Don't Believe the Hype

I want to challenge Saree Makdisi on a few- ok- many points. I guess numbers will work well here.

1. Makdisi characterizes Jewish settlers as "heavily armed and ideologically driven, unlikely to walk away voluntarily from the land they have declared to be their G-d-given home." True, these people would not go quietly if they were asked to leave. However, the disengagement from Gaza (and the Sinai peninsula in 79-82) proves that Israel is willing to make concessions for the sake of peace. If a pullout from the West Bank is perceived to be in the state's best interests, the public opinion in favor of disengagement will trump the heavily armed and ideologically driven settlers. 

2. Moledet is in fact a member of the National Union coalition. It is shady that Makdisi quotes the entire Moledet political party without revealing WHAT DOCUMENT or WHO exactly said that "the land of Israel belongs [only] to the nation of Israel." I have no doubt that some politicians think that, but this is a shady quotation. The characterization of National Union as having "significant presence" in the Israeli parliament is misleading because EVERY PARTY of Knesset has significant presence and Makdisi has no evidence to support his claim of "significant presence" In fact, National Union is a shaky coalition of 3 or 4 parties that has 6 or 9 seats in the Knesset. Keep in mind that Arabs hold 12 seats, spread over 4 or 5 parties, so they are much more significant if we go on seats alone. 

3. The quote attributed to the Israeli Prime Minister a disgusting distortion of fact. It is true that Olmert acknowledges that "Every hill in Samaria and every valley in Judea is part of our [the Jewish] homeland." What Makdisi leaves out, however, is the full context in which Olmert made these statements.

"The existence of a Jewish majority in the State of Israel cannot be maintained with the continued control over the Palestinian population in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. We firmly stand by the historic right of the people of Israel to the entire Land of Israel. Every hill in Samaria and every valley in Judea is part of our historic homeland. We do not forget this, not even for one moment. However, the choice between the desire to allow every Jew to live anywhere in the Land of Israel to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish country - obligates relinquishing parts of the Land of Israel. This is not a relinquishing of the Zionist idea, rather the essential realization of the Zionist goal - ensuring the existence of a Jewish and democratic state in the Land of Israel.

You can find the full text by googling "6th Herzliya conference Olmert." The rest of the speech is full of political manipulations and contradictions, but what can you expect from a head of state? Makdisi uses one sentence out of an entire paragraph to portray the exact opposite position of the Israeli government. 

4. The issue of textbooks. Israeli textbooks use outdated terms like Judea and Samaria, but at least they include the Green Line. Text books in the PA and in other parts of the Arab world deny any Jewish claim to the land at all and paint the entire area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean as Palestine, with no mention is Israel at all.

6. Makdisi's representation of the exclusivity of Zionist claims is a direct inversion of truth. Israel has demonstrated repeatedly its willingness to appease her Arab neighbors, always optimistic that its concessions would bring peace. Israel was willing to accept whatever land the UN would give them. Its Declaration of Independence is a declaration of her desire to live in peace and cooperation with her neighbors. Israel's pullout form Sinai resulted in peace with Egypt. Palestinians could have achieved statehood in 1947, in 1967, and after the Camp David proposal of a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and most of the West Bank. This does not seem like exclusivity to me. 

Makdisi closes by claiming that Palestinians are giving up the dream of an independent state and are moving to support a single secular bi-national state, something that Israelis have yet to even consider. Israelis must acknowledge the right of return, which is essentially the demographic destruction of Israel. The "ethno-religiously" exclusivity is yet another distortion of fact. Israeli democracy is not perfect, but all citizens have equal rights by law. On the other hand, Jews cannot even own land in many Arab countries, and they can't even set foot in Saudi Arabia. Concessions have been made, and Israel always hopes they will lead to a decrease in violence. The conflict continues because many people cannot give up their perception of Israel as a foreign, colonialist, expansionist, apartheid, racist regime with which compromise is no option. Makdisi is stuck in the past and is hiding his desires for the destruction of Israel behind the right of return. 

Blogadinejad

The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has entered the blogosphere. This is interesting since bloggers have been imprisoned in that country and other instances of the suppression of free speech abound. Everyone should check out this website, the posts are a waste of time, I find the comments a thousand times more enlightening. Here is but a taste...

Nick (US) says, "youre one of the most stupid president ever ! Im sure about half of the comments posted of this blog are totally fake and used as propaganda."

Han (PRC) says, "you are very brave that you can fight against to USA ,I support you forever"

Phantom Justice (US) says, "your site is very nteresting and entertaining. We are watching for the sign. The future awaits..."

Jack (US) says, "I hope someone puts a bullet in your head very soon."

First of all, I know it's a pseudonym, but Phantom Justice?!?!? That is SWEET! Anyway I think this is pretty interesting, I don't really know what it means. War of ideas? Sorry for the preponderance of US comments...they were the craziest, one way or the other. Meanwhile, I found this graffiti in Jerusalem does anyone else think it's by banksy? 

Shula Katz

Monday, a 70 year-old-woman from Kibbutz Gvar'am was killed by a mortar launched from Gaza when she was visiting the nearby town of Moshav Yesha. Four days earlier, a father of four named Jimmy Kedoshim was killed by a mortar shell that fell on him as he stood in his own yard. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for Monday's attack, which occurred hours after the Egyptian-sponsored cease-fire with Hamas was presented to Defense Minister Ehud Barak in his Tel-Aviv home. 

Some voices are urging restraing, putting faith in the Egyptian-sponsored plan, the first stage of which calls for the cessation of Israeli air strikes and all terror activity, as well as opening up some border crossings. Jerusalem is also hoping to include the release of Gilad Schalit. Government sources claim that including this stipulation is a sure way of getting Hamas to reject the deal which is generally unfavorable for Israel to begin with. Israeli spokesman Mark Regev denies indirect negotiations with Hamas, citing the common Israeli-Egyptian interest of achieving calm in Gaza. Egyptian intelligence official Omar Suleiman, who presented the plan to Barak, will take Israel's conditions back to Hamas although no date has been set for announcing their reply. 

Meanwhile, life for many Gazans deteriorates to deplorable conditions as the economic stranglehold that is designed to force Hamas to moderate might actually be radicalizing Palestinians against the Zionist oppressors. Residents of the Western Negev are left wondering why their government has abandoned them and life remains intolerable for almost a quarter of a million Israelis. The IAF is forced to conduct strikes in Gaza because Hamas is either unwilling or unable to bring to justice the Islamic Jihad terrorists who would launch rockets and mortars indiscriminately upon Israeli civilians. This guarantees civilian casualties (and international condemnation) because these terror cells routinely operate among the noncombatants. 

I don't really know how to end this, I don't think we talk enough current events. 

Balagan kol hazman... Big mess. All. The. Time. 

Que?

I don't know what I just read, but it was written by Alcalay. Clearly he's writing from the perspective that Zionism was an intrusive, disruptive movement has created an unjust balance of power in which the modern state of Israel runs on the subjugation and occupation of Palestinian land. Other than that, I couldn't understand most of the article. The quotes lacked enough context, there were many unexplained references, and the style was overly dramatic and confusing. I don't like phrases like "politics of the possible" (last words) because they sound really good without meaning anything.

In general, I'm picking up that the establishment of Israel disruptive the ancient and beautiful connection between the Arab world and Jerusalem. That this is lamentable is the only point I can agree on with the author. I don't think Israelis and Arabs equally demonize their others, I think Arabs do it way more. There, I said it. I don't think occupation is the main cause of the conflict, I think it's a regrettable set of circumstances that arose out of necessity. I'm terrified now of the consequences, because we're accepting this situation as the status quo.

I think the early Zionists were eager and willing, they thought it necessary, to be able to live in peace and harmony with their neighbors. Where is the post-modern skepticism of this author's whole narrative? My narrative is being challenged here, what about the narrative that Zionism is colonialist, expansionist, aggressive and apartheid? Why aren't we challenging the narrative that says terrorism is a result of occupation or that Zionists are denying Palestinians the right of self-determination? Nobody gives you rights, you have to earn them...without blowing yourself up.

Salim Tamari Conference and Tawfiq Canaan

Dr. Tamari's paper was a difficult read mostly because of the obscurity of the subject matter. But he was able to make this doctor/ethnographer from the Mandate era interesting and relevant. When I was reading, I admit, I didn't quite see the relationship between lepers, lunatics, and saints but the video conference with Dr. Tamari helped explain the significance of this kind of work. When you think of history and culture as products of the elite class, the popular practices of the everyday working joe can reveal much more about reality in any historical context. The concept of nativism was way more intriguing when we heard/saw Dr. Tamari explain it in the conference as the search for roots. Or was it the search for the source of the roots? I have both in my notes.

I still take issue with some things in the text, and it's hard for me to tell if it's Tamari explaining himself or if it's Tamari explaining Canaan. The idea that identity is cumulative means there really is no one source or root to any present culture because it would mean that we all draw equally from the culture of 50 years ago, or 500 years ago, or 5000 years ago. It's nice to think that Palestinians revealed Biblical culture at the turn of the century but that is through the lens of 3000+ years of transformation since then. Am I stating the obvious here? I guess I just don't understand the thesis/point/jist of the whole article. It made me think though...

Especially interesting was this idea that the Palestinian culture experienced a great threat because of WWI. Outside factors like the war itself, the centralization of the political economy, and the emergence of this "cash-market nexus" all made 1914 a year of total transformation. I mean, they don't call it a World War for nothing; there was total transformation everywhere. What made the experience unique in Palestine? I wonder if Zionism was automatically associated with this greater threat of "modernity", thus dooming the entire enterprise from the get go. Is Jewish nationalism colonialist by nature? Or did the greater reshuffling of the international system affect the reception of Jewish immigrants to Palestine?

We briefly mentioned politics, and I was disappointed but not unsuprised to hear what Dr. Tamari thinks is the biggest obstacle to peace. Sorry if I'm reconstructing the dialogue here, I'll try to remember things accurately. The question was asked basically, "do you foresee any hope in the peace process right now/ in the near future?" And the answer was that unfortunately Israel still builds settlements. The outlook is especially bleak because US administrations have historically supported their construction, without pressuring the Israeli government to change its position. And then this was all related to how Israel is supposed to withdraw from the territories in the first place, according to Security Council Resolution 242.

Dr. Tamari mentioned something about how settlement construction represented the most extreme Israeli policy. This was frustrating because we never talked about how the Six Day War was started, we never talked about the Arab's rejection of the "land for peace" doctrine before 242 was even passed, we never talked about Israel's willingness to pull out of the territories in return for peace, security, and acceptance. Are we ever going to learn about the Suez War? The Straits of Tiran? The Khartoum Conference? I know I brought that one up. I just don't buy this argument and I've thought about this for too long now to discuss it with a level head.

Project: Final Project

My esteemed colleague Josh Smith and I decided late in the game to work together on some sort of analysis of the relationship between media and culture. We see media as an essential component of culture as well as an indicator of popular opinion. We don't really know where we're going to take this, but we will be looking at three different types of media, and trying to make a distinction between examples that highlight both the religious and political experiences of Israelis and Palestinians. 

First, we will look for news reports, sermons, and children's programming broadcast on television. Second, we will examine political cartoons and editorials as well as the status of foreign reporters in Israel and the disputed territories. Finally, we will examine popular music both secular and religious. We want to examine as wide of a spectrum of ideas and ideologies as possible, whether they come from terrorists, centrists, fanatics, zealots, cosmopolitans, clerics, conservatives, liberals, the peace now camp, the hate now camp, rabbis, imams, MKs, bakery owners, you name it. Any suggestions on how to solicit as many different sources would be helpful. 

This is a pretty broad topic and we will have to try to stay focused on Jerusalem... even though we don't exactly know how to do this. As far as newspapers are concerned, one way is to look at Israeli residents' access to Arabic Language/Palestinian media and Arab Jerusalemites' access Hebrew Language/Israeli media. Another thing we are interested in is how these two governments, who are in such close contact, keep their populations politically separated by what is on TV and in the newspaper. We think the differences in media have a real impact on the prospects for a peaceful resolution of this conflict. 

Any questions, comments, concerns, or candy bars are welcome.