Publication Type: Session Paper
Abstract: TV first brought war visuals into the American living rooms during the war in Vietnam in the 1960s. 20 years later, with satellites and on-line broadcasting, civilians in Rome, Paris and New York could watch the military campaign as it simultaneously took place in the Persian Gulf; the concept “CNN effect” was born. The media’s influence on foreign affairs has grown during the wars in Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet the 2006 clash in Lebanon between Israel and the Hezbollah represents a quantitative leap.

Thus the term used by students of political communication – mediated politics – should be adopted to the field of media and the military. This was the first mediated war. The major reason for this phenomenon is the fact that these asymmetrical wars or low intensity conflicts are wars of conscience. Unlike past conventional wars, their purpose is to shape public opinion. Therefore the visuals seen on the TV screen in the rear are not less significant than actual events that take place in the war theatre.

The paper also describes other manifestations of the mediated war, e.g., the impact of technological innovations, media modes of production, dissemination and media logic, the use of the internet, cellular phones, the cyber space and the blogosphere.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: War is a human game, and concern for the human rights violated by war led to an emphasis on various restrictions both as to the recourse to war ( jus ad bellum,) and to the ways it is conducted (jus in bello.) These circumscriptions are designed in certain aspects to moralize war or at least to alleviate its criminality. Israel's 2006 war on Lebanon transgressed those restrictions. The legitimate use of force is limited under international law to individual and collective self-defense, as specified by article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Even if it is accepted that article 51 grants Israel its right for self-defense, it must be remembered that self-defense needs to be limited-those principles are referred to as the 'Caroline Rules.'In the broader sense, I will argue that Israel did not violate the jus ad bellum but the jus in bello. Going beyond 'military necessity,' Israel, aggressively, transgressed 'standard restrictions,' leading to inflictions of harm that some even labeled war crimes. In summary: (1) the use of force against Lebanon would not be justified under international law unless: a) Lebanon mounted a direct attack on Israel or one of its allies and that requested Israel's assistance or b) an attack by Lebanon on Israel or one of its allies was imminent and could be averted in no way other than by the use of force or c) the United Nations Security Council authorized the use of force in clear terms. This paper shows that: (2) Lebanon has not attacked Israel, and no evidence is currently available to the public that any attack was imminent. Nonetheless, a Lebanese guerrilla group, Hezbollah, which mounted an attack on Israel from Lebanese territory, held Lebanon responsible. (3) Security Council Resolutions did not authorize the use of force against Lebanon. Such use of force would require further authorization from Security Council. (4)At present, Israel was therefore entitled, under international law, to use force against Lebanon by invoking article 51 on self-defense, which it did, yet its violation of the 'proportionality' dropped the legality of its self-defense and shifted the nature of the war, from a defensive one, into a 'war of aggression.'

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This study implemented a post-test only control group design which provided evidence for second level agenda-setting effects of print media stories about the August 2006 war in Lebanon. Participants (n = 485) were randomly assigned to one of five groups, each receiving one of five different versions of a news story, consistent in length and formatting but differing in tone and frame. The investigators (1) measured readers’ perceptions of the war’s involved parties, Israel and Hezbollah, and (2) identified and compared the specific attributes that readers from each condition group assigned to Israel and Hezbollah. The results demonstrated clear and statistically significant differences in perceptions of Israel and Hezbollah among the five condition groups. Computer content analysis of open-ended responses demonstrated a clear relationship between the version of the news story read by participants and the attributes that the participants assigned to Israel and Hezbollah.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The proposed paper will explore the similarities and differences in the social, political, and economic views of supporters of Hezbollah and of supporters Lebanese Forces. The analysis will be based upon a small telephone survey conducted in 2008. It will consider differences in national priorities, evaluations of economic circumstances, an array of evaluations regarding the performance of government and the public sector, and both domestic and foreign security issues. The circumstances in Lebanon suggest that perceptions of many problems, the priorities, and the performance of government might be quite similar. It will test the hypothesis that the greatest differences will be found over policies that structure political conflict (such as electoral law reform) and in terms of the types of tactics of supporters of the two groups are willing to engage in (such as foreign alliances, demonstrations or taking up arms).

Publication Type: Session Paper
Abstract: One of the most pressing foreign policy issues of the current US administration concerns the establishment of democracy in the Middle East. However, official communications about democracy and its practical application in the region are somewhat unclear and widely contested. Many Middle Eastern criticisms of US policy, including those made by some "terrorist" organizations, claim the US is inconsistent in promoting its ideals of democracy. In order to investigate such claims, this study analyzes US foreign policy messages about democracy in the Middle East, both before and after the elections in Lebanon and Palestine. A narrative analysis yields insights into the rhetorical techniques used by the administration to create an interpretive frame for rationalizing US policy and outlining its suggested role for democracy in the Middle East. The tenets of their messages are delineated to identify the consistency with which they suggest preferred readings for these two events.