Inheriting the conflict

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/sites/drupalblogs.newsobserver.com/files/images/babingaza.jpg

I found this cartoon on another blog called “The Opinion Shop,” which is part of the larger periodical “The News & Observer.”

This cartoon makes us question how not only the actions of the Israelis and the Palestinians but also all of our decisions today will shape the world for future generations. Our generation has already inherited an economy on its knees and an unstable future, full of conflict and its aftermath. It is imperative to recognize that how we handle our own situation that we have come into will likewise be passed on again.

Furthermore, I immediately was reminded of the ending of The Lemon Tree when I saw this cartoon. When she replants the lemon tree with the children, Dalia examines the new sapling’s representation of the future of the struggle. She reflects that, “it meant moving on. It meant it’s te next generation now that’s going to create a reality. That we are entrusting something in their hands. We are entrusting both the old and the new” (264). Of course, as opposed to the cartoon, this passage relays much more of a sense of hope about the power of responsibility that the youth will hold in resolving (or not resolving) this conflict. They both, however, emphasize the reality that this conflict will indeed pass through more generations and each of these generations will greatly influence the outcome of the struggle.

Push for Peace to Avert Violence

Article: "Push for Peace to Avert Violence, Gaza Donors Told" by Alastair Sharp and Will Rasmussen, Reuters

This article addresses some interesting issues. Donors gather and give billions of dollars to rebuild areas of the west bank that, withing a year or two, promptly get destroyed and then need to be rebuilt again. It seems as though many donors are asking the question, "Will we once again reconstruct something we built a few years ago and now has been hammered and flattened?" I think that this is a very interesting question. Of coarse if a was a donor I would want to see that there was some political progress before I dumped millions into the area.

I can also see why it would be hard to just no longer give any aid to the area even if there was no political progress. I feel like it is the responsibility of these third party's continue donating to the reconstruction of these areas even if there is not any political progress. Even if it is just for humanitarian reasons alone.

On the flip side of that is the fact that it is not worth donating any money if it is not allocated effectively to serve its desired purpose. The article states that "The United Nations and aid agencies say reconstruction will probably be hampered by the inability to deliver essential material such as cement and steel to the coastal strip because of an Israeli-led blockade. The Jewish state refuses to allow in material that militants could use to build rockets."

In the article the refusal of the west to recognize the "democratically elected" Hamas is also an issue. Should the West recognize Hamas as a lagitimate or continue to label it as a terrorist orgnization? Do you think that these donors and foreign countries should continue to give aid abd money? Should they make donations contingent on political change first?

Palestinian PM Resigns

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3

Here are three articles from the Jerusalem Post about the Palestinian PM who just resigned a few days back so the PNA (Palestinian National Authority) could have some sort of unity going into the Fatah/Hamas talks coming up soon in Cairo. I found it interesting how from the searches I performed on LexisNexis and GoogleNews for "Fayad AND Fatah" and "Fayyad AND Fatah", the sources with the most articles on this were Israeli or Jewish. I found very few sources from the Middle East and an overall surprisingly lack of publicity from all sources. Is there a reason why it is on the Israeli and Jewish sites and not showing up at all on Palestinian and (most) Arab sites? Could this be that the Israelis and Jews are trying to show a division in the PNA and undermine the legitimacy of this organization? Are the Palestinians ignoring this so they appear to be more organized? I was able to find a short article on Al Jazeera English but surprisingly there were no comments like there oftentimes are for articles involving Israel/Palestine.

One State= No State

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22qaddafi.html

This article is borderline ridiculous. It is written by Muammar Qaddafi, the current leader of Libya, and proposes a one state solution. First of all, you would be hard pressed to find any Israeli or Palestinian, Arab or Jew, who thought a one state solution was a good idea. It may be true that Jews and Arabs coexisted peacefully prior to 1948, (although I think a history of Arab rebellions and Jewish rebel groups disputes that), but at this point there has been too much conflict, too much suffering, and too much internal tension for a one state solution to be possible.

Beyond that, the claims he makes, about Palestinian refugees needing to return to their homeland and Palestinians working within the Israeli or "Israeltine" government can never happen because Israel, by definition is a Jewish State, and an Arab majority population wise, in a democracy, would crush any opposition. Israel would not remain a Jewish state for long and by taking that away you are effectively destroying Israel. No Israeli will ever agree to that.

Also, the kind of refugee return plan Qaddafi is proposing is impossible. Palestinian refugees are not just looking to return to Israel, they are looking to return to specific places in Israel, many of those places now inhabited by others. For such a small country to absorb such a large influx of people is ludricrous. Imagine if the United States was told tomorrow that they had to give back all of the land of the Native Americans, and that everyone non native had to leave. It would be chaos and that is without the added influx of people. It just isn't possible.

Peace Through Education

http://www.hamline.edu/shared/news_items/university/July2008/middleeastconference.html

This is the best article I could find, but it doesn't even begin to explain what we have done at Hamline. In an earlier post, someone questioned the possibility of peace, just like all of us, I am sure question the possibilty of peace in a region so torn apart and with such a rich history of conflict.

But I do believe that peace is possible. Though the article doesn't mention it specifically, this education program was enacted in Palestine in schools in the West Bank and in Gaza. Gaza's partner Israeli school lies just across the border, and for the last few years, the Israeli students attending that school have gotten used to last minute runs to bomb shelters and interrupted classes. Now, with their sister school in jeapordy, the students at the Israeli school worry about the well being of their partners, while also praying that the current conflict will lead to some quiet along the border.

It is a tricky place to be in, for all these students, Palestinian, Israeli, Jordananian and Lebanese. When they came together this summer, at first, no one was willing to talk. Then, they talked politely, quietly, attempting to not offend each other. Then, they started yelling, hurling accusations back and forth, swapping stories of suffering until they were hoarse and dry and the mouth. Then came the constructive talk, the "ok, so now what?" moment. It was phenomenal to behold, and even though they didn't come up with a plan for world peace, they did develop a level of mutual understanding and respect most media sources make out to be impossible.

There are no easy answers or quick fixes but if Palestinians and Israelis living on the Gaza border can summon up enough empathy to picture themselves in the opposite perspective's shoes, then I have hope. I expect it to be long, arduous process, with education building upon education, which each generation becmoing a little less militant than the last, until a history of violence and agression stops determining a future of possible peace.

Propoganda or Truth?

All propoganda holds a tiny ounce of truth, and no one would argue that the atrocities in Gaza did not and are not occuring. But the premise for understanding the violence differs dramatically depending upon who is asked. When in Israel we heard numerous statements to the effect of "We only act when provoked." "Hamas struck first." "We cannot expect our citizens to live under the constant threat of Kitusha rockets." It seemed plausible, understandable, justified even. But like all conflicts Israel gets itself involved in, most recently and notably the 2006 war with Lebanon, when Israel is poked, it demolishes back. It is never an eye for an eye, it's a head for an eye, exagerrated retaliation, revenge.

This video compares Israel to Nazi's and Gaza to the Holocaust. What is most surprising to me is that it isn't Palestinians who are painting a portrait of modern day genocide in Gaza, it is outside sources. This isn't the story of a people vying for international sympathy, they already have it. This is the story of a people begging for international interference.

To be fair, a lot of the incidents mentioned in this video, white phosphorus, parent killings, the gathering of a large number of people in the heart of Gaza City, have been heavily contested by Israel. But then again, none of those happenings are things a country would be proud of. Bibi Netanyahu once measured other life against Israeli life and found the other to be lacking in terms of worth. If the death of one Israeli soldier resonates more strongly amongst the Israeli public than the death of 50 Gazan children does that make them inhuman?

Youth Perspectives

BBC news reporter, Tamasin Ford reports on the conflict in Gaza in the article below through a series of brief opinion interviews.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_word/newsid_7830000/7830179.stm

What struck me as significant in this article is the age group that Ford targeted in his interviews. Almost all of these individuals are between the ages nineteen and twenty-one, with only one woman older than this at the still young age of thirty-one. The face that the opinions of the young adult population are being expressed certainly gives a very specific perspective on this type of news briefing.

For most of those interviewed, it seems that they are largely speaking from their own individual experiences as opposed to identifying mostly with they histories of their heritages. This in itself is quite noteworthy, as so much of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is grounded in a past that spans huge scales of time and space. Instead, many of these individuals are responding to their immediate situations, and they further the discussion by identifying with their position as British Jews and Muslims. As a result, another perception of national identity is added to the discourse.

For example, before World War II, Jews were very much a diasporic people, and did not necessarily identify with the country they lived in but rather with their religious identity. When Herzl articulated the concept of Zionism, this identity was manifested into the land of Israel as a Jewish homeland, and Jews finally found a sense of self in nationality. In the interviews, however, it is clear that these individuals find validity and significance through both their religious affiliations and the lives they have lived as members of British society.