Found: moderate Muslims

Along with the end of the year lists and whatnot, found a listing of the best signs from the Rally to Restore Sanity and I just had to share this one somewhere:

Upping security on the homefront: "random" inspections

Technically, we're done here (though I'll be continuing with my other blog once I have time to breathe again), but a.I'm still on campus attempting to be scholarly anyways, and b.this article regards a topic that I've posted about twice, and was briefly discussed by others, as well, with the whole plot against the DC metro scenario.

Metro Transit police advise customers they will conduct random inspections of carry-on items

My initial reaction: great that the goal is to increase safety/security on the metro. ...but is it too absurdly cynical of me to note that I get nervous when I hear someone is [planning on] conducting "random" inspections? If not a risk of profiling, then a risk of people complaining about profiling, eh? ...and everything that ensues (note: Arizona). Will be interesting to see reactions and how it goes.


*bahaha, wait, amendment: first reaction, as seen from my Twitter feed:

unsuckdcmetro3:23pm via Web

Don't sweat random bag searches. Inspectors will be asleep or absent. #wmata

Iraq in 2003: Was it worth it?

I should preface this with a nice little quote from a friend (now at Wharton) upon his learning that I'd declared majors in English and Political Science: "So you're going to be... a professional bullshitter?" [Or, in the words of one English prof., "rhetorical slight of hand".... right.] This is not to say, of course, that I approve of boiling down either field to this less-than-classy description, but too some extent, really, that's what rhetoric is all about, though we should (and do) have to cut through the nonsense from time to time.

That said, honestly, I've got to maintain the stance I held on Monday re. "Was it worth it?" Yes, there are many times in life that we are forced to make a decision or take a stance, though we may lack the information, preparation, etc (speaking of Iraq...). Really, we could always be better prepared, particularly when it comes to making decisions. However, thankfully and with all due respect, I don't consider myself in a position in which I must make a decision, thus my abstention. I am not (again, thankfully) a politician, advisor, pundit, etc etc, that my opinion on the matter is by any means necessary or relevant at the moment, wily/flaky/cowardly/ambiguous/dissatisfying though that answer may be. ...Hey, perhaps I could be a politician. ahem. ahem.

Ok, really, though, the trouble of any debate is that there is, ideally, logic behind each side. That plus the fact that it is not yet a done deal, and I truly do not want to make a judgment call here. Some factors we can all pretty much agree on: it could have been handled more adeptly; more notable international approval would certainly not have hurt; the loss of life - both military and civilian - is always extremely sobering, as is the painful disruption of life on all sides and everything else that comes hand-in-hand with warfare and occupation. However, I imagine most also welcome the end of a blatantly destructive and repressive regime and efforts toward stability (flawed or misdirected though some may find them).

The debate of democratization is an intriguing one, and one deserving of far more than a blog post. In the midst of glorifying the democratic peace theory, one may conveniently forget the numerous other factors involved beyond governmental system and, significantly, the near chaos that threatens to reign between the dismantling of one government and the establishment of another. ...Thus, it's an argument I have more trouble getting behind, though I certainly see the logic and applaud the encouragement of human rights (socio-economic and political), freedom of speech, citizenship, and so on. And of course, if it weren't for those pesky factors of our picking and choosing where to insist upon such factors (Saudi Arabia, I'm talking to you) and the unavoidably patronizing tone with which this is undertaken...

...But it's after 3am, which somehow risks simultaneously hampering and/or increasing my propensity towards "rhetorical slight of hand," so it's best to put an end to this one and leave it as food for thought. Not waffling, mind you, just careful consideration.

Informal cultural studies in the DC suburbs

Sometimes, particularly this year, I find myself in highly intriguing circumstances - the sort that make me step back, observe the scene, and chuckle and shake my head in amazement. This weekend, it came in the form of finding myself speeding through Loudon County, VA, with a young Cuban and two Iranians, blasting Kurdish music, en route to a company party. ...As a great man once sang, "life is so peculiar."

Ignoring the fantastic story that led up to and follows that, however, I'll attempt to briefly focus on the pieces relevant to this blog, particularly in the form of the Iranians in question. The situation: I made my way down to the DC area this weekend to visit a friend, who, though not Iranian, happens to work with a largely Iranian construction/renovation company, all of whom were entreated to attend this rather well-to-do affair hosted by another Iranian-owned company they do a fair bit of work for. ...To skip along to the moral of the story, however, I don't know that I've ever felt so completely out of place (though in a hilarious sort of way)... or so... un-American, frankly. 

Even as I retell the story, I find myself referring to "the Americans" as a group very much excluding myself. Blame both the company I was keeping at the time and the ridiculously ostracizing looks we were receiving. All, unfortunately, in jeans (though the guys looked much more put together than myself, who had not at all planned for this and lacked a proper set of clothes to change into), we immediately stood out upon entering this well-to-do shindig, finding ourselves the recipients of many an interesting look from lounging Caucasian Americans in tuxedos and floor-length dresses, sipping wine and chatting about the economy and how little anyone under the age of 40 really understands anything. I'd have to guess I received the most looks, of the friendly intrigued sort from the young Iranian coworkers, and of the "What the hell is going on here?" sort from the majority of the Americans, most likely due to whom I'd arrived with, our attire, and our propensity to be less than deathly serious.

I'm babbling, though. The intriguing factor, from the ME side of things: well, for starters, the characteristics of the immigrant community here in the US, how they interact with one another, and how they interact (or not) with Americans. The timeless question of class and wealth. The Kurdish factor, as I was introduced to one in particular, Mumid, as being "from Iran - from Kurdistan.... He's from Kurdistan," and who, after much laughter re. wealthy Americans "bullshitting" (forgive the language, I'm merely quoting), was torn between obligations to attend a Kurdish party and obligations to attend a Persian party (both of which, according to him, furthered the "night of bullshit").

While chatting with a friend the other day, my seeing baboons and antelope while hiking about a nature and wildlife reserve in Ghana somehow made its way into the conversation. "Ooh," she said, "so you saw the real Africa! I just saw the resort part." ...While I agree that there's a vast difference between the resorts and the reality, I highly doubt that baboons and antelope alone count as really seeing the truth of the matter. 

When it comes to attempting to understand or learn about any place or people, I've always got to side with the option of speaking to natives themselves, as I noted in an earlier post. We discussed it a bit earlier in the semester, as well - statistics vs history and area studies, etc. Both are fantastic, but life seems to continue to remind me that statistics can only tell you so much; getting to know those who really live it is not only telling, but is also unspeakably fascinating- and humanizing. ...I have a feeling the tuxedoed Americans at the gathering on Saturday were much more concerned with the statistics (particularly the monetary ones) than they were in even feigning an interest in the young Iranians joking amongst themselves and accepting the offer of a duck appetizer with a smirk.

Mubarak (Egypt?) - Israel, via the IDF

Fun fact: apparently, the IDF is an active member of the twitterverse. Excellent. Stumbled across this thanks to a retweet from Israel (true story, the State of Israel has a verified twitter account) and, while the variety of people and organizations I can follow on twitter continues to amaze and entertain me, my eye was most drawn to this article, posted by the IDFSpokesperson:
"At the end of the Mubarak presidency, relations with Egypt will be unclear"

More than anything else, it brought to mind the discussion of the influence- or lack thereof- of the individual. The UN without Eleanor Roosevelt, MEPP without Yitzhak Rabin, and, in this piece, Egypt without Mubarak (and mention of Palestine's Abu Mazen).... the list could continue, with various levels of debatability in regards to the extent and necessity of each individual's role.

Another intriguing thing to note, while you're there: take a gander at who the IDF is "following." Israelis, Israeli news organizations and politicians, the Jewish Agency, consulates in Israel, the US, Canada, the UK, and Ireland, CNN, and the US Army, Air Force, and Marines. Listing allies, are we?

This just in: corruption is dispiriting. ...ahem. #wikileaks

News alert just in from NYT:
"Corruption in Afghanistan, leaked cables say, is pervasive and dispiriting for American officials trying to build support for the Afghan government."

Q: A news alert? Really? Not to be terrible, but is this news to anyone? ...ahem.

Panel on Afghanistan: what wasn't said...

Not to inadvertently join the "post-Thanksgiving flurry of blogging" (ahem), but a quick thought as I breathe between tonight's panel discussion on Afghanistan and all of the productivity I have to bury myself in for the next several days... or weeks:

The first question of the Q&A was one I don't normally hear, but yielded interesting results- if there were a fourth person on the panel, who would you add? Most intriguing was not what they answered, but what they did not answer; namely, "an Afghan." Another specialist (female), someone with divergent views, a younger analyst. They nicely hit two other demographic groups (gender and age), but opted out of voting in someone actually native to the country under discussion.

Perhaps it's an oddity of mine - or perhaps it was because I am fairly good friends with and was silently observing Nasim Fekrat '13 - but I'm fairly certain my first reaction in such cases is generally a wish to talk to a native. I want to get a new perspective on Israel? I'll read Grossman and take a course with someone who grew up in Israel. I want to get a new perspective on India? I'll volunteer with the Assoc. for India's Development and join my new friends in everything from a baby shower to celebrating Holi (greatest. celebration. ever.) or Vishu. I want to get a new perspective on Afghanistan? I'll probably talk to Nasim. ...and, when I've got the funding, you can bet I'll go there - and while there, you're likely to find me chatting with the everyday people themselves. Or better yet, listening to them.

I arrived at the event this evening just as it was about to begin and, opting out of the overflow room, gave my legs a good stretch and leaned against a comfortable piece of wall in the back. The perk of such an observation point: I was able to take note not only of the panelists, but also of the audience, which for me is one of the most intriguing - and sometimes telling - features. Look into the faces or eyes of people who truly know the subject matter just after they've watched "Waltz with Bashir" or "Lebanon." Watch the shakes of a head, fidgeting, and facial expressions of a young Afghani, or an American POSC student, or a few professors, at a panel discussion on the situation in Afghanistan. ...Fascinating stuff.

WikiLeaks: Israeli cynicism justified. ...shocking.

Confession: I ran into this article only through a series of events - email informs me of Facebook update, pull up said social network site to receive message, "liking" Ha'aretz in the past puts it in my newsfeed, yielding an article about WikiLeaks (shocking) at the top of my newsfeed.... and email updates... and twitter feed... and Google buzz. My gosh, it's everywhere. With 21st cent. technology, really, you've either got to be living in a cabin in Vermont or in a cave somewhere (Shepard Smith reference, anyone?) to miss out on some things.

In any case, that which Ha'aretz saw fit to highly publicize: WikiLeaks cables: You can't blame Israel for mistrusting Arabs, says Qatari ruler. Logically, this is something that Israel would be quick to note to pretty much anyone who will listen (and were Qatar's Emir an American citizen, one might imagine possible making use of the Fifth Amendment). It brings to mind, however, a point I heard someone make earlier this afternoon - in much of this, hyped as it is, the news isn't what's being said, but that it is being said. For the most part, we aren't all that shocked. In fact, we might often be more entertained than otherwise - concerned, of course, but entertained nonetheless.

While it makes a nice PR point for the Israelis, this feature of an Arab admitting to the logic of Israel's mistrusting Arabs, I'm going to go ahead and hope this is news to no one. Frankly, it would require a horrendous level of ignorance for either side not to see the logic of their opposition's mistrust. Denial and under-estimation, sure, but to totally fail to note it? Why, in that case, I'd say a peace process would be hopeless, would it not? A party to any dispute that does not see even the tiniest bit of logic in the opposition is not in the least promising for a resolution (short of destruction). Even the hardliners, on either side, couldn't deny the logic of their opposition - under-estimating the worth of your opposition only endangers you by miring yourself in a state of ignorance, ostrich-head-in-the-sand style.

...but again, we know this. We may not like to admit the worth of our oppositions' stance, but denying it cripples our own argument - and these fellows simply aren't that dim-witted. Entertaining (and predictable), though, that Ha'aretz is right on top of publicizing this. "That's right, world, see, even the Arabs have to admit we have cause to be wary." ....Yes, Israel, we know. Anyone who'd deny that is just silly, to say the least. The debate, really, comes in the extent and the reaction.

Peacemaking... or lack thereof

When I headed towards Bosler today for some quality time with the MEPP simulation, frankly, I'd already determined that I'd only spend x amount of time there. Though I initially set that limit due to general time constraints, my ultimately determination to stick to it was more for the sake of preventing myself from getting really sucked in - while it'd be a worthwhile experience, a.I can't really afford to lose such a large chunk of my day, and b.it'd drive me insane.... mostly b.

Having perused some other posts from those who have already played and gathered that the playing as the Palestinian leader might be more fruitful, I opted to "ease" myself in by going with that - and I use the word "ease" very, very lightly... more like a dull thud (as opposed to the ruckus that would ensue as Israeli PM). In other words, while I was minorly successful, playing as the Palestinian was just the beginning of an hour of frustration, annoyed thoughts of "What the hell? Why would you do that?" and, ultimately, embittered smirks and chuckles as, not surprisingly, someone took a step backwards for every two steps I took forward - or, when less successful, two steps back for every one step forward. This, of course, was increased as Israeli PM, as the reactions were drastically higher on all sides than they'd been to the Palestinian leader. My guess for the reasoning there? The Israeli PM is very much in the limelight, is (understandably) considered to have a greater responsibility and authority (at least in his own government, theoretically), and, frankly/perhaps, is held to higher expectations by the international community.

As others have noted, we were given fewer choices of action as the Palestinian leader than as the Israeli PM, for better or worse.... interestingly, though, playing as the Israeli PM did not allow us options like initiating joint training or joint patrol, which we did have as a Palestinian. I was intrigued - and somewhat annoyed, really - to find the Israeli list of options lacking this potential cooperation. Another note on such matters: while the Palestinian player had the interesting option to "thank" the Israelis, come to think of it, I don't recall the Israelis having the option to commend Palestinian actions or to apologize (which the Palestinian didn't do either, though I did once receive an Israeli apology); both actions, of course, would have had drastic reactions on either side (as did most other actions as PM), but it was interesting to find that they weren't even given as options.

My results, in short: some notable progress as the Palestinian leader, though it seemed at times that I could've played forever and seen neither serious progress nor serious destruction (not enough to enforce a Lustick-style peace, anyways); start of the Third Intifada as the Israeli PM and continued back-and-forth nonsense. Realistic, I'd say. There was one feature of the simulation outcomes, though, that inspired a smirk on my part- "Are you sure you want to quit? All progress would be lost." In terms of the game, sure. When applied to the point of the game itself, though, this is, of course, inaccurate - while we always start over with a blank slate in the simulation, not so in reality, where everything is tainted by previous experience, for better or for worse. You go into arguments after having made some small progress in the past and hoping to continue that path, and/or with cynicism, knowing what(/who) has fallen through in the past, etc.

Ultimately, as has been alluded to, the experience was an incredibly frustrating one - fitting, as a reminder of the realities of governing and diplomacy- and something I'll have to get back to when I have more time to allow it the top spot on my priority list - which sentiment, by the way, made me chuckle as I found myself sympathizing with the Israelis, who are attempting to balance their priorities (note: Iran) and assign focus in deciding how time, efforts, and resources could be spent most fruitfully. Really, I could sit and play at being the Israeli PM all day, but I'd be driven mad with frustration and I'd lose a lot of time and (virtual) resources for nearly paltry results.


*So as not to end this on such a terribly grim note: as noted, I do not think that with the end of each attempt, we're left with nothing - sometimes it's worse, sometimes it's better, though I'd prefer to think we come out with more of the latter. The frustration is, ideally, a matter of the short-term. Another recent blog about the game suggested that there are numerous ways to a peace solution, and I hope it's safe to agree with him. The trouble is to just find one of them without destroying ourselves in the process, eh?

"A peace of no choice"

Alrighty, it's looking like two posts in one day (only on a technicality, thanks to my nocturnal practices) - today's topic of discussion, however, is just too enticing and high-strung not to comment on.

Frankly, it became immediately apparent to me that I'll have to read Lustick's piece, if only for sheer curiosity's sake. The idea is an intriguing one: (though not new, I'm sure): sometimes one must be desperate for peace in order to allow it to actually come to fruition. Things must be so blatantly terrible that there is no other option; it is absolutely imperative that a solution be reached - in which case, we care less so about the details of the solution than the very being of a solution.

This immediately brought to mind David Grossman's Writing in the Dark, a collection of essays I read a week ago, upon recommendation, and have not yet been able to get out of my already busy mind. Today's discussion harkened back to one quote in particular, part of Grossman's speech in Tel Aviv for the memorial of Rabin's assassination:
"Just as there is a war of no choice, there is also a peace of no choice. Because there is no choice anymore. We have no choice, and they have no choice. And a peace of no choice should be pursued with the same determination and creativity with which one goes to a war of no choice. Because there is no choice. Whoever thinks there is, or that time is in our favor, does not grasp the dangerous underlying processes that are already occurring."
Some of these "dangerous underlying processes," of course, are rather obvious - acts of terrorism and massive disruption and uprooting of civilian life, refugee issues, blatant humiliation, constant strife and bloodshed. In case there hasn't been quite enough bloodshed to make you find Lustick's argument a viable possibility at the moment, though (pessimistic, but debatably true), Grossman's comment of "underlying" processes delves even deeper, into the mental and emotional repercussions on all sides. For, "somewhere deep inside, every person knows when he is committing or colluding with an injustice. Somewhere deep in the heart of any "reasonable person" of sound mind, there is a place where he cannot delude himself regarding his acts and their implications. The burden created by the injustice - even if it is repressed - is there, and it has effects and it has a price."

Taking matters at face value, one might assume that all hard-liners, former military officers, etc, would naturally be more hawkish and less inclined to peace - that is, until one takes into consideration today's discussion or, for a more specific example, this conclusion by Yoram Peri in "Ideological Portrait of the Israeli Military Elite": the IDF officer class is "possessed of heterogeneous ideologies with a marked disposition to a liberal outlook." ....In other words, those who have experienced conflict and know the matters for what they are, actually saw with their own eyes and lived the effects and the destruction, are often all the more inclined towards putting an end to it. They are painfully aware of the harsh, unglorified reality of combat, and are thereby all the more aware of the urgent need to end to it. Note: those who played an instrumental role in the founding of Peace Now.

Are current matters horrendous enough to force "a peace of no choice," as Grossman might suggest? I can't help but think that that relies quite a bit upon the individual and their own experience and perspective. ...No time to get into the entangling mess that is a discussion re. potential solutions at the moment, as I must put an end to my babbling. (I do feel the need to say this much, though: I imagine I join the majority of the Western world in insisting that ethnic cleansing is not a viable option.) ...Then again, it's one thing to sit and discuss possibilities - possible solutions or lack thereof, possible uprooting and relocation of thousands of people - and another thing entirely to implement it- or worse, experience it.

Lebanon: "Man is steel; the tank is only iron."

If I have not completed all of the classwork I should have for Thursday and Friday, I'm officially chalking it up to a more immediate cause: watching "Lebanon" at the Carlisle Theater and staying for the panel discussion with Prof.s Diamant, Weinberger, and Commons.

Honestly, I just finished blogging about it on my non-class oriented blog... or rather, posting about thoughts inspired by the experience as a whole, rather than simply the matter of the movie. Must say, in situations such as this, I find the audience just as telling and intriguing as the movie they're watching. It was the same with the showing of "Waltz with Bashir" in spring 2009 - seeing visiting Prof. Itzchak Weismann (from the University of Haifa) leave the theater in silence, waving away his concerned wife, struck home any level of reality the movie might not have quite hit on. ...This evening (well, technically, yesterday), I found myself seated beside a veteran of the very conflict being highlighted on screen, as Prof. Diamant dropped into the seat next to me.

For current purposes, though, we'll focus on the more immediate matters of the film, written and directed by Samuel Maoz and entirely set in an Israeli tank during the war in Lebanon in 1982. The very idea, frankly, is one that hadn't truly occurred to me previously: we see tanks thundering across a desert or rumbling through a field, wreaking havoc or rusting and forgotten... yet somehow, at least for me, I never really stop to think about that which is going on within it. Instead, it's an oversimplified block of destructive metal on tracks, a weapon of warfare. Sure, I certainly take into consideration the citizens and the bystanders, the casualties, the soldiers, the politicians... but I think, somewhere along the line, I vaguely overlooked that there were people inside this massive and imposing weapon - people just as vulnerable to the war as those outside the moving bringer of destruction.

The follow-up discussion, of course, considered what was realistic about the film and what was less so, the matter of morality in war, the changing nature of war - particularly in urban areas, as in Lebanon - and the universal similarities of soldiers in conflict situations. Who was the enemy (what about the citizens? recall also: the Intifada) and who was reliable (the Phalangists? ...doubtful- which they would tragically prove with Sabra and Shatilla), who is giving the orders, for how long will the conflict continue, at what price, how different is the reality of the situation from that which was planned and is reported, etc... and what deeper effect does it have on the people involved, mentally and emotionally? Of course, there are many more questions involved - and, as is often the case, surely more questions than there are answers. Certainly no simple answers.

I must, however, get back to assigned work before hitting the hay, so I'll leave you with these and note that we have "Waltz with Bashir" in the library (not so sure about "Lebanon"... and beware, we have two copies of "Waltz with Bashir," only one of which has English subtitles, apparently).... take a gander.

Israel breaks ties with UNESCO in the name of religious legacy

A pause in the midst of researching coalition governments and the Knesset yielded an interesting tweet from Israeli's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon (because, as you may recall, Foreign Minister is Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, and he's less than ideal for making public statements... a West Bank settler, by the by). In any case, the news from Ayalon: "We have suspended our cooperation with UNESCO until their scandalous decision on Rachel's Tomb is rescinded."

Naturally, this required further research on my part (because I haven't been doing enough of that, clearly), yielding this article from Ha'aretz - "Israel clashes with UNESCO in row* over holy sites." In short, UNESCO (the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Org., that is) has classified what Israelis know as Rachel's Tomb, a holy site in the West Bank, as a mosque, known to Muslims as the al-Ibrahimi Mosque.

The kicker? "If the places where the fathers and mothers of the Jewish nation are buried, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Leah and Rachel some 4,000 years ago are not part of the Jewish heritage, then what is?" As we discussed with the video in class, it often comes down to a matter of legitimacy and national history, the legacy of the people - which happens to be, in large part, a major source of identification for them, as well.... "them" being both Jews and Muslims, and Christians, if we're going to go that way. Abrahamic religions. Thus we see the importance of the West Bank and Jerusalem - a huge religious feature of the conflict that Sinai and the Golan Heights don't involve, making them less disputed. As we know, of course, the Israelis did ultimately return the Sinai territory, though Golan Heights remains more disputed; still, one can't help but guess that it's defining draw (location and altitude for the purpose of military strategy) is not so significant in the 21st century world of technology as it was in the past. The West Bank, however.... well, though we are getting progressively farther from the past (the nature of time, you know), it is still there, and still extremely important to all cultures and peoples involved.

To declare a site religious to all Abrahamic religions under the terms of one religion in particular is a loaded statement on the part of UNESCO, particularly considering the already loaded debate on the status and future of the West Bank. Admittedly, this is the first this is really coming to my attention. Upon delving through research on other matters and, ideally, after a bit of sleep, it's something I'd be interested to come back to. Really, how does one solve a conflict in which both sides have legitimate and rightful claims? Oy.


*For the record, I am now determined to use the term "row" in place of "argument" or "debate" sometime this week.

Another arrest, and its potential consequences...

I see Ben has also just posted regarding this matter, but I felt the need to note it as well, if as no more than a follow up to one of my earlier posts - the arrest of a Pakistani-American man for allegedly planning to bomb the DC metro.

As I'd posted in September, the possibility was not a distant one, nor should it have been an unexpected one; I'd have a hard time believing that a few of my friends and I are the only ones who ever paused in the crowded Metro stations to think "Gee, it'd be really easy to wreak some serious havoc here... particularly considering the lack of apparent security..." 

Of course, the interest to me has increased all the more upon seeing the Metro stations he'd apparently had in mind - Arlington, Pentagon City, Crystal City, Courthouse - all in NOVA. I lived and worked in Arlington, VA, for several months of this past spring, taking the Metro through Courthouse numerous times a day, to and from work; what's more, some of my closest friends in DC live just a block from the Crystal City station. We passed through all of these stations on a regular basis, as do many others. 

As I titled the earlier blog post I've just referred to, it's a matter of battling on the homefront, a real and serious danger that we Americans fortunately have not had to consider to any serious extent on a day-to-day basis. Heck, Washingtonians live in a hot spot of potential targets, yet their daily concerns are more with the annoying tourists standing on the wrong side of the escalator or the international convention that has resulted in the closing off of a few streets, or the rallies and sign-wavers that clog the Metro on so many weekends.

I'm not about to advocate living in fear of potential attacks; we ought to appreciate the fact that we don't have to - or, at least, haven't had to. No citizen should have to go about their daily life in a constant state of fear... but it happens. Far too often, in far too many cases, in far too many places. I can't help but doubt, however, that the American mindset of relative safety from attack on the homefront is one soon to change - perhaps it's thanks to our history, or to our geographical isolation, or to our perception of our own political and military-backed weight in an apparently unipolar world. 

This fear of home attack is just not one I foresee us readily falling prey to, beyond temporary scares and potential reminders of our own mortality. Instead, another fear can - and has - easily arise out of such unfortunate episodes: Islamophobia. With every uncovered plot such as this, with every suspicion or guilty verdict lobbed at a proclaimed follower of Islam - be it a valid suspicion or not - the xenophobia, the negative stereotypes, hatred, and fear leveled at the Muslim world visibly increase. People already nervous see it as yet another instance validating their fears and concerns, their biases and distrust - their stereotyping and boxing.

Regarding Semana Poetica, aliyahs, and the great Topol

News for this week? Semana Poética! This evening I managed to tear myself away from piles of homework and head to Stern between shifts at the circ. desk, catching tonight's poets, David Leo Garcia (Spain) and Tatiana Shcherbina (Russia).... Admittedly, the first caught me off guard - I'd mumbled under my breath en route to the reading when a college-age guy walking in front of me paused several times in an attempt to light his cigarette. (Note: smoking is bad for your health.) ...turns out, this was the very poet I was going to see; Garcia is 22.

Aside from sheer interest's sake, though, we can tie this back to the ME in two direct lights - 1.Dickinson professor and Israeli Nitsa Kann will be reading on Thursday (at noon in the Great Room), and 2.Psoy Korolenko will be making his appearance on Wednesday at 7. Korolenko, with the intriguing pseudonym of Pavel Lion, is a Russian Jew - an identification that automatically links him to much of Israel's history, were we to consider the fact that the First, Second, and Third Aliyahs very much came out of Eastern Europe and Russia. This, in turn, crops up in things like the philosophy of the kibbutzim, and even political parties, as seen in the base of Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home), part of the currently ruling coalition government and led by Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman (for better or worse... ahem).

A basic YouTube search of Psoy Korolenko is most definitely worth the few seconds it takes to type it in, and yields a few rather intriguing results. Take this, for instance:

...right. Frankly, I'm not quite sure what to say in response to this, other than note the potential interest/ intrigue/ entertainment factor of his upcoming appearance at Dickinson. He certainly seems to be a colorful character, to say the least.

Honestly, when I think "Russian Jew," I'm just as likely to think of Topol and "Fiddler on the Roof" as I am to think Yisrael Beitenu.... or, now, Psoy Korolenko. After all, the film is a classic - and who could forget a scene such as this one? For those as yet unfamiliar with the story of a Jewish community's experience in Russia through the eyes of Tevye, we have it in the library; take a gander.

*By the by, just in case you're considering a move to Israel: help in making your aliyah a smoother process, courtesy of the Jewish Agency for Israel....

Thought-provoking via Shipler

Brief developing of some thoughts inspired by today's video, "Arabs and Jews: A Return to the Promise Land":

Thought 1: "It's not natural to live together" ...and later, "How to live together, how to learn to live together... maybe our children will know." Both comments were made by the Israeli teacher, and both are thought-provoking - and a bit disturbing, honestly. Any time there's talk of what is "natural" or "unnatural," there's cause for concern. Who decides if it's natural? What has made them decide this? What are the consequences of this kind of thinking? Well, in this case, the consequences can be seen in the second quote I noted - leaving the problem unsolved and hoping a future generation will be able to work it out themselves. Leaving aside the trouble of giving up on one's own ability to make even the tiniest difference for the better, I'll just say this - if the children in question are raised to believe that it is "unnatural" to live peacefully alongside someone of different backgrounds or beliefs, they will also be left shaking their heads at an unsolved and bloody problem, hoping that their children will solve the problem rather than dealing with it themselves.

Thought 2: The Israeli student (first seen at the age of 13, reading poetry) commented along the lines of needing to cut the strings of the marionettes we've become, tied to history, apparently held back by it... to which I have to agree to a certain extent, as sure, bitterness from old wounds isn't particularly helpful in a peace process, though we're served by history in other ways - as noted by several of the interviewees, that narrative is how they define themselves, for better or worse. Oddly enough, though, all I could think of as the woman spoke of cutting off these historic ties was one of the early Zionist thinkers, Micah Berdichevski, who also advocated a separation from history, only, for his purposes, declaring that Jews must come before Judaism and start anew. ...People before tradition.

Thought 3: The lawyer's comments toward the end are also noteworthy, including the realistic-optimistic comment of "It's all over but the body count," as discussed in class. Had to smirk a bit when he commented that this inevitable "divorcing" of people wouldn't be a cordial one - because really, what divorce is? I speak from experience; divorce is always an ugly process, the variation is really just in the extent. Or, to go by Tolstoy, "Every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way".... Can we apply that to nation-states? I think I'll have to mull that one over...

Speaking up... or not...

Quick thought before I'm off to sleep - I've found, though perhaps not terribly surprising, that I'm most likely to comment on or respond to things (articles, blog posts, statements, etc) when I find myself in disagreement. The higher the level of disagreement, the more I'm inclined to comment or attempt some sort of rebuttal.

As I've just now opted to hash over that thought for a moment, I'm still a bit undecided as to how I feel about it.... Of course, it's ideal to be active intellectually, academically, politically, etc, pretty much any time we have the opportunity to do so - keeps us in good practice and on our toes, questioning our opinions, honing our rhetoric, whathaveyou. Shouldn't this activity include times even when we're in agreement, then? Am I in danger of looking at this dearth of comments on matters more akin to my own beliefs as one would, say, not bothering to vote due to apathy or simple lack of open disagreement with the current state of affairs?

One of my favorite quotes comes from the epic pen of Elie Wiesel (a Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner- do yourself a favor and look the man up if you've never read anything by him... and certainly venture beyond Night if you have time, though, I know, that is the most well known)... but I digress. My favorite quote, noted by a former teacher of mine to be my motto (unbelievably flattering) is this:

"Be the conscience of your nation. And remember, a conscience that does not speak up when injustices are being committed is betraying itself. A mute conscience is a false conscience."

I do think that speaks for itself, really, so no need to expound upon it. ...It's a challenge, though - he's challenging us all. ....but now, come to think of it, what if we don't notice anything we take particular issue with? Say, I read a post, think "Huh, I don't quite agree with this and this, but on the whole, yeah, sure..." Honestly, I'm not likely to comment unless I'm particularly drawn to it for one reason or another. Is that settling for status quo, though? Do we risk apathy by not taking action until we're annoyed or offended enough to do so? Now, I'm not about to pull a Mao and attempt continuous revolution sheerly for the sake of keeping up the good ol' revolutionary spirit, but apathy is certainly something to be avoided, is it not? Risks laziness, status quo... though, of course, sometimes there really is just little we feel the need to say, and why babble if we have nothing of worth to note?

...before I risk further babbling here, though, I'll hit the hay. The thought is a half-formed one, but then, that's the lovely feature of blogs at times, isn't it? By all means, please assist in the further formation of the thought if you feel so inclined.... or perhaps just if you're terribly opposed to something I've just said (indeed, irony).

Update on the Israeli front... but it certainly isn't new.

This just in from BBC (ME): Israel offers building halt if Jewish state recognized
(with my American spelling necessarily altering "recognise" to "recognize;" my apologies.)

To build or not to build; to recognize or not to recognize; to negotiate or not to negotiate. ...Again.

Did somebody say "impasse"?

Now following you: Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel

Just received an email informing me that Danny Ayalon, Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel, is now following me on Twitter.... huh.  (Though it must be said: Israel really might be following you. Who knows, Mossad is everywhere... just like Big Brother. ...I kid.)

a. Account looks relatively legit, but unverified, so don't put all your eggs in that basket.
b. Well, we are both following several of the same accounts- the White House and Pres. Obama (PR to the max), news correspondent Jake Tapper, Tom Friedman, the Mideast Channel, the Israeli Foreign Ministry, PM Netanyahu, the Israeli Consulate in NY, Ha'aretz, VOA, BBC (ME edition), Reuters, the UN, etc.... but Twitter is a ridiculously large sphere, making that connection a very vague one.

In any case, though, it's an intriguing and entertaining idea, that one could be so closely tied to influential people on the other side of the world. More to the point in my mind, however, is one particular factor of the entire hoopla: note that it is the Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel that one would be hearing from on Twitter, less likely the Foreign Minister himself. Why? Most likely because a terribly large proportion of the population - Israeli and non-Israeli alike, I'd venture to guess - cringes and gasps when Avigdor Lieberman takes the stage or, more worrisome, the mic. One rather important feature of politics and diplomacy? Ability to present oneself, one's party, and one's country (and know when to do which) well and properly. Communication. ...And it is always unfortunate, isn't it, when a public official is notorious for less than ideal statements; thus Avigdor finds himself less in the limelight, while his fellow party (Yisrael Beitenu) member, Danny, steps it up. Curious.

More to come as I attempt to gather my sanity this weekend, (former) Girl Scout's promise.

Also, just for the heck of it and in the name of Dickinson's own DPS: from the Washington Post, "Squirrels refuse medical care." Apparently DPS officers are not the only ones notably concerning themselves with the squirrel populations lately.

Work what you've got

Quick thought from class before I necessarily move on to other nonsense (pending return soon after, I'm sure):

As discussed, the UDHR  may be emphasized via two general veins of thought, the ICCPR (civil and political rights) and the ICESCR (economic, social, and cultural rights). One theory put forth in the course of the conversation was that sub-Saharan Africa - quickly broadened to encompass all of Africa - would be presumed to focus on the latter of the two, naturally finding it more pressing to see to more basic, life-sustaining rights as opposed to ideological. This point I have to question, if only due to the rather common yet inaccurately generalizing view of lumping the roughly 50 states that make up Africa into one vast and vague idea. Please forgive me for not whipping out a map to actually count every one at the moment, but suffice it to say that it is, of course, a continent of many countries, rather than one country in and of itself.

But I digress. The thought, when it comes down to it: while I agree that logic may dictate an emphasis on ESCR before one can turn to the more abstract goals of CPR, it also seems noteworthy that a country's focusing on ESCR would require its putting forth the resources to do just that. ...And what if your country lacks the resources to even purport to provide the population with sufficient food, housing, work, etc? Would you still want to emphasize those rights as the most important? Frankly, I wouldn't. Emphasizing the value of that which you simply cannot do at the moment is not the most ideal political tactic, at least from my perspective. Why tell me how fantastic and crucial something is then fail to provide it, or even aid in my attaining it? Assuming I ultimately realize that you've failed to make good on these promises - which I will, as I sit hungrily along the side of the road, wishing I had all of those things - I am not likely to support or uphold your legitimacy.

Instead, we emphasize that which we have going for us, whatever little it may be. Take, for instance, my summer in Ghana - not in MENA, my apologies, but an African frame of reference and the only one I can personally supply at the moment. The country is known for its relative and gradually increasing success, particularly as a democracy (though relatively recent, after a series of military coups). Right to vote, freedom of expression, freedom of the press (what press there is), constant political debate (quality debatable) over radio and tv, etc etc: it's a work in progress, but progressing nonetheless.

Turn, then, from such CPR examples to the country's ability to manage ESCR. Food, shelter, and work available and guaranteed to all? Not at all. Eat what you can grow, catch, or scrounge up with a few cedis; live where you can (until the rainy season threatens to wash it away or the state relocates you); sell what you can make, grow, or get your hands on... do what you can, but the state can't guarantee it. And if the state can't guarantee it, would the state choose to emphasize it as the most crucial of rights? Probably not.

Of course, this varies pending circumstances, governmental system, national and international issues, etc etc, and the thoughts are rough, but hopefully you catch what I'm throwing. I'm not going to tell you 'x' is more important to you if I can only even begin to give you 'y.'

Hot off the Israeli presses:

          Israel4:49pm via itweetlive

PM Netanyahu Calls on Abbas to Continue “Sincere Talks” http://bit.ly/co1QLC

The above comes straight off of my Twitter feed (really, folks, it's a beautiful thing - especially for news). The link? To "Israel Politik: The Political Blog of the State of Israel." ...and, unfortunately, to unabashed propaganda, in this case via totally failing to note the expiration of the settlement moratorium.

In the mean time, US envoys hie it across the world to see what they can do to "salvage" matters. Bon voyage, Mitchell, and may the force be with you - you'll need it.

Back in Carlisle, taking note of: 

a.As noted in the VOA article, Netanyahu risks losing support of the more conservative members of his government and the Knessent - a coalition government, at that. Potential significance: the dropping out of even one party with a relatively small number of seats in a coalition government can mean mass chaos, giving them more sway than they perhaps deserve. Thus my research paper. Woot. 

b.Abbas consulting with PLO and the Arab League - as noted in class. The lack of a unified Palestinian government, of course, requires that he assure himself of some international backing, even ignoring the "Arab Nationalism" factor of this. Sometimes - dare I say often - necessity plays an even larger role than ideology. ...and

c. Compliments of the VOA article, a thought from DOS spokesman Crowley: "The process is important. It's vital. As the parties themselves know, absent these direct negotiations, Israel does not get the security that it needs and deserves, and the Palestinians do not get that state that they want and deserve. So one way or another, the parties have to find a way to continue direct negotiations." .... 1.Interesting: Israel "needs and deserves," Palestinians "want and deserve"... not need? Freudian slip, or consciously done? and 2.These factors are not new. Thus the term "impasse," unfortunately.

...but, in all sincerity, I wish the diplomats the best of luck. It may be wishful thinking, but I suppose the very essence of that is that one can always wish, if nothing else.... and that should count for something. Not much, perhaps, but something.

"First-rate intelligence" and the danger of waffling

The Ha'aretz article posted earlier this evening raises a good question: why the censorship in history courses? Why would one be opposed to sharing both sides of a narrative such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Are we not always informed - and rightly so - that it is best to see all sides of a situation before attempting to come to any conclusions? After all, in the words of F. Scott Fitzgerald: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

It's that last part that gets us, though - "and still retain the ability to function." See, it's just so much easier to get along in life without this conflict of ideas. Thus the phrase "blissfully ignorant." Knowing only the Israeli side of the story, for instance, makes it that much easier to be pro-Israel, and in the most extreme and self-assured way (long-live-Avigdor-Lieberman style). Likewise, focusing only on the Palestinian narrative also yields an obvious bias rather than a balanced understanding.

This matter, of course, is nothing new; any concerned government knows to keep an eye on the education of it's citizens. Just what are those children learning in class? Can we say evolution and the Scopes trial? Or perhaps the Big Bang Theory? Maybe recalling European-inspired colonial education? Choice of terms when learning about foreign cultures? Or hey, how about analyzing why the Middle East, for all intents and purposes, lacks "great powers"?

The Lustick article, in my humble opinion, raised some interesting and relevant points. Namely, "no great state in today's world has arisen peacefully or legally" (Lustick 658), combined with the emphasis of Western intervention in Middle Eastern conflicts, thereby apparently preventing this "survival of the fittest," realist (yes?) method of states' rising to regional power. Indeed, all logical: states gain sway and influence with conflict, weeding out the weak members of the herd, yet we now attempt to prevent this weeding out, the outsiders in the West instead priding themselves on protecting those same weak members in the name of sovereignty (and human rights, frankly).

My question while reading this, though: Of course we can't blatantly condone bloody state obliteration in the name of regional hegemony in the long run (and Lustick makes a point of noting that he does not mean to condone actions such as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait)... so how are "great powers" to come about in the Middle East, taking into account Lustick's argument that a.it cannot be done peacefully, and b.we won't allow it to be done violently? If the goals of development of a greater power in the Middle East and avoiding all-out interstate war in the region are inherently opposition, as Lustick suggests, how are we to hold to both ideas and "retain the ability to function," ie do something about it?

Thus the fear of muddling up citizens' minds with too many facts and viewpoints: it's overwhelming, potentially confusing, and inherently conflicting. And all of that, of course, can be flat-out depressing. Then again, what good is it to grasp these conflicting ideas if we then don't know what to do with them? As Fitzgerald points out, there's more to it than just understanding opposing ideas (though that in and of itself is quite the task); we must then remain functional, able to act. Open-minded but not gullible, understanding but not waffling, balanced but not indecisive. It's no walk in the park, that much we can say with surety.

(Opus, Berkeley Breathed)

On Muslim populations, Senegal, and a very large statue

Quick thought after perusing the Ayoob article on political Islam, particularly noting mention of majority Muslim populations opposing "unsavory and repressive regimes": I know it falls under the umbrella of West Africa rather than North Africa, but please bear with me in a glimpse at Senegal.

This past summer, my return trip from Accra, Ghana, to the U.S. in mid-July was quite the fiasco, truly kicking off with an emergency stop in Dakar, Senegal, to see to (and ultimately leave behind) a sick passenger. Not to get sidetracked with the details at the moment - though it was quite the eventful journey on the whole - I chose to look upon the detour as an interesting side trip rather than a delay (here's hoping the ill and elderly Ghanaian woman faired well once off the plane).

It was a wonderfully unexpected opportunity to catch a glimpse of another piece of the great African continent, this time serving up a fantastic view of the coast and the city's peninsula as we circled Dakar, burning off fuel before light enough to land safely. Glued to the window, glued to the window, glued to the window.... landed, sit on runway for over an hour as woman is escorted off the plane and Senegalese security comes through the aircraft, snack on some dried mango, wait some more, and taxi on the runway. ...Which is when my window seat afforded this intriguing sight:

Naturally, Curious George and nerd that I am, I did some research once safely back in Pennsylvania and revived by a solid chunk of time spent sleeping. The result: what we had seen was the highly debated African Renaissance Monument, commissioned by Senegalese President Wade, much to the frustration (understandably) of not a few people, particularly with Muslim values in mind. Note: roughly 95% of the Senegalese population identifies itself as Muslim. Well, really, I'll direct you to the details rather than babbling on and further depriving myself of sleep: "Senegal's colossal statue stirs big controversy." Call me crazy, but erecting an expensive, risqué, and rather sexist monument with plans to personally collect on the profits is not the best way to celebrate a rejuvenation of African power, nor is it the best way to gain or maintain the support of a majority Muslim population.

Note also: according to the U.S. Dept. of State, "Senegal enjoys an excellent relationship with the United States." Now, I don't know the details of Senegalese government, particularly in relation to how Senegalese feel about their government (and/or the US), but I'm certainly intrigued, thanks to Ayoob's reminder.

Battle on the homefront

This afternoon, as we discussed the challenges of dealing with terrorism, particularly as an everyday fact of life, the first thing that came to my mind was, understandably, Israel, a country consistently in danger of attack and renowned for its military, intelligence, and security systems. What's more, part of this package deal of national defense includes civilians so alert that an unattended bag could be reported in a matter of seconds (and surely the country-wide draft into the IDF doesn't hurt such training).

In sharp contrast, as I stood in a DC Metro station one evening last spring, awaiting a typically late friend, I watched an unfolding of events - or rather, lack thereof - that struck me as both slightly comical and incredibly disturbing. A teenage girl, apparently travelling with a high school team for some sporting event, stopped in the middle of the station as her friends attempted to puzzle through the mysteries of buying a metro pass. When it became clear that her teammates where totally at a loss, she dropped her bulky duffle bag to the floor and walked over to assist. Still, it took them a good couple of minutes to work out the seemingly troublesome machine, during which time dozens of people had walked by the bag, noting it only if it stood in their pathway and required a brief change of direction. Meanwhile, the automated announcements over the loudspeaker reminded travelers to stand clear of doors and to ask "Excuse me, is that your bag?" upon coming across an unattended item.

Here we were, in one of the most powerful cities of one of the most powerful countries of the world, and no one saw any potential threat in the unavoidably large bag left in the middle of the bustling metro station. All were too much in a hurry, too busy to be bothered, unconcerned.

My friends and I had often considered the possible danger before, as well, standing in Metro Center amidst hundreds of other Washingtonians in the middle of weekday rush hour. How easy it would be to waltz in with, well, anything, and create massive chaos (now don't alert the authorities about me, we were considering it merely from the side of "This could be ridiculously dangerous").

At some time or another, this must have struck the thoughts of at least some Metro goers, packed in body-to-body and exits forever away - particularly if we recall moments like the 2004 Madrid train bombing, 2005 train and bus bombings in London, or the 2010 metro bombings in Moscow. It certainly is not unfeasible.

On the other hand, throughout history, the US has enjoyed its geographic isolation as natural protection. We are lucky enough not to be continuously under fire, and were therefore all the more jarred by 9/11's striking at the homeland. We've certainly been involved in conflict, but it is not generally an issue on our own soil.

It is fantastic that Americans can continue about our daily lives, taking safety for granted - but that taking for granted also potentially hampers us in making us less than alert, more reactive than proactive. Countries like Israel, which deal with acts of terrorism on a regular basis, have developed methodologies and systems, inculcated their citizens with awareness, etc, while we, with potentially more resources for doing just that, seem to trail behind in such ways.

The Metro loudspeaker can warn against unattended bags all day - and does - but it doesn't ensure that the problem is resolved.

Must say it-

Taken from the Lewis piece, concerning media in the Middle East:

"Even some of the intensely and unscrupulously propagandist television programs that now infest the airwaves contribute to this process, indirectly and unintentionally, by offering a diversity of lies that arouse suspicion and questioning."

...Fox News?

(They do, of course, provide more substance from time to time, but the comparison was just asking to be made. ...And before you sic Ann Coulter on me, please a.recover your sense of humor, and b.know that I am an independent raised on a house of Fox-lovers... and Shepard Smith, at least, could be an exception.)

The ongoing debate

Time magazine is not the only source of a very popular question of late: are Americans Islamophobic?

And here's the latest from the Washington Post.

...Know what you're opposing, folks, if you insist upon opposing it. Perhaps you'll find that, were we to take the time to try to understand matters at a deeper level (or any level, goodness.), our opinions would alter. My best friend in high school was of the one Jewish family in town; my roommate in DC last semester was an observant Muslim, born in Pakistan; I (born and raised Protestant Christian... in a house of avowed Republicans) spent Easter making brunch with my closest friends in DC, the four of us accounting for Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Hindu upbringings- American, Mexican and Amerindian, Polish, and Canadian-Indian. ...And I still have a lot to learn.

I have, however, already briefly battled this, as one may find (if interested) here, so I'll refrain from hashing over it once again at the moment.

Shanah Tovah to those celebrating Rosh Hashanah and, soon enough, Eid Mubarak to those celebrating Eid al-Fitr.

The promised follow-up

...Seven hours later, and we may continue.

Said, Orientalism, polarizing West and "East" (that is, everything outside of Western and Central Europe and the U.S.), the trouble of inherent bias of perspective.

To get down to the more obvious and direct relevance in looking at the Middle East, though - the conflict arising between desire to modernize (in accordance with the typically biased thought process, read: "Westernize") and desire to maintain one's original culture is not specific to any one region of the world. This conflict, furthermore, can not only inspire divisions within the country - as seen in our readings of Ottoman and Egyptian histories - but can also inspire divisions within the individuals themselves, having been so inculcated with the notion that their native language and culture is somehow inferior.

Admittedly, I think most of Ghana in cases such as this, and it was one of the most upsetting and angering features of my two months there this past summer. Ghanaians themselves constantly bemoaned the laziness, inabilities, and lack of trustworthiness, among other unfortunate epithets, of other Ghanaians - "that's Ghana," they'd say. What's more, as a Caucasian and, therefore, rarity, I was not just gawked at - I was quite blatantly seen as superior, ideal, even more beautiful (not incredibly surprising when one notes billboards and commercials advertising skin lighteners).... and thereby hit on, complimented, proposed to, and made the object of declarations of love on numerous occasions, but that's besides the point.

The frustration is, because they'd been so torn between European imperialism and Westernization and their own historical background, they'd ultimately come to the conclusion that they must, indeed, be inferior, and how upsetting it is that some are still so stuck in their "backward" ways, unwilling to modernize. At the same time, though, everywhere - even in the textbooks I busied myself editing - were cries for national pride and warnings against the dangerous and corroding impact of Western influences.

A quick side note regarding Egypt and Ismail's determination to no longer be considered African: from what I've heard, he succeeded at least in that (though at a heavy cost). All conversations I had with Africans and any recent readings on the matter have yielded similar if not identical results - Egyptians don't seem to consider themselves African, and other Africans readily agree with them.

...and it's time to be off yet again. A bientot.

An inevitable bias

As an English/Poli Sci major, I do a lot of reading.... a lot. As in, I live in the library. This is where I work, study, socialize, eat (thank you, Biblio Cafe), and sleep (accidentally). Thus you find me here, spending some quality time behind the circ. desk at quarter to 2 in the morning.

In any case, all of this reading has its benefits at times - necessarily, really, to offset the pain of sleep deprivation and fear of impending blindness. The latest in this front (ignoring a string of new Shakespearean insults I'm storing up) finds itself in Orientalism, a work by Edward Said that criticizes the Western view of what was, until rather recently, generally referred to as "the Orient" - the East to our West, the backward to our developing, the exploited to our exploiting, the inferior yin to our superior yang... supposedly, that is.

Though we discussed Said for the sake of postcolonial literary theory, the concepts can be applied across the board. After all, the perspective through which we view the world plays an integral role in how we interact within it. If we proceed to make assumptions, generalize, and simplify - especially in the case of those claiming to record an unbiased truth or history - we'll continue to miss the boat, and consequently endure all of the conflict and repercussions tied to it.

...My goodness, between beginning this post and now, I dealt with an overflowing toilet in a library restroom, closed the library, returned to my room, and skyped with a friend in Hyderabad (darn time change). Will have to adjourn for the moment, to continue the discussion post-sleep and spinning class (which, thankfully, will wake me up, sleep deprived though I may be). The basic gist: only by recognizing our own bias, perhaps even particularly regarding how much we truly don't know, can we begin to approach a real level of understanding. Thus, classes like ours- sometimes it takes a bit of re-educating rather than just educating.

Unleash the techie in yourself and join the twitterverse

Fun fact: you can follow Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu on twitter! Verified account is @netanyahu ... or Pres. Obama @BarackObama ... etc etc. I checked Mahmoud Abbas, just to keep things "fair and balanced" (and I use that phrase more faithfully than does Fox), but the initial search has revealed no verified accounts.

Lovely. The list of those I follow now includes fellow Dickinsonians, politicians, authors, actors, and masses of news organizations throughout the world. Somehow, actually receiving tweets from bestselling authors (Sloane Crosley!) or major Bollywood stars (Vivek Oberoi! Comments on the US/Ghana World Cup game brought us together)... it all makes the world seem that much smaller.

The speed at which this is all thrown at you, though, is overwhelming, to say the least. Daily headline emails, afternoon headlines, global updates at 11pm, twitter, news alerts, facebook, etc, and that's just online.... eesh. It's a sad irony that so much news has actually made it more difficult to feel that I'm keeping on top of it, as there's so much more to keep on top of.... it's like having less time to read because I work at the library.

Still, how fantastic is it that one can get news that quickly and from so many different sources and perspectives... it's grand! Slightly overwhelming/bewildering, but grand nonetheless.

And so it begins.... again.

September 2, 2010.

Really, it's just a day to talk about the Middle East - especially if you're Benjamin Netanyahu or Mahmoud Abbas. I don't happen to be either (thank goodness), but I'm going to join in the fun anyways... well, tune in and comment, at the very least.

May 14, 1948: Declaration of the establishment of the state of Israel

A few hours later: Declaration of war upon Israel by Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, quickly accompanied by an invasion and the start of the 1948 War/ Israeli War of Independence or War of Liberation/ al-Nakba or "Catastrophe"

I briefly considered timeline-ing it out, but quite frankly, there's just too much. That fact alone should get the point across, no? From the day Israel declared itself independent (not to even touch that which led up to that moment) to this very moment, it's been wrought with violence, tension, and conflict, originating both from within the (sometimes fuzzy) border and without. Amazingly but not surprisingly, everyone's still holding their ground. On one hand, I have to admire the determination and persistence involved here, disastrous as it may prove at times. On the other hand, those disastrous results of obstinacy and intolerance also prevent progress.... as we will most likely see once again after today's attempt.

Sometimes, admittedly, I can be rather cynical.* You got me. Caught red handed with a presumptuous smirk, quizzical brow, and/or roll of the eyes. When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however.... well, it's a large club of cynics, and for good reason.

Perhaps it's the memory of the late Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin that forms the true bastion, if you will, of my cynicism. "Late," that is, because he was assassinated on November 4, 1995. By a conservative, right-wing and Jewish Israeli. Following peace talks with Yasser Arafat (again under the watchful eye of the US).

Rabin, along with Arafat and Shimon Peres had been awarded the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize thanks to the previously signed Oslo Accords. In his acceptance speech, Rabin declared: "We are in the midst of building the peace. The architects and engineers of this enterprise are engaged in their work even as we gather here tonight, building the peace layer by later, brick by brick, beam by beam. The job is difficult, complex, trying. Mistakes could topple the whole structure and bring disaster down upon us. And so we are determined to do the job well - despite the toll of murderous terrorism, despite fanatic and scheming enemies." ...How painfully ironic.

If nothing else, the case of Rabin reminds us that there is more to conflict resolution than agreements between political leaders; their citizens must agree, as well.

Ah, and here is an NYT update: the fellows in question have agreed to successive rounds of talks. All well and good, but it's only the beginning. The cynic in me is too busy coming up with the questions at hand (West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza, settlements, refugees, right of return, etc etc) to celebrate just yet.

*Note: "Cynics" are not to be confused with "pessimists." I prefer to differentiate in one key point. Namely, pessimists expect only bad or, at the very least, nothing good. Cynics, on the other hand, are those of us who might vaguely hope for something good but, perhaps due to past experience, chalk it up as unlikely, taking into account human nature as they see it.