(no subject)

[violachic]

Any time I read about something distressing vis-a-vis Palestinian politics, I am upset. But it is especially upsetting when I read about something happening where I've been. Such as December, 2005, when a week after I visited the Deheisha refugee camp, their kindergarten was bombed. The middle child of the family who hosted us, a little girl named Noor (which means "shining" or "light" in Arabic), was a student in the kindergarten at the time. She was uninjured, but trying to imagine the additional trauma this five-year-old girl had to endure is heartbreaking.

Today's Electronic Intifada article about a new settlement in Hebron falls into this category. When you've been there, seen the city, and met the people, it is difficult to not stop and feel sympathy, and even empathy, for them. It makes me wonder what changes the city will undergo now.



I really, really need to go back.

Comments

[violachic.livejournal.com]

I'm not really sure what your point is. Of course I'm aware of all these things. I visited the region in the first place because I truly believed what is going on there is wrong; the sympathy/empathy I feel for them after having met them and heard different perspectives doesn't somehow negate fact. Do you suggest, perhaps, that I am suffering from "blind rage"? Yes, its very difficult for me to believe that anyone- anyone- can look at either of the examples I have given and think what has happened is okay. I'm not going to acquiesce that they are a matter of "perspective" or "paradigm"

If I went back, there are tons of things I could accomplish. Just because one person- or a few, or thousands- can't bring an all-encompassing "peace" to the region doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of little things people can do to help make life a little more bearable. There are dozens of organizations doing hundreds of different things. Going over to gather facts and bring back stories to show what life is really like is also crucial.

And yes, having studied the conflict for years now, and having been over there twice- once being a long-term trip where I lived and worked with Palestinians- I feel very strongly that I'm educated, and have looked at the sides of the issue as closely and objectively as possible. I also believe I'm more entitled to an opinion on the issue than people who haven't been there.

[ironheadjane.livejournal.com]

What is the perspective of the settlers? Why is this such a driving issue for them? Why do they do what they do? How are the Israeli and Palestinian ideas of homeland and country similar? How are they different? What separates them? What unites them?


These are not rhetorical questions, I am seriously curious as to what you found when you were there in the middle, since you have that perspective that I don't have.

sorry, had to chip in

[fiddlinfreak.livejournal.com]

1&2. For the most part they want to be close to the tomb of the founder of their religion (and other holy places in Israel/Palestine) The ironic thing about the founding of Israel was that it was supposed to be the historical homeland of the Israelites, but it didn't end up that way at all. Hence the settlement of sacred sites that Jewish extremists think should've been incorporated into Israel from the beginning. Also in Hebron you have this weird dynamic of there being a Jewish population there from Ottoman times. They were largely forced out in 1923 when there was an anti-Zionist riot in Hebron. The new settlers have used that as a justification even though the surviving old residents feel like they're being used.
3-6 You could write a book on that. But short version (as far as I know and think, there are many other versions) Israel has this historical narrative that they are returning from exile and that they built their nation against all odds. That plays a huge role in the local politics and gives them a sense of manifest destiny. Palestinians were ambiguously a territory under the Ottomans but there was no national fervor for those borders (Winston Churchill says he sneezed and drew the borders of Trans-Jordan). Instead there was a pan-Arab nationalist movement that had a few contendors for leader, so you had Feisal in Iraq and Syria, Abdullah in Trans-Jordan (now Jordan), and later Nasser in Egypt. A pan-Arab state was implied as part of the agreement the Arab Revolt leaders had with Britain. Long story short.....Palestinians never had a home, self-determined country yet want one and are treated as one by all of their neighbors (occasionally against their will). So Ps and Is are united in that they have not historically had a nationstate to call their own, just that the Is do now. And somehow Britain decided that the Holy Land would be a good place for the Jewish "national home".
Palestinians in the diaspora are interesting in that they are a. treated like outsiders for the most part, and b. trace their orgins back to cities as well as the nation itself. Israelis for the most part don't do that because they don't have that several hundred year history.

Re: sorry, had to chip in

[ironheadjane.livejournal.com]

Thank you VERY MUCH for answering some of my question. :) I think my sister-in-law was sitting at the dinner table one night w/ the family (Jewish NY family) and was talking about the problem of "nation" and that identity has caused that area.

The closest thing I can understand that compares to the Israel/Palistine stuff is the history of Ireland, which I've studied more in depth than the Middle East. It all seems to be a fight of ideas and emotions, not anything else. It seems like as if entire nations have PTSD and attachment issues -- like every single person needs serious therapy and meditation.

Re: sorry, had to chip in

[fiddlinfreak.livejournal.com]

It's a bit different from the Irish situation. Actually the Irish situation is an older problem, The West Bank has only been occupied for 40 years, not 400. While both were the products of English colonialism, Israel/Palestine has the whole Christian Zionist Orientalism High Imperialism going for it. Also Ireland had a much better claim to nationhood actually being a contained island than either Israel or Palestine, whose borders aren't really based on anything other than the Jordan River and Mediterranean and even the Jordan was suspect for a while.
But you're right. I've been studying in Jordan this semester and some of the guest lecturers have said: "These people need serious therapy"

Re: sorry, had to chip in

[ironheadjane.livejournal.com]

Wow, I'm so grateful for your 2cents on this! I've realized upon our discussion that you make my brain work in fun ways (I love good historical, sociological discussion!), so because of that, I'm going to add you to my friends list.