A welcome break from reviewing Armstrong's book. I liked both articles by Hasan-Rokem and Amiry. First off, Hasan-Rokem's feminist critique brings up a lot of issues that Jaime's post on the Ottomans also made me think of. Pursuing my degrees in Middle East studies and international relations/diplomacy has given me the chance to study a huge number of very interesting and esoteric issues which will probably never help me find a job. Global governance, geopolitics, and most importantly, THE STATE. I think I agree most with the constructivist camp in international relations, which says a lot of things I won't bring up here. Basically they see the state as a social construction; the state exists because people say it exists and legitimize state sovereignty in many ways. Hasan-Rokem sees Jerusalem as a city for everybody, with a diverse historical tradition written by all sorts of authors. She wants to see Jerusalem become an undivided city that is the same capital for two different states. This would be TOTALLY revolutionary in the current international system. But then again, go back 500+ years and the very idea of a state that exists today would have been revolutionary. She expresses an urgency to move beyond the model of THE STATE in order to achieve peace. I like this idea, but it comes from the anarchist side of my brain, which is now fighting with the Zionist part. Hasan-Rokem has a great style, I was especially amazed/a little creeped out when I read that, personified as lovers, each conquering power "was filled with passion to fondle the roundness of the bulging hills and to adorn them with pearls of stone and brick." Alarming and poetic sexual imagery.
Exerpts from Suad Amiry's book were great, and sad. I had just remarked the threat Israel faced from Iraq in 1991 on Marissa's blog. Then, reading this, I was shocked to learn that the Palestinians weren't given gas masks by the Civil Administration. I'm a little disgusted. Things like this make me hate Israel. The absurd situation that makes it easier for a dog than a person to get a Jerusalem ID also makes me hate Israel. The stories put a human face on a group of people who are too often completely demonized by Israel supporters. So many Zionists are blinded by their nationalism, they forget that real human beings are suffering. But I can't help but wonder, if the Peel Commission or UN Partition actually went down; if Israel wasn't invaded by its neighbors in 1948; if the Arab League considered making peace after 1967, would Palestinians have a state of their own today? If Palestinians were treated just like every other group of refugees; if Arafat was serious about dismantling terrorist groups; if the Arab media stopped printing blood libel cartoons.... things would be different. Sure that's easy for me to say, I'm a Zionist. But you can't just blame Israel for the sitauation today. Sorry for rambling...great readings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Argentina doesn't have the 2,000+ years of back history of conflict. It's a totally different situation. Jerusalem is unlike any place on earth because two (three?) different groups want it really badly.
Ben, it kind of sounds like these readings challenged your perceptions on the situation on the ground in Jerusalem. I agree, they did provide a human face to a bad situation. It reminded me that no matter what your intentions are, war changes your actions.
Also, the idea of the state is very cool. If more people were willing to deal with ideas that aren't obvious we would be in a much different situation.
Post a Comment