Thursday, January 8, 2009

Well.

This blog went entirely defunct over a year ago, and reading some of my old posts embarrasses me to the core, but now everyone is talking about the one thing I've devoted the past two years of my life to, and I can keep silent no more.

Before I begin, here are my stats, possibly my biases, laid bare in a portrait of myself: I am an American-Israeli agnostic Jew raised in New York City.  I have always considered myself a liberal-leaning moderate with an overall desire for peace.  I believe, firmly, that the resolution to the conflict lies in the education of the youth to want peace as opposed to the education of the youth to want victory.  Of course this education is similar to the propaganda I seemingly denounce below, but all education is propaganda anyway.  I will admit to civilly sympathizing more with the plight of the Palestinian population, because the humanist in me feels the conditions in which they live are utterly deplorable and entirely solvable.  I love the country of Israel (not necessarily its government) and want to live there one day, but I do not consider myself to be a Zionist in conventional definitions of what Zionism is.  I tend to find modern Zionism, its functions, and its endeavors to be mostly misplaced and misdirected and believe that there is greater good to be found and used in the power harnessed by the Zionist movement.  I do not support violent acts of any kind against civilians of any nationality.  In this conflict, I do not believe either side is more right or more wrong than the other, instead, I believe that both sides have transgressed equally but any system that would enable the general population to accept their own countries transgressions is inherently dangerous to present governments.

Israel may try to "crush" Hamas in a ground operation but the destruction is only temporary.  You cannot Israel may try to "crush" Hamas in a ground operation but the destruction is only temporary. You cannot crush an ideology that is furthered by your attempts to destroy that ideology.

Both sides are equally responsible for civilian deaths, for the civilian deaths on both sides. One cannot ignore the fact that Israeli settlers do deliberately place themselves in dangerous situations, make themselves essentially walking targets, because they are generally coerced by government incentives (usually financial) and religious conviction. Simultaneously Palestinians are coerced by a pervasive rhetoric that Israel is solely responsible for their suffering, when there is an incompetent and corrupt system of leadership in Palestine equally liable for the suffering of these people - the corruption present basically leaves the Palestinian population as a community without government, without protectorate representation, which in practical terms means they have no rights. Civilians are pawns which governments use to further capital gains. It's not so much that Palestinian blood means less to Israel (although you will hear many Israelis on the street refer to Arabs as "animals" - symptomatic of the propogandist education Israelis are privy to re: their Arab neighbors, purposeful only for the continuance of the perpetual war between the cultures) as that it's generally just a non-issue: A state in which all citizens re compulsorily required to serve militarily as they reach precisely the age of intellectual maturity creates a nation desensitized to the casualties of war who are not their own comrades. And the Palestinian militants have found a useful tool to invoke the world's outrage in the death of their own people - please, call me harsh, but if Palestinian civilians weren't killed in this conflict in such disparate numbers compared to Israelis, would international opinion really be so outraged? It is to the benefit, therefore of the Palestinian leadership to continue to allow for these deaths, and therefore continued incentive to use civilian homes and civilian bodies as bases and shields for their acts of violence and fear-mongering against Israel. So on both sides, you have a civilian population controlled by rhetorical propaganda education, propaganda the most effective tool in swaying the masses and education the mechanism most capable of reaching the masses.

And the same goes for the rest of us. It is not merely enough to read the news and assume we know what is going on, and it is not merely enough for us to dismiss this as a conflict that is centuries old and therefore ingrained in the cultural narrative. The narrative is so powerful because we are all taught to believe that it is still relevant, that the wounds of the past should continue to scar and twinge permanently. So long as we do not wish to move on, admit wrongdoings on both sides, and begin the healing process, we never will be able to despite concentrated political efforts. The belief simply is not there, because the people are not taught to believe. Any political endeavor peace-ward is hindered by massive public opinion, and public opinion is further aggravated by the acts of the opposing side, which feed straight into the rhetoric of each culture. The Palestinian narrative recalls land being snatched away from under their very feet and forced exodus (flight in fear of death and violent attack) from their homes into refugee camps, when in reality most land was bought by Jews from Arab landowners and this "exodus" was generally encouraged by Palestinian leadership with little or no basis, and the persisting impoverished conditions of the population continue to support this narrative -- "Had the Zionists never stolen our land, we would be living and flourishing in our rightful homes, instead we are the victims of the same brutality our ancestors were subject to decades past." This narrative enables radical splinter groups to continue their violent acts without major dissent from the population, and any Israeli action only serves to intensify negative feelings in the population, causing them only to support the radicals who are in part responsible for their pain.

Simultaneously, the Israeli/Zionist narrative is that Israel, the Biblical homeland, is an existential necessity for the survival of the Jewish people, that Jews cannot live as outsiders in another country for other countries will not and do not protect Jews, long considered in Western ideologies the outsider/alien. Because of this consistent perceived existential threat, any act of violence against Israel is perceived as an act of violence against the religion, symptomatic of a deeper underlying anti-Semitism that would see to the complete annihilation of the Jewish people when given the chance. Physical protection, then, seems entirely necessary in this light, requiring military presence/training/knowledge/development amongst the Israeli/Jewish population. The narrative is furthered by frequent violence from the neighboring communities who are not Jewish - go straight back to the 1910's and '20's, to the major influxes of Jewish immigrants into Israel, and you'll see violent protests from the local Arab populations, and violent responses from Jewish militias. These outbursts serve only to make the Jewish existence seem even more vulnerable to destruction, a common theme in Jewish history.

These two narratives are ultimately irreconcilable, and if you read even the 1929 British Mandate Commission's report on conditions of Palestine, you will find that although borders have changed locations and population centers and numbers have fluctuated, nothing fundamental in the conflict has changed in over eighty years. That report even states that the narratives are irreconcilable, and that the only possible solution is "surgical removal." But, so long as Palestinians feel oppressed and Israelis feel existentially threatened, militant cells will continue violent acts against Israel and the Israeli army will continue its campaign to destroy elements opposed to the state of Israel, and neither nation's leadership will find any true incentive to pursue viable peace because peace is not a prosperous condition.

Monday, November 26, 2007

The schoolgirl chronicles, part I.

Gina and Whitney are best friends. They both hate Ilyse. Ilyse sits between Gina and Whitney in math class because the teacher assigned their seats like that. Gina and Whitney want Ilyse to switch seats with them, but she refuses, so Gina and Whitney throw spitballs at Ilyse all day, and she keeps throwing them right back. One day, Gina takes something belonging to Whitney, and they stop talking. Lonely the next day in math (and also looking for a little revenge), Whitney becomes friends with Ilyse. They both decide to ignore Gina. Gina gets frustrated, and, in an effort to both ruin the newly-formed friendship between Whitney and Ilyse and to gain attention and get what she really still wants (her seat switched), she starts throwing even more spitballs at Ilyse. Ilyse is angry, and she gets the teacher involved. The teacher petitions to Whitney to get Gina to stop throwing spitballs, but Whitney has no power to tell Gina what to do, and Gina doesn't listen because she knows that she is still in the right to get her seat changed. What no one sees is that Gina has valid reasons for being angry, because they're too busy focusing on her wrongdoing and not inviting her to express her anger in an environment where her frustrations can be turned into something productive.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Friday, November 9, 2007

Everybody's talkin' 'bout...

...moderate.


Today in Pakistan, a huge showing of police force to prevent a rally against Musharraf's emergency rule. Bhutto was barricaded into her house. But the real interesting part of this article comes when the United States gets an input, as the New York Times follows the government for its stories.

A spokesman for President Bush, Gordon D. Johndroe, called for the release of Ms. Bhutto, her supporters, other party members and all protesters. “It is crucial for Pakistan’s future that moderate political forces work together to bring Pakistan back on the path to democracy,” he said in a statement.

Moderate. An American policy buzzword in the later years of "The War on Terror." In Palestine, we're looking to deal with the moderate political players, in this case the secular Fatah party. In Iraq, we're looking to appeal to the moderate and intelligently thinking of the population. And here is that word again, this time in Pakistan.

This notes a very interesting, although slightly hypocritical, shift in policy. Instead of dealing with the extremists head on (and going into towns and killing innocent people and inciting the wrath of the gloal community), now we go around the extremist players and deal with the nice, less-controversial moderates. Right now it seems like policy gold: Look! They're working with us! They like us! But I forsee this as a massive failure. It's like having a fight with France so negotiating with Canada for it to stop. In the end, it doesn't make any sense, because the 'extremists' don't answer to the 'moderates.'

And the hypocritical aspect? When, ever, has this current administration opted to promote moderate thinking in policy-making?

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

President of Iraqi Kurdish region urges end to rebellion


"We have always struggled for the sake of peace, democracy, development and stability for our people and peoples of the region. We are in fact in a bitter and continued state of struggle against terrorism," the statement [by Kurdish President Massud Barzani] said.

Whst's still unclear to me is, how does the global community keep letting this happen? How do we always figure out a way to ignore one group's crises by focusing too hard on another's? And then crazy shit starts to erupt on the street behind our backs because we were busily looking hard in the other direction, and we turn to see what's going on behind us and we are shocked. Well, the rest of the world keeps operating. We are in fact in a... struggle against terrorism. These communities - shit, not just communities, entire regiouns - of people, on their native land or not, feeling at risk, feeling like victims. The story of the Kurds is sad. It's not surprising that, for their own protection, they would seek it from amongst their people and be able to ignore questionable activities because they all know what they need protection against. So they set up this militia, which "largely operates clandestinely through local social groups in the three northern Iraqi Kurdish provinces of Sulaimaniyah, Arbil and Dohuk." They'll call it 'social groups,' I'd say you'd be better off to understand them as organizations like Fatah.

""We do not want to sacrifice our cultural and economic relations with Iraq for the sake of a terror organisation," [Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan] said, referring to the PKK."

Source: Agence France-Presse


Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Kurds make a bid for freedom,

Or at least, thats what I think Kurdish militiamen are ultimately trying to accomplish. By drawing attention to themselves in the global media, they are trying to gain support and sympathy. They have no desire to remain a part of Iraq - the Iraqi flag is regarded as a symbol of their genocide.

I could be wrong about this and I very well may be.

This article from Time is quite interesting, detailing the political implications of Turkey being drawn into Iraq.

...Turkish public fury has now found a second target in the Kurdish regional government of north Iraq, which popular opinion in Turkey has accused of harboring the PKK.


I have to wonder, what's the major difference between a political faction enabling and possibly harboring militant opposition groups and a political party or candidate indulging the interests of otherwise questionable groups in order to gain political capital and support.

Iraqi Kurds appear to be relying on Washington to intervene, but the U.S. is caught between a rock and a hard place. North Iraq is the only relatively stable region in that country and the Kurds there are its only allies. Washington has repeatedly urged respect for Iraq's sovereignty. At the same time, however, Turkey is one of the biggest U.S. allies — the only mainly Muslim NATO member and a key player in a volatile region that Washington cannot risk alienating.

America doesn't dare risk alienating its allies at this point, as it is slowly losing political legitimacy on a global scale. As long as it remains an occupying military force in another nation, it is dependent on global support to achieve whatever twisted ends they have envisioned. Does anyone even know why we're there anymore? Why we were there in the first place?

Are we allowed to be angry? Should we be entitled to voice our opinions? A democratic political system says yes, but a minor opposition voice says no one is particularly interested. How do we fix this? Are some of these horrible things that are happening due, in part, to our apathy?

What a world.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Bush defies China in public meeting with Dalai Lama

Is this how desperate America is for friends on the world stage? A Congressional Medal of Honor to the Dalai Lama... why? Because the current government lacks global credibility?

Perhaps...