To what extent, in your view, do the ways in which
mainstream media select and contextualise events determine the boundaries of
public thinking? You have said on one
hand, regarding the “framing” of war and terrorism, that, “Efforts to control
the visual and narrative dimensions of war delimit public discourse by
establishing and disposing the sensuous parameters of reality itself”,[i] but
also that “specters are produced that haunt the ratified version of
reality”.[ii]
Judith Butler: There are surely many ways that this happens,
but we can note at the most obvious level the way in which forms of resistance
or violence get cast as “conflicts” that assume two sides that are fighting
only against one another. We are more
often than not asked, for instance, to regard Israel and Palestine as in a
conflict of this kind, a framing that sets each of them on equal footing, and
implicitly analogises the political situation to a fist fight, a soccer match,
or a domestic quarrel. So if, then, the
only two intelligible political positions are “pro-Palestinian” or “pro-Israeli,”
the presumption is that one’s position is determined by a sentiment that wants
one side to win over the other. In the
meantime, what is lost is any sense that the Palestinian resistance to Israeli
colonial rule is waged from a situation of occupation or expulsion, that there
is a military order that controls the boundaries of what would be a sovereign
Palestinian state, that the land on which that state is now thinkable has been
radically diminished by an ongoing practice of land confiscation and
appropriation. So we set the actors on
the scene through the banal discourse of “conflict” in ways that fully deflect
from the history and struggle of colonial resistance, refusing as well by that
means to link the resistance to other forms of colonial resistance, their
rationale, and their tactics.