I know we delved into this subject in class, but I feel unsatisfied by the inevitable conclusion that we cannot solve the ongoing issue in the Middle East. I think that I have a certain amount of bias though I concede that Israel behaved pretty poorly recently and in the past all the way back to her conception. However, the question remains, in a situation that leaves unfortunate consequences no matter the decision how is one supposed to act? How is a country, always bogged down with contemplatively evaluating how much longer they will exist, act fairly? How does the choice not persist negatively with neighbors possessing voracious animosity?
Professor Silliman gave explanation that foreign diplomatic support can be a very positive thing and in cases, specifically where independence is concerned, countries lacking global support of some nature, struggle or fail. Given this premise, which I am inclined to agree with, what's the right choice when global diplomacy pulls you in turn different directions?
I guess where I'm stuck on the whole issue is that I don't get the big deal. I don't understand why it is SO important to have a piece of land one can call Israel, the place where "my people" come from. I'm not very patriotic and I guess the only piece of land I think is important is the one I currently wish to live on. Part of my ancestral heritage is gypsy and I don't feel very lost in this world just because there is no gypsy country.
ReplyDeleteI think it makes sense that you would be stuck on this issue due to the subjective nature of the issue (this sounds like a personal attack, I assure you I do not mean it as one). I believe Israel needs to exist as a Jewish nation for a number of reasons. First and perhaps most important is historical evidence that Jews, no matter where they are, have been consistently persecuted and exiled. This, obviously, puts a damper on the Jewish people's desire to practice their religion freely and without fear or consequence. The land of Israel is, as unfortunate as it may seem, fueled by and directly correlated to religion. I am not sure what your religious beliefs are Nicole, but it may be that one reason you don't feel a land for gypsies need exist is that you are not a gypsy yourself, culturally or religiously speaking. As far as I know, Romani people's follow a few religions. And while you may not feel lost due to the lack of gypsy country, some gypsies may feel lost, similar to how Jews felt pre-Israel. Zionists and non-zionist founders and residents of Israel very clearly felt lost after WWII because they had nowhere to go, especially after such a brutal and catastrophic loss.
DeleteWith the establishment of Israel came a new freedom to practice religion in a concentrated and oppression-free way. A symbolic and necessary right taken away so many times throughout history from the Jews. For the first time, the Jewish people had a glimmer of permanence attached to their existence and a very real hope to be able to pray in peace. Which is why Israel as a land for Jew's specifically,needs to exist as opposed to a land like the United States wherein Jews are free to practice (for the most part) their religion; the danger being assimilation, which negates the practice of the religion in the 1st place.
I also truly believe you don't mean that the only important land is the one on which you reside. Patriotism aside, lands outside of your desires deserve a care in respect to their existence. Granted you may not feel directly related to another land, or your gypsy heritage, etc. but to say the only land of import is the one you wish to live on carries such a dangerously closed view-point. Again, I don't believe you mean it in a self-centered way, but if you do, then of course it works that you don't believe a land should exist for particular people.
I worded that wrong. I meant the only land I care about calling my own. I'm very cosmopolitan and think we should be spending more time caring for all countries across the world. In my eyes, patriotism is silly because I think borders are arbitrary. Ideally, I think, there would be no such things as countries. At least not in the sense of separate governments. Just different districts for practical regulatory purposes.
DeleteYou're right. I'm not religious at all. I'll admit that I have little patience for religion. But I suppose I could be more understanding about how religious persons feel about having a place of origin and worship.
As to the loss and misplacement Jewish people felt after WWII, I think that was more complex than just religious. Beforehand, Germany was home. They saw themselves as Germans. So, basically, their home was taken from them. Also, people from all sorts of backgrounds faced the same dilemma: gypsies, homosexuals, political resistors, Polish, and many more.
I think, especially in the society we live today (in the United States) ownership of land, and a national identity, are not the easiest concepts to understand. We are a nation of immigrants, and most of us identify more with heritage, social status, or our occupation, as opposed to the land we've lived on for generations, or land in which our personal or cultural (or both) beliefs were founded upon.
ReplyDeleteIn no way do I think Israel, or various Palestinian groups are handling the situation well. However, I try to see the justification in their value on a "homeland" so to speak. I think the problems Joel mentioned, and the idea that it is hard to make humanitarian decisions when one's country is in constant endangerment definitely stem from a plethora of places, including the United States, the UN, and a failure to coexist under the original partition in 1947; which, I have heard, is most likely the most generous situation the region will ever see, meaning, compromise and accountability must be realized by not only Israel and Palestine, but by the International community as well, going forward.