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.'