In this week's reading we read about a concept that, being an international studies major here at Indiana University, I am very well familiar with. I'm talking of course about the concept of "the other"and how this is a central theme in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Going back to the readings of Benedict Anderson, and his idea of "imagined communities", which I am also currently learning about in my CMCL-C413 class at the moment, it's no wonder there is so much conflict throughout this region of the world, and more specifically Jerusalem. Each side believes that believes that their community is the politically correct community, but if neither community is "correct" then wouldn't that make both communities imaginary in the sense that wrote about?
From what I gather, I don't see how this conflict could ever completely end just because I feel like no matter what agreement, if there ever is one, will be a one hundred percent even deal, or at least appease all members of both sides. I feel like even if a major step towards peace and happiness happens, some rogue vendetta group from one side or the other will launch an attack just to stir up all of the old metaphorical bad blood.
I like to consider myself somebody who looks at situations with a "glass is half-full" mindset, but it is extremely difficult to have that same mindset in this given conflict.
I agree about the "glass half-full" mindset...and, if your analogy is close and both communities may be imaginary, then there's really no glass to even consider....hmmmmm.....I really don't see how this conflict can ever completely end either, Michael. Even if, one day, a settlement is reached and the conflict resolved, people have a way of stirring the pot, so to speak, reviving the conflict again, as you said...but we can always hope and never cease to try, and our "glass half-full" may one day overflow.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an important point. This is too complex to ever end. There are so many aspects of the conflict on which different entities (Israel, Palestinians, US, UN, etc) cannot agree. This is why I tend to stay with the mentality that says, "lets idealize the current situation... stability should be our #1 goal." It doesn't have to be the best, but lets try to get it good enough.
ReplyDeleteI really agree with your point about this will never actually come to a complete end, no matter how long it takes. It goes along with the old saying "it only takes one person to mess things up." This could be one politician who votes the wrong way or a bomber who decides to put things in their hands during peace. Nobody ever knows what will happen in this world and it seems as though it will take a long, long time to reach any kind of peace.
ReplyDeleteIn the US, I would say that we are at peace for the most part. Yes, there are sides that are strongly against each other and their beliefs, but we can handle the tension. The conflict in Jerusalem will never make EVERYBODY happy, and it is just a fact that is going to need to be accepted.
ReplyDeleteI dont think it is ever possible for all parties involved to agree about a certain issue. The beauty about a democracy is that they do not have to and people are entitled to an opinion. A great example is the government in Israel. While in the US we have two political parties, there are 10 actively debating parties within the Israeli government. I think that we need to be realistic about the current state of Jerusalem and Israel, and need to address the the possibility of a two state solution by bringing a legitimate party on the side of the Palestinians to the table. While Abbas is currently in that role, the next person to take his position is set to be a member of Hamas, a terrorist organization.
ReplyDelete