One issue that I have had quite a bit this semester is the whole question of "so what?"
I thoroughly enjoy learning this material, and I think it is hugely important that we (as Jews, Christians, Muslims, pro-Palestinian, pro-Israeli, pro-peace, pro-security, neutral, etc) learn and understand the giant balagan of the situation. We may never understand, but we must try. What I have struggled with is answering my questions. I am unable to find answers to the hard questions. Where are we moving on the matter by just learning it? What about peace negotiations? I have further set in stone my belief that there won't be 100% peace in the region, with the matter, so I keep asking myself why is this worth it?
What can we actually achieve by just discussing. Why aren't we acting? How can we act? I hope that this will all get better, but I honestly don't see it happening. So i return to my idea of idealizing the status quo.
I will say that I only see this politically. I try to look beyond the religion, because it won't actually define anything, and won't get us anywhere. Political boundaries shift more fluidly than do religious ones. So my issue is - why are we focusing so much on the culture? Does learning about gender and sexuality issues, or music (besides the politically themed songs) actually help us understand the already incredibly difficult to understand Israeli Palestinian conflict? Or does it just complicate matters.
I have loved learning all of these topics, but I wonder if we focused on just the greater issue and thought on the big scale, could we actually achieve greater things?
So often, with peace negotiations, we try to figure things out without discussing Jerusalem. The thought is to get everything else down, then talk Jerusalem. But maybe we should start with Jerusalem. You can't uproot a tree by pulling on it's leaves... you must start at the strongest (albeit most difficult to manage) part, and move on from there.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Interesting film
Check out this trailer for a documentary about J Street. It offers a glimpse into an AIPAC alternative. An alternative that I think will be better for Israel in the long term.
http://vimeo.com/53536053
(I don't have permission to embed the video here, sorry)
http://vimeo.com/53536053
(I don't have permission to embed the video here, sorry)
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Reading Response
The websites of the different LGBTQ organizations were very intriguing. The cause of LGBTQ rights in Israel and Palestine is clearly an interest of the more liberal-leaning side of the political spectrum. And this alignment along the spectrum brings up an interesting thought. So often in Israel/Palestinian politics, we align ideas and issues along a 2 dimensional political spectrum. Yet as we dig deeper and deeper, I find it hard to see such a distinct spectrum. The left/right alignment of LGBTQ issues are not necessarily parallel to security issues, or humanitarian issues.
This idea is one which I tend to find myself struggling with quite often. Whereas in US politics, I find myself very left-aligned, when it comes to Israeli/Palestinian politics, I am all over the board. I find myself to be very pro-humanitarian issues (left) but more center-right when it comes to security. These two identifications don't necessarily agree with each other. But I think this way because to me, security is a short term issue, meaning that it is crucial that people are safe now. But, humanitarian concerns create a difficulty, because it is sometimes hard to protect people without appearing to be violating the rights of others.
But back to LGBTQ matters in Jerusalem. I think it is clear that the number of activists in this field are growing in Jerusalem, but because of the sheer nature of Jerusalem, as an incredibly religious city, I unfortunately do not see the LGBTQ community becoming as large or accepted as it is in Jerusalem. While I don't agree or necessarily understand why this issue is not as accepted by those following "traditional" or "religious" teachings, cultures, or lifestyles, the two just don't seem to fit together.
I was in Jerusalem during the 2011 Jerusalem pride festival. It was an interesting image. First, I did see Arab Palestinians as well as Israeli Jews. The colors of the parade did not quite seem to fit with the image of Jerusalem. Such an old image, with faded colors, mixed with the bright, progressive colors of the movement. It was a challenging image. It was exciting, but it made me wonder how far the activists could really get in Jerusalem. The work that LGBTQ activists are doing in Jerusalem is beginning to grow in Jerusalem, but where do they hope to get? The number of Ultra-Orthodox Haredi Jews who opposed, verbally and even violently, these movements, is saddening and challenging. If this group in becoming a growing majority, is the fight even worth it? Or should the efforts be focused on other locations where theres more possibility for success?
I don't necessarily agree with this idea of giving up, but in the grand scheme of things, I see it to be fairly similar to to the idea of a two-state solution. Can the proposed solution of an international Jerusalem be seen as giving up? This idea is often seen as the best (although proponents of this are lessening) choice for a solution, but I think the reason it won't ever work is because both sides would be winning, but also both would be losing.
So where do we stand on the conflict, and where do we stand on LGBTQ issues? What can we do for either? Can this ever be solved?
This idea is one which I tend to find myself struggling with quite often. Whereas in US politics, I find myself very left-aligned, when it comes to Israeli/Palestinian politics, I am all over the board. I find myself to be very pro-humanitarian issues (left) but more center-right when it comes to security. These two identifications don't necessarily agree with each other. But I think this way because to me, security is a short term issue, meaning that it is crucial that people are safe now. But, humanitarian concerns create a difficulty, because it is sometimes hard to protect people without appearing to be violating the rights of others.
But back to LGBTQ matters in Jerusalem. I think it is clear that the number of activists in this field are growing in Jerusalem, but because of the sheer nature of Jerusalem, as an incredibly religious city, I unfortunately do not see the LGBTQ community becoming as large or accepted as it is in Jerusalem. While I don't agree or necessarily understand why this issue is not as accepted by those following "traditional" or "religious" teachings, cultures, or lifestyles, the two just don't seem to fit together.
I was in Jerusalem during the 2011 Jerusalem pride festival. It was an interesting image. First, I did see Arab Palestinians as well as Israeli Jews. The colors of the parade did not quite seem to fit with the image of Jerusalem. Such an old image, with faded colors, mixed with the bright, progressive colors of the movement. It was a challenging image. It was exciting, but it made me wonder how far the activists could really get in Jerusalem. The work that LGBTQ activists are doing in Jerusalem is beginning to grow in Jerusalem, but where do they hope to get? The number of Ultra-Orthodox Haredi Jews who opposed, verbally and even violently, these movements, is saddening and challenging. If this group in becoming a growing majority, is the fight even worth it? Or should the efforts be focused on other locations where theres more possibility for success?
I don't necessarily agree with this idea of giving up, but in the grand scheme of things, I see it to be fairly similar to to the idea of a two-state solution. Can the proposed solution of an international Jerusalem be seen as giving up? This idea is often seen as the best (although proponents of this are lessening) choice for a solution, but I think the reason it won't ever work is because both sides would be winning, but also both would be losing.
So where do we stand on the conflict, and where do we stand on LGBTQ issues? What can we do for either? Can this ever be solved?
Monday, March 18, 2013
Reading Response
These stories were very insightful, as they allow the reader to hear and even imagine themselves to be part of a first hand account. Hearing of the life of a Palestinian, living in such hostile land, is really something that is not possible in other places. A few important things that I noticed.
Children. Throughout much of the readings, there are references to children. Whether family or just children in the neighborhood, they are always there. And I think this is important to notice, because so often, we look at a conflict as one between adults. Or maybe between nations or groups, but always fronted by adults. But the children are always there. And while the idea of using references to children is a tactic used in conflict argument (it is always possible to bring the general public to your side by mentioning the "work you are doing to better the lives of children"), it is also important to note that we cannot just treat them as a part of society when debating the future. They are a vital part, an individual part, and any negotiations and actions taken now, by adults, will affect their lives.
I also found it interesting how Saud used such an iconic image as the gas mask right from the start. This imagery brings into focus the reality, the immediate threat that the conflict poses. As the story builds, the image of families in gas masks remains, no matter what they are doing. because of this, the greater image of daily life is altered.
In Saud's preface, an idea is mentioned that I agree with greatly. "I don't think I ever understood or, for that matter, forgave my parents, or the hundred of thousands of Palestinians who fled their homes in 1948, until my husband and I had to flee our home in Ramallah..." This idea is very important. While a huge part of the conflict, and the future of the conflict, is how those outside of it believe to understand it, we never can fully understand it unless we live it. On this thought, I think it is important to remember that a third party (the US, the UN) can play a role in trying to better the situation, but until both sides make great steps towards a solution, nothing will actually change.
Children. Throughout much of the readings, there are references to children. Whether family or just children in the neighborhood, they are always there. And I think this is important to notice, because so often, we look at a conflict as one between adults. Or maybe between nations or groups, but always fronted by adults. But the children are always there. And while the idea of using references to children is a tactic used in conflict argument (it is always possible to bring the general public to your side by mentioning the "work you are doing to better the lives of children"), it is also important to note that we cannot just treat them as a part of society when debating the future. They are a vital part, an individual part, and any negotiations and actions taken now, by adults, will affect their lives.
I also found it interesting how Saud used such an iconic image as the gas mask right from the start. This imagery brings into focus the reality, the immediate threat that the conflict poses. As the story builds, the image of families in gas masks remains, no matter what they are doing. because of this, the greater image of daily life is altered.
In Saud's preface, an idea is mentioned that I agree with greatly. "I don't think I ever understood or, for that matter, forgave my parents, or the hundred of thousands of Palestinians who fled their homes in 1948, until my husband and I had to flee our home in Ramallah..." This idea is very important. While a huge part of the conflict, and the future of the conflict, is how those outside of it believe to understand it, we never can fully understand it unless we live it. On this thought, I think it is important to remember that a third party (the US, the UN) can play a role in trying to better the situation, but until both sides make great steps towards a solution, nothing will actually change.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Interesting Article
Here is a New York Times op-ed that I find interesting. It related somewhat to my response of "looking ahead" discussing solutions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/opinion/global/zero-dark-zero.html?_r=2&
Zero Dark Zero
By ROGER COHEN
NEW YORK — A minister in the outgoing Israeli government put it to me bluntly during a recent visit to Israel: “For the first time in these elections, the Palestinians did not come into it.”
Israelis for the most part are comfortable enough to ignore their neighbors. If they are on the Titanic they prefer not to think about it.
It has become the received wisdom, in the White House and beyond, to suggest the current situation is unsustainable — the 46-year-old Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the undefined borders, the simmering conflict, the oppression. This may be no more than wishful thinking.
Israel’s situation feels sustainable. The economic miracle that makes swathes of the country feel like southern California can go on: Israel’s diplomatic loneliness does not amount to commercial isolation. Military domination will grow with U.S. support. A strong Israeli nationalist current — we won all the land on the battlefield, so it’s ours! — will prevail over the peace-talk fatigue among Israeli liberals and a splintered Palestinian movement.
Stepping across the wall-fence into the West Bank already feels like time travel back 30 years. Soon, given current momentum, it will feel like 40 years. Perhaps half a million Israelis living beyond the Green Line hardly know what it is: The two-state solution based around the 1967 borders, give or take agreed land swaps, is then a diplomatic and intellectual fiction.
Yes, Israel on all the land of Eretz Israel (a biblical term widely used to refer to the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, encompassing all of the West Bank) is sustainable. The status quo is not static. On balance, despite demographic patterns that favor the Palestinians, power tilts Israel’s way. Vitality trumps demography.
“Many years will pass without anything,” Tom Segev, the distinguished Israeli historian, told me. “We will go on oppressing; they will go on trying to fight. Most Israelis now feel their security is assured without giving up anything. That is the problem. The oppression of Palestinians is appalling. But the situation is calm. So Israelis don’t realize this everyday oppression. Nobody believes in peace any more.”
On the Palestinian side, too, believers in a two-state peace agreement have become harder to find. Settlement expansion with U.S. acquiescence has led to the conviction that there will be no viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
“Israel is not interested in permitting one and the U.S., who is subsidizing this effort, is unable and unwilling to change that because of domestic politics,” Yousef Munayyer, the executive director of the Washington-based Palestine Center wrote in an e-mail. He said Palestinians had lost faith in American mediation. Palestinians were likely to “re-strategize away from a state-based separatist struggle toward a rights-based struggle (already happening)” as “Israeli colonization” had “destroyed the territorial integrity of a would-be state.”
In other words, Palestinians will seek their rights — including that of return — within one state, rather than pursuing the establishment of their own national state. The only trouble is that, as the Israeli novelist Amos Oz told me recently, “The right of return is a euphemism for the liquidation of Israel. Even for a dove like myself this is out of the question.”
As Omar Barghouti, a leader of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, once put it: “If the refugees were to return, you would not have a two-state solution, you’d have a Palestine next to a Palestine.”
One state equals the end of Israel as a Jewish national state. It is not going to happen. It cannot be allowed to happen. Palestinian pursuit of that goal equals acceptance of eternal conflict. Jews, after the experience of the 20th century, are not going to give up the homeland they have battled so hard to build.
For any liberal Zionist — and I am one — convinced of the need for the two-state outcome envisaged in the United Nations resolution of 1947 establishing the modern state of Israel, both the religious-nationalist Israeli push to keep all the land and the Palestinian refusal to abandon the untenable, unacceptable “right of return” (there is no such right in history, just ask the Jews) are causes for deep despondency.
I said Israel’s situation is sustainable. It is in physical terms. It is not in ethical terms. This is a state whose Declaration of Independence in 1948 says it will “be founded on the principles of freedom, justice and peace in the spirit of the visions of the Prophets of Israel; will implement equality of complete social and national rights for all her citizens without distinction between religion, race and gender; will promise freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.” The West Bank dominion over 2.6 million humiliated Palestinians runs counter to every word of this.
President Obama will soon visit Israel and the West Bank. He has zero cause for hope. Peace lies beyond the eye of a rusty needle. The limitlessness of Israeli strength and of Palestinian victimhood has narrowed the path to the well-known compromises needed to end the conflict.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/opinion/global/zero-dark-zero.html?_r=2&
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Weblog #4
Let's talk about the beat of my life. Music follows me. Often times, I find that there is a song in the background that fits into whatever I am doing. While I sometimes am the cause of this, I seem to find myself in settings where the music presents itself.
This sounds extremely out there, but its not some statement with a higher meaning. When I listen for it, there is a soundtrack to my life. It defines me. I don't listen to just the newest fad, or any one genre for that matter. I listen to whatever I want. Sometimes the familiar, sometimes completely new and unknown. A situation that I often run into is getting an alert on my computer telling me my iPhone is full... of music. I am grateful for technology, because it has allowed me to carry the equivalent of hundreds, even thousands, of CD's or records, in my pocket on a daily basis. The music that I choose every morning on my walk to class often sticks with me for the whole day. A result of my mood, how tired I am, even the weather, that early morning music choice affects my whole day.
The beat of my music transforms the beat of my steps. Music can change the way I interact with others, and the way I interact with memories. Often, I will use music to stay in touch with something, someone, or somewhere I have interacted with in the past. I think this is interesting with relevence to conflict, because music can keep us tied to the past, or mix together with other styles and help us progress. It can set the pace for the future. It definitely helps us communicate with each other, because music is an easier way to express emotion than simple words. Can music actually change the future, the Israeli/Palestinian situation, or the world? I don't know. But can it change how people feel about one another? Without a doubt.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Rap/Channels of Rage Response
Channels of Rage seems like an interesting portrayal of the conflict. I am familiar with Subliminal's music, and while I have not heard Tamer Nafar's music, I have listened to a variety of other Palestinian-Israeli artists who use music to express their view of the political situation.
I think that, just as I have previously discussed on the topic of photography, music is an incredible way to express one's self, especially in regards to political conflict. I think it's very interesting how within the Israeli/Palestinian realm, there are many similarities when it comes to music with opposing viewpoints. Much of the music has similar rhythms, instruments, and generally sounds the same. I find it very intriguing how modern Israeli and Palestinian musicians (and musical activists- a term that I think properly represents many of these people) often use current music styles, such as rock and rap, but intertwine them with traditional regional instruments and melodies.
In the 2nd Channels of Rage article, it mentioned something that "Violence wasn’t the only reason that the two close friends came to blows; the media also created fireworks. As the rappers gained prominence, different media outlets capitalized on the controversy. Media outlets have agendas, and controversial figures, whether venerated or vilified, can be exploited to serve those agendas. Leftist newspapers ran headlines such as “Subliminal against the left wing,” categorizing his songs as “racist hate music,” while right-wing magazines claimed he “symbolizes patriotism.” " I find this point interesting and something that we need to focus on. This movie documents something through somebody's eyes. We are not able to see the situation for ourselves, and while I am very excited to view the film, I plan to take it, as I do everything else focused on this matter, as something that expresses an opinion. It is important to not let one source or one opinion form our own opinions.
In the first Channels of Rage article, we read that "This movie is different from the other movies covered in this guide in two respects: it is a documentary, and it relies heavily on music and lyrics for character development, narration of a historical period, and representation of ideological beliefs and social realities." I think this concept is very interesting because we are able to read into the situation as we wish, as an interpretation of music and lyrics rather than biased statements. This idea is similar to the idea of leaving controversial photographs without captions.
My last comments will focus on the UN:Women article about the DAM song entitled: If I Could Go Back in Time. This song is meaningful, but the video is quite disturbing. As I watched the video, the imagery was something that I cannot imagine would pass in other music circles. The chorus itself is actually quite soft and even touching, saying "If I could go back in time/I would smile/Fall in love/Sing/If I could go back in time/I would draw/Write/Sing." This song can serve an important role in lots of circles. Within the Palestinian activism realm, it shows that the Israeli situation is not the only issue. Within the Women's rights realm, it shows that there are similar issues around the world. And within the realm of the United Nations, the fact that UN: Women made a statement on this song means that the role Palestine plays in global affairs is constantly changing. I think its interesting how a song can portray such a variety of meanings when we look at it with an open mind, and recognize that everyone just wants to be heard, and as band member Tamer Nafar said at a press conference held in Ramallah... “We wrote this song because we think that everyone should have this opportunity to do what he/she aspires and be allowed to dream." That is a beautiful message that everyone should take home, independent of their views on the greater conflict.
I think that, just as I have previously discussed on the topic of photography, music is an incredible way to express one's self, especially in regards to political conflict. I think it's very interesting how within the Israeli/Palestinian realm, there are many similarities when it comes to music with opposing viewpoints. Much of the music has similar rhythms, instruments, and generally sounds the same. I find it very intriguing how modern Israeli and Palestinian musicians (and musical activists- a term that I think properly represents many of these people) often use current music styles, such as rock and rap, but intertwine them with traditional regional instruments and melodies.
In the 2nd Channels of Rage article, it mentioned something that "Violence wasn’t the only reason that the two close friends came to blows; the media also created fireworks. As the rappers gained prominence, different media outlets capitalized on the controversy. Media outlets have agendas, and controversial figures, whether venerated or vilified, can be exploited to serve those agendas. Leftist newspapers ran headlines such as “Subliminal against the left wing,” categorizing his songs as “racist hate music,” while right-wing magazines claimed he “symbolizes patriotism.” " I find this point interesting and something that we need to focus on. This movie documents something through somebody's eyes. We are not able to see the situation for ourselves, and while I am very excited to view the film, I plan to take it, as I do everything else focused on this matter, as something that expresses an opinion. It is important to not let one source or one opinion form our own opinions.
In the first Channels of Rage article, we read that "This movie is different from the other movies covered in this guide in two respects: it is a documentary, and it relies heavily on music and lyrics for character development, narration of a historical period, and representation of ideological beliefs and social realities." I think this concept is very interesting because we are able to read into the situation as we wish, as an interpretation of music and lyrics rather than biased statements. This idea is similar to the idea of leaving controversial photographs without captions.
My last comments will focus on the UN:Women article about the DAM song entitled: If I Could Go Back in Time. This song is meaningful, but the video is quite disturbing. As I watched the video, the imagery was something that I cannot imagine would pass in other music circles. The chorus itself is actually quite soft and even touching, saying "If I could go back in time/I would smile/Fall in love/Sing/If I could go back in time/I would draw/Write/Sing." This song can serve an important role in lots of circles. Within the Palestinian activism realm, it shows that the Israeli situation is not the only issue. Within the Women's rights realm, it shows that there are similar issues around the world. And within the realm of the United Nations, the fact that UN: Women made a statement on this song means that the role Palestine plays in global affairs is constantly changing. I think its interesting how a song can portray such a variety of meanings when we look at it with an open mind, and recognize that everyone just wants to be heard, and as band member Tamer Nafar said at a press conference held in Ramallah... “We wrote this song because we think that everyone should have this opportunity to do what he/she aspires and be allowed to dream." That is a beautiful message that everyone should take home, independent of their views on the greater conflict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)