WUJS put together some seminars for those of us interested in continued learning after Pardes's semester ended. This morning we delved into much detail about the history of Israeli wars. I am not good at history or politics and I hardly remember details, even the important ones. I remember lots of other things, but somehow I don't really have a knack for this kind of stuff. Therefore, instead of writing a summary of the lecture, I need to just write some thoughts:
War - is inevitable, it seems, especially here, but even so, in America. We wouldn't have a country of our own if it weren't for war. The American Revolution is the parallel to the War of Independence in Israel in 1948. As someone who considers herself a "peacenik" for lack of a better word, war is an even more terrible word. Then again, I wouldn't have the life I do back home in the US if it weren't for a big bloody war.
It's so sad that the agreement for peace in the 70s and 80s with Egypt (or any other country for that matter) had to happen in terms of saying land for peace, which was a cease fire. Egypt said we won't start a war against you. Why does that have to be spoken, written , recorded? Why can't we just know that war is not the answer to anything?
What would this "narrative" look like from other perspectives? Firstly, the Palestinians, but also the Egyptians (in 1973, they claimed victory in the war, but so did Israel, hence some of the problems), Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, other Arab countries. They must have a very different story they tell to their children and teach in their schools. To use the same analogy as before, what did the British say happened in the American Revolution? Not necessarily the end result because I think that's a little more conclusive, but perhaps they did see it as a loss, whereas the "Americans" who wanted to break free saw it as a victory. I think I'd like to read/see/hear this other side (or multiple sides) to form a better opinion on what should be done. "Fact" is not necessarily always fact.
In 1993, the Oslo Accords were set up as a mean to negotiate, not as a conclusion to any of the problems developed here. The PLO recognizes Israel, Israel recognizes the PLO. Both will negotiate with each other, and not use terrorism as a way to achieve goals. These were the stipulations outlined to have negotiations on the table. Yeah, well, that really worked out well. Israel got screwed. Heard of the intifada? How many Israeli civilians were killed as a result of suicide bombers coming in? And then the rest of the world looks at Israel's security fence as a crime against humanity because it puts people, ahem, Palestinians, at the butt of the joke. It was the only thing keeping Israel safe for a while, and maybe still is.
Jordan and Israel, 1994. Jordan and Israel both had mutual fear of Palestinians...shared interested in that regard. Peace treaty ensued. Mutual fear brings groups together all the time. The non-Al Qaeda world fears them because we all have their fear in common. In the movie "Independence Day" all nations of the world came together to fight the invading aliens, a foreign enemy. What would be the common fear that Israelis and Palestinians could have to bring everyone together? If only someone had the answer...
Are there other countries who negotiate land for peace or is this the only place in the world this is happening? If it is happening in other places is it the same mindset? I don't know the answer to these questions, and I'm not trying to be fecitious, just genuinely asking if this has precendence.
Oslo "Bet" agreements, 1995 - like a round two of Oslo Agreements.
Israel will withdraw from other 7 population centers in West Bank, besides Jericho (I can't remember why), 95% of Palestinians will be under control of PA, they will vote for their own people, run their own country under the Palestinian Authority. Area A is under Palestinian control fully. Israel creates Area B - Israel resposible for security control but Palestinians responsible for civilian control. Area C is settlements/army bases - Israel in full control - about 100,000 Palestinians but mostly Israelis otherwise. What does this mean in practical terms? It means the West Bank is split up like swiss cheese, with pockets of Area A and then kind of surrounded by Area B and then the rest is Area C. Was it a test of the Palestinians? They were being babysat during this time and if their behavior was good, they'd be rewarded with more land; if they misbehaved, they'd still be under strict and careful watch. Is this fair? Do they deserve to be treated like 2nd class citizens? No one wants to be restrained, not in a democracy. So that isn't exactly fair. However, as a population, they haven't really proven themselves to be civil toward their neighbors so maybe they do have to earn more land by showing they can handle the responsibility to govern themselves on a small level in order to obtain more responsibilities. It happens in workplaces all the time. You don't come in as the new guy and start running the company. You start small, hope to prove yourself to gain more respect and responsibility from the people around you. It's not a bad idea, but it's sometimes labeled as human oppression.
What does it mean to have a government who represents the people? If the people want it, does the government have to act? What if the government thinks they are acting on behalf of the people but the people do not actually agree with or support the decision? What kind of a democracy is that? Is it democracy at all?
Withdraw - a word with connotations, implies an occupation or power struggle of some kind, inherently. When anyone uses this word (in casual conversation between two people in a cafe, or in the international media, or anything in between), those connotations are brought up. No way to avoid the nuances of the word. Our language has those nuances built into it for a reason.
Rules of war: are there any? If so, who enforces them - the UN? Other countries? What do they do or not to to maintain the rules? Is it just a game, like a sport? With a referee? I hope it's not considered just a game with little consequence. At the end of a professional sports game, or a little league game, there is a victor and a loser. Someone's gonna go home sad, but no one has been killed. You get up again the next week at practice and hope for a better result next time. You can't operate like that in a war with guns and tanks and explosives and murder and bloodshed and loss of life and families affected forever and homes destroyed and people uprooted. It's not that simple.
What is the balance of - Israel "ran" from Gaza and South Lebanon? Versus, Israel retreated for the purposes of peace? Let's go back to the word "withdraw." If they withdraw, were they supposed to be there in the first place?
What if the Palestinians were actually given full autonomy? What if they were given 100% of whatever land they "wanted?" I think that opens a huge can of worms where they could invoke tons more violence and then encroach on Israel's land. Once again, Israel is the "friar"/sucker. Not fair to those who genuinely want peace already!
Hamas in Gaza doesn't even get along with Fatach in the West Bank. What does that say about a single Palestinian state - is it possible? They can't even get along with each other already.
How many countries recognize Palestine as a country? If so, is it just the governments and policy and signed documents? What do the citizens of said countries think? It goes back to whether or not a democracy really represents the people or not...
If the solution is a one state solution...it isn't a Jewish state anymore. Major problem.
They need to worry more about building their own state than destroying ours.
A lot still, to think about. But I need to get these thoughts out of my head in order to process them better. This is the start.
No comments:
Post a Comment