Re: Non-violent Movements and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

In the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and possible other non-violent action across the globe, I believe these movements do not garner the same attention as violent-action due to its lack of appeal to viewers. While my perspective may be a mundane and rather blunt point of view, television networks, magazine and newspaper, and clickbait headlines are in the business of attracting viewers and advertisements. For example, in Washington D.C., peaceful protests parading throughout the city immediately after the inauguration (excluding the Women's March) did not gather nearly as much media coverage compared to their violent counterparts that rioted throughout the evening. 

In the Israel-Palestine conflict, violence in the media has overshadowed non-violence for decades. During the 1947-49 exodus of Palestine, otherwise known as Nakba, violence and death dominated global news headlines while growing non-violent action was virtually ignored. Western media portrays Palestinians as violent terrorists claiming to reclaim their homes through means of violence. However, this is the only way Palestinians are able to convey their message due to virtual media silence in response to their non-violent action. Young Palestinians have grown accustomed to violent action gathering media coverage, creating a vicious cycle that increasingly diminishes the viability of non-violent action. In order for the conflict to ever reach a peaceful outcome, Western media must portray non-violent action as the path to success. Media ignorance of non violence only serves to feed this detrimental cycle.

Re: The Role of Social Media in the Arab Revolts

Social media played an incredibly important role in the Arab Revolts of 2011 because it gave people a platform to share stories, post videos, plan events, and spread news with millions of people at a time and for free.  It essentially gave a voice to the voiceless, because along with the invention of smartphones, social media allowed people to film acts of violence and post them on their accounts, or create groups on Facebook in which they could invite thousands to participate in demonstrations.  It opened up an array of horizons and allowed people from different communities and even different countries to communicate with one another and spread ideas.  

Social media wasn’t necessary for the demonstrations to happen, given the fact that revolution had been occurring for centuries before this invention, however, it did render rebellion easier and more accessible to the general public.  Without Facebook and Twitter as tools, these revolts perhaps would have taken a few more years or even decades to occur.  The anger and frustration with the government was always present, but it was social media that allowed people to publicly voice their opinions and convince other to join in on the demonstrations.  It put pressure on autocratic governments because it was suddenly much harder to hide human right abuses, and it also allowed for political activists, civil society and NGOs around to world to get a glimpse of life in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia and help foster movements that would seek to overthrow tyrannical leaders.

Re: Non-Violent Movements and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

I think one of the reasons (and perhaps the main one) for which non-violent action does not seem to gain the same attention and even response as violent action is the sheer nature of the conflict.  The Israeli military consistently uses violence against the Palestinians, and is so adept at overpowering any sort of rebellion that the Palestinians have no choice but to resort to violent means.  The tactics used in the Civil Rights Movement or under the British Occupation of India can not be replicated in this scenario because of the structure of the conflict.  

Armed resistance groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah are the only forms of defense Palestinians can use to fight back against oppression.  Moreover, the reason nonviolent does not get as much attention is perhaps because the narrative of the conflict portrays Palestinians as violent and terrorists and Israelis as victims and simply wanting to defend their home.  The irony is that the reality is quite the contrary.  In this particular instance,  I don't necessarily disagree with the use of violent means, simply because it seems P,estonians have two options: two fight or to surrender.  They are lacking in basic needs such as food, water and medical care, so they do not have the luxury of boycotting or protesting.  They do not have the means or resources to fight back without force, which is why the conflict has turned to violent.  

Turning movement into political action

This article in the Atlantic is not MENA related, but it is directly related to our discussions on when social movements succeed:

How a Scientist Who Studies Marches Sees the March for Science

Re: The Role of Social Media in the Arab Revolts

Social media has been becoming increasingly important for social movement formation over the last decade as it serves as a platform for civilians to voice their opinions. Although it is increasing in importance, it is not a sole driving factor for the social mobilization of the Arab revolts of 2011. Yes, blogs, facebook, twitter, and the like are helpful in assisting organization, advocation, and informing citizens when there is not open/free media otherwise. However, as Axford discusses, social media was not protected against the government, so it wasn’t always free and open either. Because governments have control over their internet servers they had the ability to track posters and even shut the internet down if they wanted to. Axford states that in Tunisia, anti-regime bloggers were imprisoned and tortured. Facebook, which is commonly thought of as a platform that is used by those trying to mobilize social movement, was not free either. The government would frequently attempt to make fake pages to identify others who were anti the regime. The response of the Tunisian government is not unusual, and takes the power of social media away from the people.

I think that the Arab revolts of 2011 may have been more difficult to mobilize without social media, although I do not think that they would have been impossible. Facebook and Twitter make it easier for citizens to get information out to others, and to organize protests and such, and to share stories from those protests. In terms of the initial mobilization and then keeping that momentum going, social media was a relatively necessary factor in the Arab revolts of 2011, although after that, I think that Facebook and Twitter just became places where the government could capture revoltes.

The Role of Social Media in the Arab Revolts

Much has been written about the Arab revolts of 2011 and one of the central themes has been the potential role of social media. Mainstream media, ever desperate to 'get with the youth,' has been especially active in inventing catchy labels, such as the "Twitter Revolution" or "Facebook Revolution." For this week's structured response, I want you to think critically about this supposed importance of social media in the 2011 revolts. Using what you know about social movement formation, what would have been different without social media? Was social media a necessary factor for the revolutions to happen, or would they have happened regardless of Twitter and Facebook?

Non-violent Movements and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

As you may have already known, non-violent action in the Israel-Palestine conflict does not get even a fraction of the attention violent action does. Why do you think that is? In light of the readings, what do you think needs to happen for a peaceful future in Israel and Palestine?