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.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
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?
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?
Thursday, November 11, 2010
"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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)