon—a mohel, called Naftula Gerchik, and the baby was circumcised. The narrator remarks that since the father was interested in the communist party, the Odessa prosecuting attorney turned this issue into a public case, where the mohel and the grandmother were put on trial in front of an audience. The mohel is accused of draining the blood from the bris with his own lips rather than through a glass tube.
The case is described in humoristic and satirical terms. The mohel is asked if he believes in G-d. And he is accused of exposing 10,000 babies to infection. In reply, the mohel tells the prosecuting attorney than he himself had a bris from him because his father used him as a mohel for his bris and he turned out fine. Then the baby’s father Belotzerkovsky is put to testify in the role of the plaintiff. His job entails stockpiling cotton seeds. He explains that therefore he was away and could not come until two weeks later after the birth of his son. He discovered the baby with a neighbor, Citinenness Harchenk. The word choice “citizenness” is specific word choice used by the communists, the way in which people were to address each other. The father describes that the neighbor was “rocking the cradle” and singing, which the father describes as “cultural backwardedness”. He was surprised to hear that the boy is called “Yasha” when he wanted to name the boy Karl in honor of Karl Marx. He discovered that his son was circumcised. The prosecution then brought the mother of the child to the stand who testified that her mother is very religious and unhappy her sons were unbelievers, she wanted her grandsons to be Jews. She says that in the grandmother’s town “women wear wigs to this very day”. The narrator makes a humorous note that the former attorney in law Samuel Lining would be head of the Sanhedrin if the Sanhedrin still existed. He is described to have learned Russian at 25 years old and at 40 he is “writing appeals to the Senate that were no different from Talmudic treaties”. He is depicted to generate laughter “his teeth fell out, he caught them with his lower lip and put them in place again” (p. 110). Polina the mother testified she was not at home, but at the doctor when this happened. Meantime, the grandmother screamed at the mother she has to nurse the baby. In the “Red Litle Cover”, a reading room with communist literature in the factory, the baby is being nursed next to Lenin’s portrait by a working woman. A 17 year old girl with a red handkerchief comments that he will grow up to be a soldier. The red color is the color of the communist party. In the audience, the narrator remarks that there were Galician zaddisk from Warsaw, where the papers reported that the Jewish religion is on trial.
The trial brings forth characters that represent traditional values and characters that represent the changes and expectations of the Communist party, who have incorporated communism to their own life to the point that they are like converts to the communist ideology and reject their parents’ traditions. In an ironic and nostalgic way, the narrator concludes that Karl Yankel will grow up to be more “happy” than him because of much attention he is receiving and that “no one had fought over me as they were fighting over him” (p. 114).
In Eugenia Semyonovna Ginzburg’s Journey into the Whirlwind, the narrator Genia depicsts life under communist Russia and how a misfortune has hit a family that the wife and mother of a Communist is accused of not being communist enough and the implications that this takes for her family and for herself. She does not to run away because she considered herself a true communist and she seeks to defend herself in order to exonerate herself. At the end of the story, she ends up in jail with the regret she did not realize what the future was going to bring.
This piece carries with it a satirical tone. It begins with the phrase “There’s no one so silly as a clever man”. The author of this description is the mother in law of the narrator which seems to reflect the generation before communism emerged, which emerges as critical of the way people live under communism and the expectations that the Communist party has of their allegiance. The narrator describes the mother in law as a “simple, illiterate peasant woman born in the day of serfdom, was of a deeply philosophical cast of mind and had a remarkable power of hitting the nail on the head when she talked about the problems of life…was always coming out with quaint proverbs and sayings” (p.20). The narrator recounts how she was forbidden to teach. The voice of the mother in law advising Genia to leave to their old village, a place where the communists would not search for her. The mother in law has a very well defined grasp of reality, whereas the narrator wants to do the right thing and defend herself as the innocent person she is, yet she fails to do so because in her society this becomes the “silliness of the clever man”. The narrator goes to the Control Commission of the Communist Party to prove her innocence, though this is unsuccessful. The path she takes and the manner in which she is accused like many others is reflective of how intellectual and well-intended people became “victims of the witch hunt”, of the extremist views of the communist ideology through accusations that included “lack of vigilance”, “rotten liberalism”, and “objectively gravitating”. The narrator defines her approach to defend herself “by fervent protestations of innocence and loyalty, vainly made to sadists, or officials who were themselves bewildered by the fantastic course of events and terrified for their own skins—was the most absurd of any I could have chosen” (p.24).
The narrator points out how in 1937 the term “enemy of the people” came into use. She describes other cases of how intellectual people were accused of failing to meet the standards of the communists and then they were harshly punished. The psychological torment that one had to endure when put to defend oneself makes the narrator think of suicide. Not much later she is expelled from the Communist party, they take away her Card, and soon after she is arrested. She also describes how the Communist party made changes in their doctrine and her family had to burn books which had been considered acceptable not long before.
During her last walk outside with her husband she defines herself as a “state criminal”. Her husband was in the Communist party and he was advised to “dissociate” himself of his wife. Yet though he seemed to believe in the doctrine of the communists, the narrator comments that her husband’s ultimate reaction in regards to this was to “yield to heresy”, as he too “was sure of the innocence of many of those who had been arrested as enemies” (p.46). The narrator describes in a nostalgic and satirical way her husband’s expression when she last saw him “he had the haunted look of a baited animal, of a harried and exhausted human being—it was a look I was to see again and again, there”. She was sent to a “punishment cell”. While in jail, she wondered if her “disappearance from life meant nothing to anyone?” She celebrates the New Year in the cell with hope of better times and with the traditional saying “Next Year in Jerusalem”. Yet, her remarks are bittersweet and nostalgic as she remarks that when saying this greeting, she didn’t know there would be 17 harsh years ahead that she spent locked up, away from her former existence.
The story opens with a depiction of a smithy living in the Peresyp section of Odessa. The owner was Yoyna Brutman. The narrator remarks that once Yoyna was drunk, “the soul of the Odessa Jew came to life”. The blacksmith had three sons and his wife went to a Hassidic synagogue on Friday evening and Saturday morning. The wife was very religious but the blacksmith did not interfere with her religiosity. Two of the sons joined the partisans. One of them was killed, and the other joined the Red Cossack Division. They were the first of a company of Jewish fighters. The third son became a blacksmith. The wife of the blacksmith wanted a grandson to tell him Hassidic tales to. She reflects traditional Jewish values. She got a grandson from Polya the younger daughter who married Ovsey Belotzerkvsky, a communist Jew who was alienated from his heritage. Ovsey sued his mother in law, Brana Brutman because she had circumcised his son.
The grandmother had taken the grandson to a surgeon—a mohel, called Naftula Gerchik, and the baby was circumcised. The narrator remarks that since the father was interested in the communist party, the Odessa prosecuting attorney turned this issue into a public case, where the mohel and the grandmother were put on trial in front of an audience. The mohel is accused of draining the blood from the bris with his own lips rather than through a glass tube.
The case is described in humoristic and satirical terms. The mohel is asked if he believes in G-d. And he is accused of exposing 10,000 babies to infection. In reply, the mohel tells the prosecuting attorney than he himself had a bris from him because his father used him as a mohel for his bris and he turned out fine. Then the baby’s father Belotzerkovsky is put to testify in the role of the plaintiff. His job entails stockpiling cotton seeds. He explains that therefore he was away and could not come until two weeks later after the birth of his son. He discovered the baby with a neighbor, Citinenness Harchenk. The word choice “citizenness” is specific word choice used by the communists, the way in which people were to address each other. The father describes that the neighbor was “rocking the cradle” and singing, which the father describes as “cultural backwardedness”. He was surprised to hear that the boy is called “Yasha” when he wanted to name the boy Karl in honor of Karl Marx. He discovered that his son was circumcised. The prosecution then brought the mother of the child to the stand who testified that her mother is very religious and unhappy her sons were unbelievers, she wanted her grandsons to be Jews. She says that in the grandmother’s town “women wear wigs to this very day”. The narrator makes a humorous note that the former attorney in law Samuel Lining would be head of the Sanhedrin if the Sanhedrin still existed. He is described to have learned Russian at 25 years old and at 40 he is “writing appeals to the Senate that were no different from Talmudic treaties”. He is depicted to generate laughter “his teeth fell out, he caught them with his lower lip and put them in place again” (p. 110). Polina the mother testified she was not at home, but at the doctor when this happened. Meantime, the grandmother screamed at the mother she has to nurse the baby. In the “Red Litle Cover”, a reading room with communist literature in the factory, the baby is being nursed next to Lenin’s portrait by a working woman. A 17 year old girl with a red handkerchief comments that he will grow up to be a soldier. The red color is the color of the communist party. In the audience, the narrator remarks that there were Galician zaddisk from Warsaw, where the papers reported that the Jewish religion is on trial.
The trial brings forth characters that represent traditional values and characters that represent the changes and expectations of the Communist party, who have incorporated communism to their own life to the point that they are like converts to the communist ideology and reject their parents’ traditions. In an ironic and nostalgic way, the narrator concludes that Karl Yankel will grow up to be more “happy” than him because of much attention he is receiving and that “no one had fought over me as they were fighting over him” (p. 114).
In Eugenia Semyonovna Ginzburg’s Journey into the Whirlwind, the narrator Genia depicsts life under communist Russia and how a misfortune has hit a family that the wife and mother of a Communist is accused of not being communist enough and the implications that this takes for her family and for herself. She does not to run away because she considered herself a true communist and she seeks to defend herself in order to exonerate herself. At the end of the story, she ends up in jail with the regret she did not realize what the future was going to bring.
This piece carries with it a satirical tone. It begins with the phrase “There’s no one so silly as a clever man”. The author of this description is the mother in law of the narrator which seems to reflect the generation before communism emerged, which emerges as critical of the way people live under communism and the expectations that the Communist party has of their allegiance. The narrator describes the mother in law as a “simple, illiterate peasant woman born in the day of serfdom, was of a deeply philosophical cast of mind and had a remarkable power of hitting the nail on the head when she talked about the problems of life…was always coming out with quaint proverbs and sayings” (p.20). The narrator recounts how she was forbidden to teach. The voice of the mother in law advising Genia to leave to their old village, a place where the communists would not search for her. The mother in law has a very well defined grasp of reality, whereas the narrator wants to do the right thing and defend herself as the innocent person she is, yet she fails to do so because in her society this becomes the “silliness of the clever man”. The narrator goes to the Control Commission of the Communist Party to prove her innocence, though this is unsuccessful. The path she takes and the manner in which she is accused like many others is reflective of how intellectual and well-intended people became “victims of the witch hunt”, of the extremist views of the communist ideology through accusations that included “lack of vigilance”, “rotten liberalism”, and “objectively gravitating”. The narrator defines her approach to defend herself “by fervent protestations of innocence and loyalty, vainly made to sadists, or officials who were themselves bewildered by the fantastic course of events and terrified for their own skins—was the most absurd of any I could have chosen” (p.24).
The narrator points out how in 1937 the term “enemy of the people” came into use. She describes other cases of how intellectual people were accused of failing to meet the standards of the communists and then they were harshly punished. The psychological torment that one had to endure when put to defend oneself makes the narrator think of suicide. Not much later she is expelled from the Communist party, they take away her Card, and soon after she is arrested. She also describes how the Communist party made changes in their doctrine and her family had to burn books which had been considered acceptable not long before.
During her last walk outside with her husband she defines herself as a “state criminal”. Her husband was in the Communist party and he was advised to “dissociate” himself of his wife. Yet though he seemed to believe in the doctrine of the communists, the narrator comments that her husband’s ultimate reaction in regards to this was to “yield to heresy”, as he too “was sure of the innocence of many of those who had been arrested as enemies” (p.46). The narrator describes in a nostalgic and satirical way her husband’s expression when she last saw him “he had the haunted look of a baited animal, of a harried and exhausted human being—it was a look I was to see again and again, there”. She was sent to a “punishment cell”. While in jail, she wondered if her “disappearance from life meant nothing to anyone?” She celebrates the New Year in the cell with hope of better times and with the traditional saying “Next Year in Jerusalem”. Yet, her remarks are bittersweet and nostalgic as she remarks that when saying this greeting, she didn’t know there would be 17 harsh years ahead that she spent locked up, away from her former existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)