Objectivity in Independent Media
Part 4: The Illusion of Objectivity
by Kim Petersen & B. J. Sabri
www.dissidentvoice.org
March 10, 2005



 

This reality is what allows the United States to overlook its harsh measures when it confronts the terror tactics used by its rebellious Palestinian population, in addition to overlooking its settlements in the disputed territories of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights.

Sure, Israel is a “U.S. battleship,” but then the objectivity immediately goes down the drain with the phrase, “terror tactics used by its rebellious Palestinian population” and the phrase, “disputed territories of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights.” [italics added]

Again, PINR writer Erich Marquardt’s language is problematic because he uses the terminology of the occupier. Oren Lyons, Elder of the Onondaga Nation of the Haudenosaunee (People Building a Long House), experienced first-hand the dynamics of occupation and language. He pointed to this relation with a masterful observation: “Empires are built on language. When we speak their languages, we come under their empire.” [“Spirituality, Equality, and Natural Law,” p 5-13, in Leroy Little Bear, Menno Boldt, & J. Anthony Long (Eds.), Pathways to Self-Determinism: Canadian Indians and the Canadian State (University of Toronto Press, 1985), p 7.]

On 7 October, Petersen emailed Marquardt a note where he stated, “If let stand, one cannot but conclude that the sentence … clearly indicates a soft peddling of Zionism.”   

In defense of their position, PINR responded, “Kim, this article was not even about Zionism or the Palestinians. The fact remains that each point in the statement in question is accurate. Regards, Erich Marquardt”

It is evident that Marquardt is either missing the point, or evading cogent discussion. For instance, how is it possible to discuss a topic as a component, but discard that same topic as a system? Figuratively, if the discussion is about an iceberg, why would one point to the tip, and dismiss the entire mass? On specific issues related to Israel, Palestine, the U.S., imperialism, and colonialism, how is possible to rely on selectivity, while pretending the totality is not an issue?

Moreover, since Marquardt’s selectivity preempts or limits any subsequent analytical validity because of narrowly chosen objectives, then, how did he reach the conclusion that “each point in the statement is accurate”? How can he establish accuracy, when elements leading to accuracy are missing? It appears that Marquardt considers his statements self-validating; but ideologically motivated statements clothed with assumed objectivity are not science experiments where two atoms of hydrogen mixed with one atom of oxygen under special conditions can generate water. If it is true that accuracy resides in a statement because the originator of the statement thinks so, then one must believe U.S. President George W. Bush when he states that he invaded Iraq to sow democracy.                

After discussing Marquardt’s response, the present authors decided that Petersen should challenge its core implication. On 11 October 2004, Petersen sent the following rebuttal:

Erich, You brought up the topic of Palestinians in the article and you used the Zionist terminology to label the occupations as “disputed territories.” That statement is pandering to Zionists and is shameful. You also attribute the loaded term “terrorism” of the occupied people, who have a right to resist, and do not use the term to describe the greater terrorism of the state against the occupied. If this is accurate journalism then ... kim

Marquardt replied the same day:

Kim, The fact is that Palestinians and the international community consider the Occupied Territories to be Palestinian, and the Israelis do not necessarily agree, considering their building of settlements on these territories. Therefore, there is a territorial dispute, hence, “disputed territories.” Terrorism is a military tactic and it is used by various Palestinian groups. There is nothing “good” or “bad” about that. It is warfare, and each party involved will use whichever tactic best suits their interests. In the case of the Palestinians, they consider that the best tactic that suits their interests is terror. This is not a “loaded” term. It is a geopolitical reality. Regards, Erich Marquardt

Marquardt’s reply is as puzzling as much as it is deceptive. First, he avoids the terminology in question, and second he refuses to state whether he considered the territory occupied or not. If he considers the territory occupied, then using the terminology of the occupier is a patent bias -- when duality of claims is present, then siding with the facts would indicate, of course, objectivity. But striving for neutrality when the facts are accepted facts is, in itself, a bias. However, siding with an aggressing party against the victims removes a publication from the pantheon of a progressive media.

Aside from that, Marquardt tactically skipped a fundamental aspect of the Palestinian issue, as if it were negligible. He ignored that the reality of Palestine and Israel today is a historical product of complex processes lasting since ever the British placed Palestine under their mandate, and allowed the Zionist Movement to establish a Jewish homeland on its soil. He also ignored that the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 was not a natural product of national development rather it was an arbitrary decision made by imperialist powers to serve their interests in the Middle East. More than that, he ignored the human dimension of that reality where Zionists abetted by European governments not only seized most of Palestine, annexed, but also colonized the remainder, as well as areas of neighboring states. The fact that one decides to view the present reality outside of its historical context is not only politically motivated but also intellectually dishonest.

If Marquardt believes that he is only an analyst of present realities, then there is a serious problem of historical method. He either presents the views of both sides to the conflict as equitably as possible, or abstains from analyzing realities that he cannot or does not want to understand. It could be that Marquardt only caters to readers predisposed for manipulation, yet, when confronted with informed readers, he goes on the counterattack bereft of convincing arguments. It appears that Marquardt is of a mentality that wants to be right at any cost; but in doing so, he only deepens his self-created irrationality.

Petersen, at that point, sent a reply to the previous PINR email:

Erich, You recite the facts correctly and interpret them incorrectly. If the Palestinians and the international community line up together and call it an occupation, and the culpable nation and its benefactor are alone in opposition, then, why do you use the language of the occupier? By your logic, anyone can invade and occupy a country and it becomes a disputed territory.

As for the second part, you did not address my query. Why do you use the term “terrorism” for Palestinians and not for Israelis? Are you denying that Israelis use terrorism? Is not firing missiles into civilian areas resulting in many civilian casualties terrorism? Terrorism is terrorism whichever side commits it. This is not meant to address whether terrorism can be justified or not. kim

Marquardt’s expressed empiricism is only partially valid, and only as far as it concerns a moral judgment that he ostensibly claims to discard when reporting. This refers to his pointing to acts of violence directed by the occupied against the civilian component of the occupier. The distinction that he tried to employ is preposterous because, from an objective viewpoint, that component is fundamental to the occupier and the propelling force for its continuation.

In discarding the reality of the occupation and its multiple aspects, Marquardt shuffled the cards of analysis and dealt only the card where “most of the time what you see is what exists.” To add more obfuscation to reasoning, Marquardt went to the lectern and issued a patronizing caution as in: “as long as you open your eyes and do not let your sight be guided by personal biases.”

Logically, then in the subjective and purportedly fact-based analyses of PINR, the far end of cogency is when a party to a discussion uncritically discharges his responsibility from reaching limited conclusions, but implies that the reason for the debacle in the discussion is attributable to the closing of mind and eyes and to personal bias.     

It is true that invading, occupying, and settling had characterized most world societies throughout history. This was applicable only to a certain extent, and only to certain stages of history. Indeed, after WWI, conditions for accepting colonialism changed. Despite European colonialist rule in most of Asia and Africa, the revolt of colonized peoples had already began against European domination; thus any further invasion, occupation, or settlement by any group of people against another group of people and their lands has been met with armed resistance. The meaning of this is that from that point of history on, Mongolian-type invasions had become anti-historical; British-type or Russian-type occupations had become unacceptable; and French-type settlement as in Algeria could generate armed resistance.

HOME