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.