This week on the perpetually interesting and funny Daily Show with Jon Stewart, we witnessed a significant event that illustrated how the public discourse on Palestine is changing, slowly but surely.  Stewart hosted Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, a prominent Palestinian democracy activist, and Anna Baltzer, an American Jewish activist and author who has advocated openly for Palestinian rights.  The two have been working together to promote a nonviolent approach to the struggle for justice in Israel/Palestine.  Such an appearance would have been almost unimaginable on a major cable program even a few years ago! 

At the same time, the interview also revealed the extent to which we are still struggling to overcome the weight of a deeply flawed set of assumptions about what is happening in Israel/Palestine.  (For more on this, see my recent post on the misleading language of "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict").  While Stewart was engaged, respectful, interested, and (of course) funny, he was also unable to hear fully what Barghouti and Baltzer were saying. 

Thanks to the Daily Show's helpful practice of posting full interviews that are often truncated in order to fit them into the broadcast, we can watch the entire unedited Barghouti/Baltzer interview in two parts, here and here. 

What strikes me the most, though, is the way in which Stewart generally fails to acknowledge what his guests are calmly but firmly pushing him to see: that the situation in Israel/Palestine is a deeply hierarchical one, not a symmetrical "conflict" for which both "sides" bear equal responsibility.  Barghouti or Baltzer repeatedly try to specify some of the gross asymmetries of the situation, but Stewart repeatedly intervenes to return the discussion to the terms of the dominant discourse.  But aren't Palestinians also guilty of X...and isn't it true that both sides have done Y...and isn't this really about religions not being able to get along with one another... etc. etc.  As a result, the fresh and important message the guests were articulating was repeatedly blunted and knocked off track.   

I don't think Stewart was doing this deliberately; quite the opposite.  The fact that he seemed unable to stop himself from responding in this way probably says more about the power of entrenched ideas than it does about his personal views (whatever those may be).  But it's worth noting that for the most part, judging by the timing of the applause, the audience didn't seem to have as much difficulty catching the full import of what Barghouti and Baltzer were saying. 

I'm curious as to how others viewed this particular interview and Stewart's role in it.  Write back with your comments! 

Comments (0)

Title
Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
Website
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment