Lesson Report:
**Title: Endgames in Gaza – Triangulating Sources and Separating Emotion from Fact**
In this session, students began a multi‑day case study on the Gaza crisis focused on identifying the “endgame� desired by different political actors and learning how to report on it factually. The core objective was to practice separating emotive/ideological language from verifiable facts through source triangulation and structured note‑taking. The work done today sets up a transition next class from group posters/charts into formal written situational reports.
—
## Attendance
– Instructor noted there are **14 students enrolled** and **only ~8 present** in the room.
– By name, the following students were mentioned as **absent**:
– **Bukadas**
– **Ayn Azik** (noted as a planned absence: “said that she’s going to be goneâ€�)
– **Ermin**
– **Total mentioned absent: 3**
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with Activities)
### 1. Administrative / Assignment Housekeeping
**a. eCourse page and submission portal**
– Instructor acknowledged that the **eCourse page is still empty / not updated**.
– Clarified status of the **“situation reportâ€� assignment**:
– Some students have already **emailed their situation reports**; instructor expressed appreciation.
– The **deadline is extended to Thursday**.
– Instructor will have the **eCourse submission portal ready by tonight**.
– Instructions:
– If students have already emailed the situation report, they are “all setâ€� but should still **upload to the portal** once available (reinforced again at the end of class).
– If not yet submitted, students should **upload by Thursday**.
**b. Situation report requirements (previous assignment)**
– A student (Mehrona) asked about length and content.
– Instructor restated that:
– It is **short and simple**: **one paragraph, 4–5 sentences**.
– Described as:
– “Not an overwhelming assignment.â€�
– “Just a verification thing on my end.â€�
– This establishes the baseline format students will later extend into **full situational reports**.
### 2. Framing Today’s Core Objective: Emotion vs. Reporting
**a. Continuing skill: separating emotion from facts**
– The instructor reminded students that they are **continuing** a process begun in earlier classes:
– **Separating emotion from reporting**, i.e., distinguishing emotive/ideological language from **verifiable facts** in news texts.
– Today’s twist:
– They will **“complicate thingsâ€�** by **increasing the number of factors** they consider.
– Instead of a simple one‑dimensional reading, they will analyze **multiple political actors**, their **goals (endgames)**, and **different types of sources**.
**b. Concept of “triangulation�**
– Instructor reiterated the concept of **triangulation of facts** in news reporting:
– Any single news source is **biased** (through the views of the author and institution).
– As reporters, students must:
– Consult **multiple sources**.
– **Separate emotive language** from the **underlying factual claims**.
– Compare how the **same event or proposal** is reported across **different ideological and regional outlets**.
– The goal is to discern:
– What each actor **actually wants** (policy goals, desired outcomes).
– How **different outlets differ in framing/emphasis** along the ideological spectrum.
### 3. Case Study Setup: The Gaza Crisis and “Endgame� Concept
**a. Case study focus**
– This week’s main case study: the **crisis in Gaza** (explicitly referred to as “the genocide in Gazaâ€�).
– Key analytic question: **What is the “endgameâ€� for each major political actor?**
– “Endgameâ€� defined as:
– What each actor wants **when the dust has settled** and the crisis is “over.â€�
– What **state Gaza should be in** at that time.
– What each actor **seeks for itself** from the situation.
**b. Planned products and constraints**
– Intended culminating activity:
– Students **create posters** illustrating the different endgames each group identifies.
– These posters then feed into **written situational reports** (Thursday).
– Logistics:
– Instructor had difficulty finding poster materials before class; postponed the polished poster phase but proceeded with the **analytic component** and **charting**.
– Class size and grouping:
– Instructor noted under‑attendance:
– 14 enrolled vs. ~8 in the room.
– Adjusted groups:
– Original plan: **four groups of three**.
– Revised plan: **two groups of four** (later expanded to one group of five as another student arrived).
### 4. Identifying the Main Actors in the Gaza Crisis
**a. Eliciting main political actors**
– Instructor asked students: **“Who are the main political actors in the crisis in Gaza?â€�**
– Class collectively identified **three key actors** (written on the board):
1. **United States**
2. **Hamas**
3. **Israel**
**b. Using prior knowledge / intuitions as starting hypotheses**
– Instructor emphasized:
– Students already have exposure to news and opinions about these actors.
– Their **existing intuitions** form **hypotheses** to be **tested and refined** via research.
– A structured approach was introduced:
– For each actor, students will try to answer **three guiding questions** about the endgame:
1. **Who rules?** (Who has political control / governance authority in Gaza?)
2. **Who pays?** (Who finances reconstruction, development, etc.?)
3. **Who has guns?** (Who controls weapons and security apparatus?)
### 5. Actor 1 – U.S. Endgame in Gaza (Intuition/Hypothesis Stage)
**a. Broad U.S. vision: “Riviera of the Middle East�**
– Prompt: “From what you know… what is the American endgame in Gaza right now?â€�
– Student responses and instructor elaboration:
– Reference to the **U.S. proposal** to make Gaza the **“Riviera of the Middle East.â€�**
– Interpreted by a student as **“really fancy real estateâ€�** with **resorts and seaside development**.
– Discussion of **imagery and media**:
– AI‑like promotional **video** shared by **Donald Trump** on social media (Twitter or Truth Social) showing:
– **Seaside resorts**, luxury buildings.
– **Palm trees**, **shops**, **happy beachgoers**.
– **Golden statue of Trump** and overall AI‑generated feel.
– Instructor emphasized:
– These **images and videos** are “key to understanding the visionâ€� being proposed.
– They form part of the **narrative packaging** of U.S. endgame ideas.
**b. Applying the three “who� questions to the U.S.**
Students answered based on prior news exposure; these are **pre‑research hypotheses**:
1. **Who rules in the U.S. endgame?**
– Students suggested:
– **Israel** would likely have primary control.
– Some argued that **both the U.S. and Israel** would share or coordinate control.
– Implicit theme:
– The U.S. is not a neutral bystander; it likely maintains **significant influence** over the governance arrangement.
2. **Who pays?**
– Students proposed:
– **The U.S.** as primary funder.
– Mention of an entity called **“Board of Peaceâ€�** (likely a reference to U.S.-initiated reconstruction or investment mechanisms), noted as:
– **Established by a U.S. president (Barack Obama)**.
– **Financed and controlled by the U.S.**, reinforcing U.S. centrality in funding.
– **Developers/capital**:
– Private sector investors who would build the resorts and real estate.
– Pattern highlighted by instructor:
– U.S. money as a throughline: U.S. state funds + U.S.-aligned institutions + private capital.
3. **Who has guns / provides security?**
– Students suggested:
– **The U.S.** would provide or coordinate security in some form.
– Others: **Israel** as the state actually wielding most on‑the‑ground force.
– Instructor emphasized:
– In all these U.S.‑endgame scenarios, the **U.S. keeps a sizable piece of the pie**:
– Territorial, financial, and political influence.
**c. Framing this as a testable hypothesis**
– Instructor stressed:
– These are **not yet proved facts**, but **hypotheses** drawn from students’ current understanding and media exposure.
– The upcoming research tasks are meant to **verify**, **complicate**, or **contradict** these assumptions using **triangulated sources**.
### 6. Actor 2 – Hamas’s Endgame (Intuition/Hypothesis Stage)
**a. General desired outcome**
– Prompt: “From the perspective of Hamas, what is their endgame?â€�
– Student responses:
– **“No Israelâ€�**:
– Widely recognized media narrative that Hamas’s goal includes the **elimination of Israel**.
– **Hamas retains control in Gaza**:
– Political and military control of the Gaza Strip remains in **Hamas’s hands**.
**b. Three “who� questions for Hamas**
1. **Who rules in Hamas’s endgame?**
– Students responded:
– **Hamas rules** (retains governance and authority over Gaza).
2. **Who pays?**
– Students hypothesized:
– **International aid** (UN, NGOs, global donors).
– **Allies in the Middle East** (regional backers).
– **Reparations**:
– Possibly claimed from other actors for damage inflicted.
3. **Who has guns?**
– Students agreed:
– **Hamas maintains weapons and security apparatus** in their own endgame vision.
– Again, these were framed as **initial, intuitive answers** to be **tested** against multiple sources.
### 7. Actor 3 – Israel’s Endgame (Intuition/Hypothesis Stage)
**a. General desired outcome**
– Prompt: “If Israel succeeds, what is Israel’s endgame? What do they want Gaza to look like?â€�
– Student contributions (summarized by instructor):
– **Integration of Gaza into Israel proper**:
– Incorporating Gaza more formally into Israeli territory.
– **Expansion of Israeli settlements**:
– Settlement growth and encouraging **Israeli migration into Gaza**.
– **Restrictions on Hamas and Palestinians**:
– Strong limits (described gently as “restrictionâ€�) on Hamas’s presence and perhaps on Palestinian political/military capacity in Gaza.
**b. Three “who� questions for Israel**
1. **Who rules in Israel’s endgame?**
– Students proposed:
– **Israel** as primary ruler.
– Possibly **U.S. also having a stake**, given close alliance and coordinated policy.
2. **Who pays?**
– Student ideas:
– **The U.S.**—continuing financial support for Israel and associated reconstruction.
– Possibility that **Israel might want Hamas/Palestinians to pay**:
– Imposing **taxes on Palestinians** or some form of financial burden described as **reparations** from the Israeli perspective.
– Instructor encouraged seeing these as **hypotheses** to check against actual policy proposals.
3. **Who has guns?**
– Students concluded:
– **Israel** holds primary control over weapons and security.
– Potential secondary role for **U.S.** security involvement.
– **Hamas** having guns in this scenario was dismissed by the class as unlikely.
– This concluded the **hypothesis‑building phase** for the three actors.
### 8. Research Design: Choosing and Justifying Three Sources
**a. Task 1 – Select three consistent news sources**
– Instructor laid out the **first major group task**:
– For the entire project, each group must use **three news sources**:
– The **same three** for:
– U.S. endgame.
– Hamas endgame.
– Israel endgame.
– These sources must be **meaningfully different** from each other, e.g.:
– Different **countries/regions**.
– Different **ideological biases** (pro‑Western, pro‑Palestinian, etc.).
– Different **narrative perspectives**.
– Requirements:
– With groupmates, choose **which three outlets** to use.
– For each outlet, prepare **1–2 sentences explaining**:
– Why this source provides a **unique viewpoint** relative to the others.
– What differentiates it in terms of **ideology, region, narrative stance**, or institutional affiliation.
**b. Group formation and worktime**
– Due to shifting headcount:
– Plans adjusted to allow **two groups of four** initially.
– Later, with one additional student, one group became a **group of five**.
– Instructor provided ~**10 minutes** for this source‑selection and justification phase.
– While students worked, instructor used the time to take attendance.
### 9. Research Design: Building Triangulated Fact Charts
**a. Task 2 – Create endgame charts per actor**
– Once groups had chosen sources, instructor introduced the **core analytic task**:
– For **each actor** (U.S., Hamas, Israel), groups must build **charts** addressing the three “whoâ€� questions:
1. **Who rules?**
2. **Who pays?**
3. **Who has guns?**
– For each question and each actor:
– **Identify 2–3 specific factual claims** about that actor’s endgame (more is allowed but not required).
– These facts should be drawn from **the three selected sources**.
**b. Triangulation requirements**
For each fact the groups include in their chart, they must record:
1. **Triangulation count: How many sources mention this fact?**
– Is the fact:
– Only in the **pro‑Western** source?
– Only in a **pro‑Israeli** source?
– Only in a **pro‑Palestinian / regional** source?
– Present in **two sources**?
– Present in **all three**?
– They must **explicitly state**:
– “Mentioned in 1/3 sources,â€� “in 2/3 sources,â€� etc.
2. **Source attribution and confidence level**
– Students must check:
– **Who is the ultimate origin of the fact?**
– Named government official? (e.g., U.S. State Dept., Hamas spokesperson, Israeli minister)
– Named institutional representative (UN, NGO, etc.)?
– Anonymous source?
– Reporter paraphrase with **no clear attribution**?
– Based on this, assign a **confidence level**:
– Labels such as:
– “Very high confidenceâ€�
– “Highâ€�
– “Uncertainâ€�
– “Low confidenceâ€�
– And briefly **explain why**:
– Is it a **direct quote with a name and position**?
– Or **reported secondhand** with no verifiable source?
– Or from an **anonymous or partisan source**?
– They must document **how close the reported statement is to the original speaker** (direct quote vs. paraphrase vs. unattributed claim).
**c. Factual vs. emotive framing**
– Instructor reminded students:
– Their job is to **identify the factual claim** (e.g., “U.S. states that Gaza should be demilitarized and economically developed through X planâ€�).
– Then **ignore** or **set aside** the emotive adjectives, moral judgments, and loaded language.
– The **emotional framing differences** across the three news sources will be analyzed later; for now, they focus on **confirming what is actually being claimed**.
**d. Clarifying scope: focus on post‑war outcome, not war strategy**
– A student question implied confusion between:
– **Current military tactics** vs.
– **Post‑war endgame plans**.
– Instructor clarified:
– They are **not** researching “What strategies is the U.S. using to fight Hamas?â€�
– They **are** researching:
– **“After the fighting is over, what do they want Gaza to look like?â€�**
– i.e., the **political, economic, and security arrangement** envisioned as the **final state**, not the conduct of ongoing operations.
**e. Worktime**
– Instructor gave groups roughly **20 minutes** to:
– Use their three sources to:
– Extract relevant facts.
– Fill in chart cells for each actor and question.
– Note **triangulation** and **confidence level**.
– Most groups appeared to be **nearly finished** by the end of class.
### 10. Wrap‑Up and Next Steps
**a. In‑class progress check**
– Instructor checked in near the end:
– Confirmed that groups were **“just about doneâ€�** with their charts.
– Determined that the remaining work could be **completed quickly next class**.
**b. Plan for Thursday’s class**
– On Thursday:
– Finish the **charting/triangulation activity** in the **first ~10 minutes**.
– Then the class will:
– **Transform the charts/poster content into full situational reports**.
– Focus on the **structure of a written report**:
– How to organize:
– Facts about each actor’s endgame.
– Comparative and triangulated evidence.
– How to maintain **factual tone** and minimize emotional/ideological leakage into the reporting voice.
**c. Handling of posters and materials**
– Students were asked to **leave their posters** in the room.
– Instructor would **collect and store** them.
– Posters will be returned on Thursday for use in writing situational reports.
– Students could **take pictures** of their posters for review in the meantime.
**d. Final reminder about the previous situation report assignment**
– Instructor reiterated:
– The **one‑paragraph situation report** assigned over the weekend must be **uploaded to eCourse by Thursday**.
– Even if it has already been **emailed**, students should **still upload to the online portal** once it appears.
—
## Actionable Items
### High Urgency (Before Next Class / Thursday)
**For Instructor**
– **Update eCourse page**
– Populate course page with:
– Assignment description for the **situation report paragraph**.
– Clear deadline: **Thursday**.
– Any rubric or example, if available.
– **Create and activate submission portal**
– Ensure the **upload link** for the situation report is functioning by **tonight**.
– Confirm settings so emailed submissions can be optionally re‑uploaded without penalty.
– **Store and bring back posters/charts**
– Safely **store group posters** from today.
– **Bring them to Thursday’s class** so students can use them to draft full situational reports.
**For Students**
– **Submit the 1‑paragraph situation report**
– If not done already:
– Write/complete the **4–5 sentence situation report paragraph** and **upload it to eCourse by Thursday**.
– If already emailed:
– **Re‑upload to the portal** once available, per instructor’s instructions.
– **Prepare to finalize triangulation charts**
– Review any notes/photos of group posters.
– Come ready on Thursday to:
– **Finish any incomplete cells** in the charts.
– Move quickly into **writing the full situational report**.
### Medium Urgency (Upcoming Classes / Short‑Term)
**For Instructor**
– **Model the structure of a situational report**
– On Thursday, present:
– An example outline or sample situational report.
– Clear expectations about:
– Section organization.
– Use of **triangulated facts**.
– How to explicitly reference **source confidence** without injecting opinion.
– **Reinforce emotional vs. factual language distinction**
– Provide:
– Concrete examples of **emotive vs. factual sentences** from the Gaza coverage.
– Brief in‑class exercise or checklist students can apply when writing their own reports.
– **Follow up on absences if needed**
– Consider reaching out to **repeatedly absent students** (e.g., Bukadas, Ermin) and note **planned absence** of Ayn Azik.
– Ensure they:
– Understand the triangulation/chart assignment.
– Know how it links to the **situational reports**.
**For Students**
– **Continue background reading on the Gaza endgames**
– Optionally deepen understanding by:
– Reading from multiple perspectives (e.g., U.S., regional Arab media, Israeli media).
– Noting how **each outlet frames “who rules / who pays / who has gunsâ€�**.
### Lower Urgency (Ongoing Course Management)
**For Instructor**
– **Standardize source sets for future exercises**
– Consider providing:
– A **recommended list of news outlets** across ideological/regional spectra.
– Guidelines for evaluating **source credibility**, **attribution practices**, and **transparency**.
– **Document today’s activity as a reusable lesson plan**
– Save:
– The three‑questions framework (“who rules / who pays / who has gunsâ€�).
– The triangulation + confidence‑rating chart format.
– This can be adapted for other conflicts or policy issues in future semesters.
**For Students**
– **Maintain a personal log of sources used**
– Keep a record of:
– The **three chosen outlets**.
– Short notes on each outlet’s **bias/region/ideology**.
– This will be useful for:
– The upcoming situational reports.
– Any future comparative media assignments.
—
This report should give you a clear reconstruction of the session: the administrative decisions, the conceptual development from endgame hypotheses to triangulated facts, and how group work was structured to prepare students for writing formal, evidence‑based situational reports on Thursday.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Submit Situation Report Paragraph
You will complete and upload the short situation report paragraph that was assigned last weekend. This brief task is meant to verify that you can produce a concise, fact-focused piece of reporting in line with the skills we have been practicing (separating emotion from fact, being clear and specific).
Instructions:
1. Recall the original prompt
1.1. Use the same topic/prompt that was given for the situation report assignment in last weekend’s class.
1.2. This is the same “situation report� the instructor referred to in class as “a simple one-page, easy little class assignment, just a verification thing on my end.�
2. Draft your situation report paragraph
2.1. Write **one paragraph only**, consisting of **4–5 complete sentences** (as clarified in class: “It was just one paragraph, four to five sentences. Right, so not an overwhelming assignment by any means.�).
2.2. Answer the prompt directly and concretely, focusing on what is happening in the situation you were assigned.
2.3. Use clear, factual language. Aim to keep **emotion and opinion separate from the reporting**, reflecting the broader course goal of distinguishing emotion from fact in news writing.
2.4. Make sure each sentence contributes specific, relevant information rather than repeating the same point.
3. Review and polish your paragraph
3.1. Re-read your paragraph to check for:
– Factual clarity and accuracy (based on the information you were given or asked to summarize).
– Logical flow from sentence to sentence.
– Correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
3.2. Confirm that the paragraph is neither too short (fewer than 4 sentences) nor too long (more than 5–6 sentences).
4. Prepare to submit your work
4.1. If you have **not yet completed or sent** the situation report:
– Finish writing your paragraph following the guidelines above.
– Make sure it is ready to upload by **Thursday** (the extended deadline mentioned in class).
4.2. If you **already emailed** your situation report to the instructor:
– You still need to upload it to the online submission area, as clarified in class: “even if you have emailed me, on eCourse there’s going to be the place where you can upload your situation report paragraph thing that we assigned last weekend. Just upload that by Thursday, and you’ll be good to go.â€�
– Locate the version you sent by email and use that same text for your upload.
5. Upload your paragraph by the deadline
5.1. Go to the online submission link for this course labeled for the situation report paragraph (the instructor will create the submission portal).
5.2. Follow the instructions in the submission link to upload your work (either pasting the paragraph into the text box or attaching it, depending on how the submission is set up).
5.3. Double-check that your submission was successfully uploaded before leaving the page.
5.4. Ensure this is done **no later than Thursday**, in line with the extended deadline announced in class.
6. Keep a copy for yourself
6.1. Save a copy of your paragraph on your device or in your notes.
6.2. You may find it useful later when we move from short paragraphs to fuller situational reports, as mentioned at the end of class.