I won’t pretend to understand the conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine. I do know that it is difficult to form a clear perspective, given that much of the coverage accessed this side of the globe tends to be pro-Israel. That is to be expected and not just because of our Christian background, which contend that Jews are God’s chosen people, but also because of the branding of Hamas – Palestine’s military wing – by the United States and its allies as a terrorist organisation. What I also find interesting is information that countries which recognise Palestine as a state amount to 80 per cent of the world’s population. Significantly, the same report states that the 20 per cent who don’t support Palestine, control 75 per cent of the cash.

Last week at a presentation at the Caribbean Institute of Media and Communication, by Madame Corine Lesnes, the Washington-based correspondent for the widely respected French newspaper Le Monde, someone wanted to know why a centre-left newspaper like Le Monde contributed to the lopsided treatment of news about the Israel-Palestine conflict in favour of the former. The observation was made in a question-and-answer session that of the five or six stories published recently by Le Monde, only about two could be viewed from a Palestine perspective. To her credit, Madame Lesnes did not go on the defensive except to suggest that the criticism could have been worse, as more often than not the count would be five or six to zero. Such a response should be seen in the context of how, as a centre-left newspaper, many regard Le Monde.

For those concerned about the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, it may be useful in forming conclusions to bear in mind the influence of the media, based on their treatment of the reports and opinions as presented.

I recall a comment by Caribbean/Canadian researcher, Dr Marlene Cuthbert, in 1984 in the wake of the Grenada crisis that had occurred the previous year. She noted that the coverage in different parts of the world was so varied that it seemed likely that citizens of different countries would be left with very different impressions and opinion about the events. According to Dr Cuthbert, she had received two letters from friends, one from the US and the other from the UK, with entirely different perspectives on the Grenada invasion, obviously influenced by media reports. It is to be noted that at the time neither the internet nor cable television were as yet in vogue. Dr Cuthbert’s interest in finding out more about this type of reaction and what caused coverage of the Grenada experience to be so different, led her to successfully propose a study of “Journalistic perspectives on the crisis”, to the Press Association of Jamaica. In general, the study found that media coverage in the developed world was concerned with the long-term interests of and international implications for their national systems.

That study still holds some important lessons for us in arriving at conclusions about conflicts such as the situation in the Middle East. I am never certain who is to be faulted for that conflict or more precisely, its escalation. If you follow the US cable networks and most of their publications, the fault lies squarely at the door of the Palestinians. After all, Israel as a modern, developed country, does not want to have missiles landing ad hoc, if at all, on its territory. However, a deeper study suggests that the situation is way more complex and the Palestinians maintain that they are the ones provoked and constantly humiliated, not only by the annexing of their territory, but by the severe restrictions of movement imposed on them by the dominant Israeli state.

A somewhat heartening story to have emerged recently is that the overwhelming majority of people on both sides favour peace. Even while the news this side of the world suggests that the scenes of apparent jubilation by factions in Palestine claiming a victory of sorts amid the heavy toll of death and destruction, many others were in fact rejoicing because the carnage had been halted. Can we trust this report to be valid? Does it represent the reality on the ground or is it another story that supports the long-term interests of one side in favour of another?

2012 IAAF Awards

Congratulations to Usain Bolt and Glen Mills, recipients of the IAAF awards. The English-speaking Caribbean fared very well this year as, besides Bolt and Mills, the list of winners included Trinidad and Tobago’s Keshorn Walcott and Antonique Strachan of the Bahamas who were presented with the Male and Female Rising Star Award, respectively. Walcott for his Olympic gold medal in the javelin, Antonique Strachan for her World Junior Championships sprint double gold medals.

From comments read elsewhere in the media, I gather that there are a few complaints that Kenya’s David Rudisha should have got the nod over Bolt. Rudisha established a sensational world record of 1:40.91 over the 800 metres at the London Olympics, which earned him the “Performance of the Year” Award. There is no doubt that the competition for both the male and female titles this year was one of the closest in recent years. However, I am convinced that Bolt especially did enough to earn the title. As I have written elsewhere, a multi-events winner invariably gets the edge. However, I do sympathise with the Kenyans who also lost out last year when Australian hurdler Sally Pearson won the Female Athlete of the Year award at the expense of Vivian Cheruiyot. Cheruiyot had won the women’s 5,000 and 10,000 metres events in Daegu and seemed the likely winner. In fact, even Pearson appeared surprised by the announcement. Interestingly though, the Kenyans argued then that Cheruiyo’s performance in 2011, when she won three major world titles, superseded Pearson’s achievement of only one world title. She had also won the World Cross Country Championships women’s 8km race in Punta Umbria, Spain, and retained her 5,000m/3,000m Diamond League crowns unbeaten.

The selection process involves an email poll of the World Athletics Family leading to a short list of three men and three women for the two awards. The IAAF Council then selects the winners. While there may be some truth in the charge that the “popularity” factor plays too large a role in the selection process, that can only be up to the short-listing stage. Also, there is no doubting the impact that Bolt continued to have on the sport and especially on the Olympics itself which would understandably influence the decision to name him athlete of the year. This year too, the decision to honour Coach Mills has been entirely without controversy, as it should be. Congrats to all the winners.

JAAA elections

By the end of this week we should know who are the members of the new Jamaica Athletics Administrative Association (JAAA) executive. It has been a hotly contested campaign and the new president will have the challenge of bringing everyone together. There is no doubt that some real talent is to be found in all three camps and the talents and expertise of all are going to be needed in moving forward. There will be no time for further divisions and pettiness. The national programme requires a solid front as we continue on our development path.

antoye@gmail.com