Thursday, November 16, 2006
About Me
-
- Name: Muqtedar Khan
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
Previous Posts
- Simulation – II 12.45 -1:25 The new President of...
- Guidelines for Posting 1. When you sign off, use ...
- The Media Reports The media should file their rep...
- Give us some dirt! C. Rice and other members of ...
- Simulation: Quartet Meeting with Israel and its A...
- Simulation: Quartet Meeting with Arab and Palesti...
- Simulation: Pro-Palestine Group Please post you...
- Simulation: Pro-Israel Group Please post your co...
- Simulation: The Security Council Meeting Please ...
- Hopes for peace as Hamas agrees to truce Agreemen...
12 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
The story of the bulge in the temple foundation wall was a good way of illustrating the persistent stubbornness of both sides, and it was intersting how the explanations they came up with placed the blame elsewhere, while they were insisting to be the ones that fix it.
I was a little bothered by his take on suicide bombing and had to continually restrain myself from jumping up and screaming, a la Sheryl Underwood, something to the effect of 'boi,you are too pretty to be stinking up the stage with that hate speach', but the onesidedness was no more than i had expected. With his tone of voice, that part of the talk made me feel like i was watching the propaganda edition of Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, but at least it got better.
He made a good point that journalist have to go counter to human nature, running towards the scene of an explosion because, like emergency workers, it is their duty to be there so that every tragedy has its own personality, instead of becoming a statistical problem.
I was uncomfortable about a multitude of aspects of Etgar Lefkovits' presentation. His 10 minute synopsis of Israel's history with conflict at the beginning of his presentation was more noticeably biased towards Israel then I would have ever expected of a member of the supposedly "hyper-critical" Israeli media.
A testament to my recently developed ability to accurately identify bias was when I noticed Etgar's careful avoidance of settlements, the occupation, evangelical/American influence on Israeli policy or the Palestinian people in general. Palestinian suicide bombings were simply "part of a rough time for Israel..." a designation to me that would seem to better fit with an especially rough Hurricane season for Florida or the Redskins being 3 and 7 so far. As an 'investigative reporter' I just assumed his job would require him to explore the causes of events like the Palestinian uprising instead of just regurgitating the day's events.
Then again, I surely wouldn't have been this critical before taking this class
I agree, actually. I was a bit embarassed when Etgar began his presentation by what seems to be reading from an Israeli book of propoganda. He didn't take one bit of initiative in speaking of the roots of the Palestinian suicide bombing problem or criticizing the Israeli government at all for the mistakes its made in this past year. I really think many people could have done a better job, and I thought the only thing that really redeamed Etgar was his sense of humor and ability to make the focus on the "battle of the bulge" into an interesting topic. It is hard to find someone to speak at schools who is not bias, because many of these people are promoted by the Israeli government, and so represent the interests of the Israeli government. I will definitely try harder in the future to find more controversial speakers and more who are true to their own opinion rather than one pushed upon them and written like a script.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Of course there was no question that Etgar was promoting Israeli propaganda in his speech, but then again, it came to me as no surprise. I was expecting, sitting there amongst a mostly Jewish audience, that what the speaker would share would be promoting the Israeli agenda and perspective. However, his main message sought to present an unbiased interpretation of the underlying conflict between the two sides.
In the first half of his speech he discussed the Palestinian suicide bombings and the process of reporting it. He clearly spoke with a pro Israeli viewpoint. For example, he discussed how quickly and amazingly the Israeli society is able jump back to its feet after an attack - only hours later everything is back to normal. He then goes on to say, "To me it represents the determination of the Israeli society not to let the terrorists win." I found comment to be understandable coming from an Israeli journalist, but perhaps somewhat unfair.
However, Etgar's story in the second half of the speech about the debate over who would fix the infamous bulge on Jerusalem's Temple Mount was unbiased and certainly worthwhile in its illustration of the inherent conflict. He explained how the story of the Battle of the Bulge that he had been reporting throughout the nearly two years it took to fix represents a microcosm of the whole conflict. Something so simple, he explained, becomes impossible because of the breakdown of trust between the two sides.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
i didnt get a chance to go to this lecture...however i came across a very very interesting article from UC Berkeley for my search.
Three Israeli refuseniks delivered a March 11th lecture at Dwinelle Hall called "Why Do We Refuse to Serve in the Occupied Territories? Israeli Voices Against the Occupation." which was sponsored by many groups at UC Berkeley. I think it would be remarkable if you could get people like that here... or maybe Dr. khan can incorporate it into one of his classes.
heres the link:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/
releases/2003/03/13_refuseniks.shtml
Before going to this presentation I was expecting to gain better insight on the situation in Israel. What I got was, like those who said before, Israeli propaganda. Because we have seen that the Israel media is more critical of their government than American media, I though I would hear about both sides of the story a little more. That was definitely not the case. His discussion of the “Battle of the Bulge” had a pessimistic tone to it. How can a peace agreement ever occur between two nations that can’t even agree on a minor maintenance issue without the threat of a catastrophe? What would the threat have to be in order to complete the peace process?
I found Etgar Lefkovits' presentation disgustingly biased and thought that the title of "investigative reporter" was definately a misonmer. He continually paraded the Israeli "struggle" as an entirely noble cause devoid of any real markedly unjustifiable criminal actions. Sure suicide bombings are horrible and put the Israeli citzenry at the tip of their toes, but so is taking away Palestinian lands and blowing up buildings indiscriminately all the while stating "militants" were residing there.
Post a Comment
<< Home