Watching Hizbullah TV

Another benefit of being here in Lebanon is being able to watch Hizbullah’s TV station, al-Manar. I have only watched a little of it on this trip– certainly, nothing like a “representative sample” of their programing. (Oh, I just saw on the crawl at the bottom there just now that Israel’s Winograd Commission has announced it will delay publication of the weighty second portion of its report into the failings of the 33-day war until January 30. Could that possibly be, um, a slightly politicized decision?)
Anyway, I did want to blog about a fascinating children’s program I saw on the channel on Friday afternoon. I’d been working rather hard for some hours by then, doing some close editing/revision work on my Re-engage book, and by late afternoon I just wanted a break. So I was flipping channels on the t.v. in the hotel room and came to Manar, in the middle of a kid’s program called, I think, “Bayt al-Boyout.” (“House of many homes”). The very able main presenter was a young-ish woman dressed in hijab in different shades of blue, who was sitting in a set like a beautiful big children’s playroom– with a sign-language interpreter sitting beside her. The presenter (I never did catch her name) was conducting a conversation with a group of some four or five cute-looking kids of around 5-7 years old, all of whom were either blind, severely visually impaired, or deaf; and the presenter was conducting normal kindergarten-type activities with them, including reading then a story and asking them questions.
What was excellent about this program in my view was the light but intentionally educational way in which the presenter showed viewers that these are full, normal, human children who happen to be differently abled. When she conversed with the two deaf kids, she did so “through” the sign-language interpreter. There was even a little cartouche in the bottom-left of the screen where the signer’s work was constantly on display for viewers with hearing disabilities.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen anything on kids-with-disabilities in many hours of watching children’s programing in the US that was as well done as this. (But that was a long time ago, I guess.) Also, this program was thankfully not interrupted by any ads– for gross sugary drinks or foods, or anything else.
Toward the end, the presenter developed one of the topics mentioned in the children’s book she had just read to the kids, and asked two or three of the children if they had ever argued with their younger siblings. The kids she asked said “Yes,” and said the arguments had been over toys or the t.v. “And what did you do?” she asked. Both the kids said, “I hit my little brother [or sister}.” The presenter continued by asking: “And then what happened? Did that solve the problem?” Each kid in turn said No, that the little sib just became peskier yet… So then the presenter said that it would be probably be more productive for the kids to talk about their disagreements/ concerns/ complaints to the sibling, rather than hitting them, and in that way they could work out how to take turns with the toy in question or the t.v. program, and still stay good friends with them.
Doesn’t this seem like a good lesson for any children’s show, anywahere, to leave with its viewers?
Isn’t it interesting that the kids’ show produced by Hizbullah is promulgating this message?
Now, Hizbullah’s political leadership has never publicly expressed any desire to solve its problems with Israel through discussion rather than force. But– and this is a big caveat– it has always been eager to be included in indirect negotiations with Israel and other parties over the terms for a ceasefire in the hostilities between them; and once ceasefires have been agreed, it has generally stuck to their terms quite carefully. Its observance of previously agreed ceasefires– in 1993, 1996, and 2006– has not been total. But its infractions have been considerably less serious and numerous than those of Israel.
And meantime, the US– and Israel– both steadfastly stick to and repeatedly proclaim their political stance of refusing to sit down and deal with their grievances against Hizbullah through discussions rather than through force. (Though, as we have seen, when they have found themselves in an impossibly tight corner they have been prepared, in practice, to sit down and negotiate an indirect ceasefire with them.)
So maybe the political leaderships on all these sides would benefit from sitting down– separately, if they prefer this– to watch this educational episode of “Bayt al-Boyout”, so they can learn some lessons about how talking through differences is better than simply lashing out with violence and intimidation against the other party?
But it occurs to me that Israel and the US are both physically far, far stronger than Hizbullah, and both have used violence on a far grander scale than anything Hizbullah has ever used. So perhaps they both need to learn the program’s lesson about not hitting your younger siblings even more than anyone else?

6 thoughts on “Watching Hizbullah TV”

  1. It’s easy to make a children’s series that teaches kids to not solve problems with violence, because that’s one of the obvious life lessons kiddie show makers can fall back on for plots. Similarly, in the US you’ll find lots of kids’ shows teaching kids to go out and exercise instead of play vid games all day, and to eat right. All right between the ads for McDonald’s and for Nintendo……..

  2. I’ve mentioned on another thread the PeaceBuilders program for kids which promotes cooperation and discourages bullying, so I won’t do that again. I’ll go deeper.
    I think that increasingly in the US and in Israel foreign relations is looked upon as we look at sports, where one sign wins and the other loses. Zero-sum. Team America always wants to win, because Americans are special don’t you know. On an individual basis, everyone wants to be a winner and beat others, whether in the classroom, the workplace or the highway. Corporations act this way too. Politicians take great pride in promoting victory in their various wars (poverty, drugs, Iraq, etc.) (I write as a loser in the war on poverty. 🙂
    An organization in San Diego is against militarism, which is broadly defined to mean, essentially, competition. “militarism is the root cause of many of the global and domestic problems we face today. . . . a value system that stresses the superiority of some people over others. . . derides cooperation, equality and nonviolence, and instead enforces strict hierarchical relationships.” Check it out.
    http://www.comdsd.org/militarism.htm

  3. When you start equating militarism with any kind of competition at all, you’ve gone off the deep end. Encouraging peace shouldn’t require everyone to be nullified into the same banal unremarkable “equal”.

  4. Inkan1969,
    Encouraging peace shouldn’t require everyone to be nullified into the same banal unremarkable “equal”.
    But American Exceptionalism has been such a disaster, making the US the most hated country in the world. Currently, for example, the US is establishing a new military command in Africa, a sort of imperial out-reach to a continent heretofore useful as a source of raw materials and little else. China has taken a different view, and has acted in a more helpful, collegial manner. You call it “banal”, I call it peace and brotherhood.
    from the web:
    African leaders who embrace ties to China are not only wooed by [investment] money: China wins friends by presenting itself as one developing nation eager to partner with others. Despite serious concerns about China’s motives, African leaders – and ordinary people in Africa – often welcome the Chinese while doubting Europeans and Americans. For many, China’s outreach offers a favorable alternative to what is seen as the west’s attempt to impose hegemony over African countries through the strings attached to aid packages. The Cold War history of American interventions in Africa, mostly in the form of American support for anticommunist leaders and movements, has also not been forgotten, and neither has the bloody legacy of European colonialism and independence struggles.
    http://www.theseminal.com/2008/01/03/china-in-africa/

Comments are closed.