Shoes: An Arab Form of Protest???

More than 20,000 demonstrators marched against the Israeli air campaign in Paris and more than 10,000 in London, where some threw shoes at the prime minister’s residence, a particularly Arab form of protest that has gained worldwide currency since an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at President Bush last month in Baghdad.

Source: New York Times, January 3rd 2009

I was disturbed when I read this, and when I shared it with my Lebanese friend Z, she reminded me of this article she came across, about a young Lebanese boy who got upset when his teacher punished him for not doing his homework, so he took his shoe off and threw it at her. (I wonder if he thought of himself as some oppressed hero after he got expelled from school!)

Then, today, I received an email about a series of events taking place in New York in solidarity with Gaza, and the first event on the list said:

Stand with Gaza: Shoes to Bloomberg (Rally and Shoe In Against Bloomberg)
Presented by the Break the Siege Coalition

When: Wednesday January 7th, 4:30 PM
Where: City Hall

** Bring Old Shoes, the Smellier the better!

Seriously now, I find it very disturbing that people have been inspired by Muntazer Zubaidi to turn shoe tossing into some common form of protest. Generally, the issue of how people express themselves at demonstrations has been on my mind for a while, but I was withholding my thoughts because I felt perhaps it's not the time to be critical. Then a combination of the shoe email, a series of online discussions with a wise friend in Amman, and Naseem's brilliant post today inspired me to just hit the keyboard.

To be fair, I didn't go to that Shoes to Bloomberg protest but my friend who was there told me that people ended up not throwing shoes, and that the spirit of it was just protesting the Mayor's recent stand on the issue.

I only went to one of the protests that took place in New York. It was in front of the Israeli UN mission; with a pro-Palestinian crowd on one side of the street (perhaps around 1000 people), and a smaller pro-Israeli crowd on the other. It was interesting to see how much media coverage there was; so many SLRs, television cameras and audio recorders. I saw CNN there, as well as some other local stations. But then, I found it very disappointing that most of the messages held and shouted by the crowd were overly emotional and totally lacking in substance. Not only that, at some point they started shouting in Arabic. And all those New Yorkers passing by or standing and looking at the protest out of curiosity had no clue what was being said. I felt it was a shame; to have media coverage and a chance to get a meaningful message across and then not use it well.

I have to admit I'm a bit conflicted about the notion of "sending a message" and what kind of difference it makes. Part of me likes to think it does - I would like to believe that when people collectively express a strong opinion, this impacts policy decisions or steps taken by governments and leaders - at least in some parts of the world. And while protests are emotional by nature, I really wish we could start seeing protests in the Arab world that are more rational and that have well-thought out messages, where people know what they want and how they propose to get it rather than blind reactions.

And while we're at it, I hope our Parliament would observe moments of silence over something other than support for a shoe-tossing journalist.

Sigh.

American Media’s Coverage of Gaza

The New York Times can often argue that no matter how they cover the Arab-Israeli conflict, people on both sides will accuse them of bias. But no matter how rational, unemotional, and detached I try to be, it’s just been impossible not to get infuriated by their coverage of what’s happening in Gaza.

Take the photo slide-shows on their website. In the multimedia section, there are three or four slideshows, and each has about 10 photos. Now I understand that they want to show both sides of the conflict and that includes photos from the rocket attacks on south Israel and the victims of those rockets. But when they show two photos of distraught Palestinian civilians versus two photos of distraught Israeli civilians, this is not balanced coverage given the proportions of what is happening on the ground. The rest of the photos are often showing smoke over Gaza from a far distance, where you don’t really see the impact of what is happening.

The Washington Post has been significantly different. Their photo gallery of the situation has around 52 photos, with a note from the editor at the beginning warning of the violent nature of some of the images. It shows the tragic situation is in Gaza’s hospitals, where the wounded are being treated on the floors. It shows numbers of dead Palestinian children, and destroyed homes and mosques. There are images from both sides, but it just seems more comprehensive and reflective of the massive humanitarian crisis and “disproportionate” violence and bloodshed.

The LA Times has a photo gallery of 36 photos, 12 of which show grieving Israelis in south Israel where Hamas rockets are being fired, versus two or three photos of grieving or wounded Palestinians.

NPR has a slideshow of ten photos, but mostly showing smoke from a distance, or demonstrations. This could be attributed to the fact that journalists have not been allowed to enter Gaza, but then again, I think there are different ways to get closer images. NPR talk to their reporter on the border and he gives an idea of the situation as he sees it.

The New York Post has a story about Mayor Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, who paid a one-day visit to Israel to express support and solidarity with the Israelis. Some of the comments on this news story were interesting, where New Yorkers expressed anger over Bloomberg sticking his nose where it does not belong and wasting tax payers money on trips he has no business making.

Editor and Publisher, the American Journal which covers the newspaper industry, had a piece about the American media’s one-sided coverage of the conflict, particularly critical of the New York Times.

The Indypendent, which defines itself as the newspaper of the independent nyc center, published a first-person account from Cynthia McKinney, the former Georgia congresswoman who had been on the SS Dignity, a ship she and 15 other activists were traveling in from Cyprus to Gaza to deliver humanitarian supplies before they were intercepted and rammed by Israeli patrol boats.

The Indypendent also covered pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the city, as did the New York Times. Here’s an excerpt from the Times’ article:

Anger over the Israeli assault on Gaza spilled into Times Square on Saturday, as hundreds of protesters condemned the attacks in a demonstration that stretched four blocks and clogged much of the city’s central tourist district for several hours.

Note: When four blocks around Times Square are covered by protestors, that does not mean “hundreds”, that is more like thousands. Of course, it can be argued that there’s no factual error, because hundreds can mean five thousand, but it’s obviously an editorial choice that downplays the numbers.



Independent media in the US has been relatively more critical of Israel’s “all-out war” in Gaza than mainstream media – with lots of analysis and commentary arguing against it. A couple more links if you’re interested:

- The Huffington Post linked to a commentary in the Haaretz – Israel’s left-wing paper – by Gideon Levy, titled: And there lie the bodies.

- Chris Hedges, who covered the Mideast for The New York Times for seven years, writes a column on Truthdig.com titled “Party to Murder”.

- CNN’s citizen journalism website iReport has been publishing videos and images from Gaza, and from protests in the US and other countries. Many of the slideshows are preceded by a “discretion advised” note.



So now after I spent two hours putting this post together, I can’t help but wonder how media coverage and public opinion affect the course of a war like this.
Do they?

It’s all very depressing.

NYT: Jordanian Students Rebel, Embracing Conservative Islam

As part of its series on youth and Islam in the Arab world - Generation Faithful , the New York Times yesterday published a story on how Jordanian university students are embracing conservative Islam and becoming politically active with the Islamic movement.

Taking the University of Jordan as a microcosm for the general political climax in the country (which I think it is), the article looks at students who become politically active with the Islamic movement on campus, and the most recent student council elections.

A Mexican friend of mine sent me a comment on the article asking “do you think it’s accurate?”

I studied at UJ for four and a half years, and I was involved in or close to student council elections in one way or another during that time. Yes, the Islamic movement on campus is very organized and knows how to recruit students. Yes, increasing numbers of students either become active with the movement or at least feel sympathetic and supportive towards it. It was more obvious in certain departments than others - and the engineering school was one of those places where you see the growth of the movement. You sense this solidarity and brotherhood between members. It was almost like fraternities and sororities. They put up fliers warning girls who are uncovered of their terrible destiny. They put up posters in support of Iraq and Palestine. They also set up websites that help students in different ways, they distributed past exam papers, lecture notes, and other forms of student services.


In terms of ideologies, I couldn’t disagree more with the Islamic movement, but it was hard not to respect their level of organization and commitment. And in terms of student politics, the alternative was definitely not pretty. Thanks to stifling of active politics on campus, and rules like appointing half the student council members (which was finally changed this year), tribalism grew stronger, and for years, students were (and still are) voting based on where the candidate was originally from and what their religion was (which mirrors the way it is in our country’s parliament, obviously). But it's not either/or. You have a large number of students who are somewhat secular and who dislike both trends, but instead of doing something about it they just stay away from politics and organized student activity all together. OR, they channel their energy and creativity into non-political activities like general community service, entrepreneurship, and things like skill-building extra-curricular courses; things they feel would look good on their resume and improve their career prospects.

I was a bit disappointed with the New York Times article though. As a reader, and someone who is now away from Jordan and missing out on my once-insider perspectives, the article left me with unanswered questions that I thought were important. We knew the Islamic candidate that the story focused on lost, but how did the Islamists do in general in the first elections since the law changed? How many seats in total did they win? How many candidates did they have?

The article said that even though all the council members are now elected as opposed to the university administration appointing half, there are still rules in place that would, again, make it nearly impossible for the Islamist bloc to have control. I’m very curious what those rules in question are. In some ways, the article had more general interpretations than specifics.

I’m probably repeating the same thoughts I wrote three years ago on this blog, so I might as well just leave you with those if you’re interested:

Tell me where you’re from, I’ll tell you who to vote for
Election-mania!
Reflections on University Protests


On a tangential note, I think the Times has been doing a very good job with the Generation Faithful series. I found their article from Abu Dhabi a few days ago about Arab women who move to the gulf and become air stewardesses particularly interesting.

Photos from the NYC Halloween Parade

One of New York's "essentials" is the annual Village Halloween Parade; thousands of people in costumes walk across 6th Avenue and thousands more line-up the sidewalks to watch. Bands play music everywhere, with dancers, artists, and an explosion of color and creativity. The most recurrent costume this year was the Joker from Dark Knight, and there was a number of Sarah Palins. Here some photos I took there last week - a bit blurry, but I hope they still reflect the atmosphere.

Random Thoughts from the Morning After

The New York Times sold out on every newsstand in the neighborhood this morning. Luckily I was up and out on the street early, and I'm holding on to my copy :)

I’m so happy I got to witness Obama’s victory in Harlem last night. I was in Time Square amidst thousands of people watching the results coming from different states, and then when Obama was declared the winner, and as more crowds took to the streets - my friends and I hopped on a train and headed to Adam Clayton Powell boulevard in Harlem and got there in time to watch Obama’s speech.

In Time Square, a white woman rushed to a black man who was selling Obama buttons and other Obamabilia, and shook his hands with excitement saying: “I’m 64 years old and today I voted for the first time in my life.”

On the subway from Time Square to Harlem, a hard-core Obama supporter with Obama buttons all over her jacket was sharing her happiness with all those sitting around her. A young black woman exclaimed “I’m black and I’m proud.” A drunk young white woman said: “I’m black and I’m proud, and I’m from Chicago... beat that!”

So the button-covered woman responded “No darling - you’re white. But you’re alright.”

One young man started talking about whether or not Obama was “illuminati” and went on about free masons for a while. Another woman went on about how this is a sign of the times... how this is a prophecy fulfilled.

I was there with a Colombian friend and an Indian friend, and the three of us were utterly amused when that drunk white girl started saying “do you know that... in other countries... they have this on the front pages of their newspapers, like, they’re discussing Obama and McCain... like, man, this is a big deal for them... this is like way bigger than we think!”

In Harlem, people were gathered on the streets in front of a big screen listening to every word Obama was saying in his speech. When he finished they all erupted in a euphoria of dancing and singing “Obama! Yes we can!” over and over and over.

Christiane Amanpour described it this morning saying that the sight of the crowds flooding the streets reminded her of what she witnessed in countries in their first-time ever democratic elections.

Here at the Journalism School at Columbia we’ve been covering what the elections were like from New York City, and you can see it all here.

This is a very incoherent post, but I just felt like getting it out there.

More later.