Sean OBrien Reflection 11/15/2012

I think that the press that Spy gate scandal is getting is absolutely ridiculous. There is so much going on in the world especially with the tensions rising in the Battle between Israel and Hamas. Israel is now officially bombing Hamas. This week they killed the one of the top Hamas leaders and a result Hamas got pissed and has been continuously firing rockets into and around Tel Aviv. I was on Cnn the other day and i could barely find any mention of what was occurring in that particular area. Meanwhile headline news is about the CIA scandal. I mean granted it is a big deal, you have the head of American intelligence agency who may or may have compromised secrets or parts of the US. He is on record as saying that did not happen, but for obvious reasons you dont want to compromise said material. I just cant comprehend the vast amount of coverage. Where I logged onto the BBC and it was the first story that was being presented. I think that the US media is just very polarized and different from the rest of the world.

Reflection 9

It's amazing that more than 60 years after the creation of the State of Israel and the start of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we are still more or less at the same place. The Israelis are still defending their claim to the land and the Palestinians and neighboring Arab allies are still fighting that claim. After 60 years, you would think that diplomacy, grassroots efforts and civil society would have ensured some sort of major change. Apart from the Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat negotiations that has simply not been the case.
What we see now is simply extremism on both sides not unlike, in a way, the extremization of our political parties here in the US where essentially in order to cater more to the base of their support, the parties/countries become more and more radical and reduce severely their ability to compromise which hampers all peace process. In these most recent attacks and rise of the conflict it is much pretty much certain that Israel is in the right even if their answer might be disproportionate. The states of the world and civil society cannot afford to pick a side because of politics or religion. Instead they must ensure that fair and just peace for both sides is achieved so that prosperity and peaceful existence for both sides becomes a reality as opposed to a distant possibility.

Structure Response

Khondker uses the term 'cyber-civil society' in his work. I think this is one of the most significant notes on the arab spring where social media was a factor. In class we continually attribute protests and rallying and uprising to effective civil societies. Not only did social media serve as a means to spread information, but as an organizational tool. The grass-roots efforts of mobilizing people, giving structure and focus to an increasing amount of citizens is the difficult but necessary jobs of such organizations. But, in most cases, civil societies are limited by how many people they can reach. However, if the internet is accessible in a region the expanse of who can be told of such a movement or force is infinite.

Tunisia is a good example of this. When only 28,000 citizens had a Facebook in 2008, protests movements died out. Yet in 2011, with 2 million people on Facebook, the Tunisian protests were much more effective and lasting. I believe that this, if nothing else, is a convincing argument that the arab spring would not be what it was without social media. Whether they would have happened or not without it can't be said for sure, but I am confident that they would not have reached the extent they did without sites like twitter and Facebook.

Egypt is another good example as to why social media played such an important role. When Khaled Said was (ironically) dragged out of a cyber-cafe and beaten to death, the pictures of him afterwards was what inspired people to take a stance. 35,000 people were organized together on a Facebook page, making them more than just lucky protestors but intelligent and focused citizens united for a cause.

While I do believe it possible that uprisings may have happened regardless of social media, the internet expedited the process and almost certainly improved the organization of people and made the protests more effective.

Reflection

This is a continuation from my structured response; as it doesn't answer the actual questions asked I decided I'd post it as a reflection.

I just finished reading Mill's On Liberty for another class, and I think many of his ideas about liberty are relevant to these situations. Mill emphasizes the need for discussion and the need for debate between contending opinions. He believes that fostering discussion allows for the progress of society, to find the truer truths and ensure a successful democracy. The variety of ideas and opinions are necessary to have the most 'true' or effective ideas. Debate allows communication and for people to form understandings of one another and creates a community atmosphere. Such an atmosphere gives power to the people.  Mill explains how action on a community based level is not only effective but allows people to become a part of something greater for themselves, and less dependent on the government.

While Mill was righting at a time that the electrical telegraph was only just invented, his ideas can be related to how people connect through the internet today. Perhaps bigots aimlessly arguing about whatever bugs them about the news that day isn't entirely productive; however people posting about events in blogs and in Facebook is not only an improved method for spread of word through the expansion of freedom of the press, but allows people to peacefully talk about issues and perhaps more importantly, solutions. People can connect with more people, meaning a higher variety of ideas.

The internet itself is a tool for democracy. Sadly, not everyone has complete access to the online world as some governments restrict its usage. I don't think that will be a problem forever, as the UN has established access to the internet something like a right. Regardless of whether social media is actually used to plan a protest, allowing people to establish a network of diverse people and diverse ideas can only aid societies' progression towards democracy and liberty.

Thursday November 14, 2012 Sean OBrien

Social Media as it pertains to Twitter and Facebook will be an ever expanding source in revolutions to come. I think that it would of been a lot harder to organize the Egyptian people into the Flash mob that occurred in Tahir Square.  I think that when people saw on Facebook that their was a mass of people and there were Safety in numbers. Like the documentary that we watched, one the Egyptian women described that people would see pictures of huge crowds and know that everything was alright.
I think this is also important because social media is commercialized and is usually not controlled by the State. Now there are places like North Korea that social media and other media sources are more restricted which I would imagine it would be considerably harder to receive.
Returning back to the middle east I think that Syria is a very similar case to that of Egypt. I have looked online and I have seen video coming out of Syria. Granted everything you see and hear on the internet is not necessarily true. We know that there is obviously and armed conflict and that helps to get that info out. I think that before too there was this assumption that you needed a leader, a single person to unite them(Being the rebels or revolutionists) ie Castro in the Cuban revolution. So I think that there is this new norm out there regarding social media. I think that Social Media is that Leader, the thing that brings people together and leads them. Not necessarily a cause per say but more of unifying factor. I think that Social media is so embedded in our generation that it will be hard for it not to be important in the future. Especially in something that is so important as a nations future during a revolution.

Structured Response #7

Magda Borgarelli

When looking at revolutions such as the ones that occurred in Egypt and Iran, one can’t help but notice the great role that social media tools, such as Facebook and Twitter, have played in spreading ideas.  Because of them, people were able to better coordinate their efforts in order to be more effective.  They are also the reasons why the world began to pay more attention to these movements.  Therefore, without the social media, videos in which the Iranian police was beating the demonstrators would not have become news in other nations, which in turn would not have been felt compelled to send aid or support the cause as much as they would have done without seeing them.  It can be argued that things like Twitter and Facebook showed those who were involved in the revolutions that they were not alone, that they had support not only internationally, but also locally.  Therefore, following that line of thought, without the social media to back them up, protestors would have simply given up their cause in the belief that they did not have a chance against the system.  However, that did not happen.

In fact, social media was AN important factor in the revolutions, not THE only factor.  If, for example, we look at similar movements in a near past where Facebook and Twitter did not exist, we can still see regimes be toppled and social reform being carried on.  Serbia was able to become democratic because its people took to the streets, and at that time, no one had Facebook or Twitter, and there was little international coverage of the Otpor.  What can be argued, though, is maybe the speed at which it gained its goals.  Whereas the revolution in Egypt took about a year, the one in Serbia took about two.  However, both movements reached what they set to achieve, with or without Facebook and Twitter.  Revolutions are about the people and whether or not they are willing to make sacrifices for a certain cause.  Social media only plays a supporting part.

reflection 9

Reflection 9

            Over some days contemplation of the documentary on President Obama’s 2008 election and grass roots focus I was trying to find some recent major grass roots movement in the MENA region and I think I have found it.

            Before I go into too much detail and just start rambling on and on about what I think is some hitherto important event in the region I would like to talk a little bit more about the 2008 election and another presidents campaign efforts. In 1963 another underdog candidate Named John F. Kennedy won an election through use of grass roots organizing. I come from/live right across from a relatively small town in Oregon called the Dalles, or Le Dalles, if you prefer. Mr. Kennedy during the Oregon primary visited this small town and many others throughout the region not for some PR stunt but to discuss the election with the people of these small towns and to try and build a base in the small grass roots communities of the area just as President Obama has done in the last two elections, here is a sample from  Kennedy’s speech in Oregon; “You all know what brings me here to this state: I am a candidate in your primary for President of the United States. And I would like to take this opportunity to talk with you - not about my own candidacy, but about that Presidential primary, how important it is and how important your individual vote will be. For I strongly urge every citizen of this state - Republicans, Democrats or Independents - whomever they may support - to go to the polls this spring and cast that all-important vote”(JFKLobrary.org). In his speech it was very similar to the things Obama said if not damn near identical, “It isn’t about me it’s about voting no matter who you support” What both men are doing is giving a very well designed sales pitch, where  you say “hey this guy isn’t trying to sale me something or dupe me” and it puts you at ease to listen to the message to come; but that is neither here nor there, regardless the two presidential candidates turned president did an excellent job at stirring up the bottom, focusing on the grass roots effort, focusing on the people who will work for you as long as you will put them before you political career something both men have done with excellence. Moreover, grass roots organization is not only an effective force in the United States, in the MENA region a grass roots organization that may help change the dynamic of the region.

            As Palestine vies for non-participating membership in the UN Israel has declared that it may cancel the OSLO peace accords and move the Palestinian’s out of the settlements. Now the ferocity an power social organizers in Palestine have, and have working since the 80’s is a force to be reckon with in the realm of civil society. So what would happen if all the grass roots organizing and attempts by the Palestinian authorities to gather support for a Palestinian state were crushed by the very thing that would help further there cause? In my opinion the only way that will end is in another war, but perhaps the Palestinian people will take the time to further entrench there civil society movements and use peaceful means to gather more international support. Moreover, the violence that has been happening in the region has not at all been of extreme benefit to the people perhaps it is time to for peaceful non-violent civil society grass roots to take over in full, perhaps just perhaps the grass roots organization in full force with the approval of the international arena will be the key to improving Israeli-Palestinian relations without bloodshed. While the increase of grass roots movements in any country is, in my opinion, unfathomably important, only the future will tell how the things play out both in the US and the MENA region