This afternoon, I met for the second time with Christeen and Anthon to discuss the Israel-Palestinian conflict at the Starbucks Coffee on President Kennedy.
The first meeting, which took place two weeks ago, was an introduction to the work I went through these last two weeks. Christeen would tell me about the concrete history her grandparents went through during Israel's War of Independence, and how they lost their land to become Jordan refugees. These testimonies lead me to the idea of understanding the roots of the conflict, which I tried to answer through the first papers: Why a land for the Jews (Zionism)? Why such a people as the "Palestinian"?
Today, we spoke about the media influence over the conflict. I believe that a great part of the unsolved issues are induced by the popular non-complete ideas people have about the conflict. Therefore, I wanted to conduct an analysis with Christeen and Anthon on this topic, and contrast how a same event could be explained through many different partial perspectives in a French newspaper, an American newspaper, and an Israeli newspaper. The flotilla episode happened at the right time (one week ago), and we all studied the following articles:
Article from NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01flotilla.html
Article from Le Monde (French newspaper): http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2010/05/31/assaut-israelien-contre-la-flottille-en-route-vers-gaza_1365247_3218.html
First article from Haaretz (Israeli newspaper):http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/gaza-flotilla-drives-israel-into-a-sea-of-stupidity-1.292959
Second article from Haaretz (Israeli newspaper): http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/analysis-israel-needs-national-inquiry-into-deadly-gaza-flotilla-clashes-1.293347
The outcomes of our dialogue were not that conclusive. We understood that the phenomenon taking place, the shaping of popular judgment, is real but, more subtle and could not be grasped through the contrasting analysis of a single paper. We left ourselves homework for the following time, understanding the media interests in taking position in favour or against the Israeli or Palestinian cause. Christeen told me Arabs believe the media are controlled by Jews, and the information release worldwide is largely in favour of Israel. However, I told her that Jews people believe that worldwide news does not hesitate to lynch Israel, and we will try to objectivise the issue. Moreover, Anthon came with the bright idea to classify the issues faced by Israel, and the Palestinian. It is the first step to think about a solution. I am sure we will be surprised by the diversity of issues we will learn to understand. In addition, I borrowed three books from the library, one is Let us divorce from Amos Oz, which I will analyse in a future entry, another is a book on Zionism in the Arab world before WWI I lent to Christeen, and the last one is a book about peace negotiating (management approach!), which Anthon will read.
I will meet again tomorrow with Christeen to discuss the roots of Palestinian nationalism, a work undertaken earlier.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Meditating with Jin
Yesterday, I went meditating with Jin at the "Centre Bouddhiste Kankala". The atmosphere at the place was really chill and relaxing. The woman conducting the meditation session invited us to think about something we enjoyed during the day, and how different individuals took part in this adventure, in order to thanks these scattered destiny which worked for our own benefit. For instance, she related about the cup of coffee she drunk at breakfast. She would think of the man who worked on the soil, the farmer who planted the coffee bean, and finally the cashier who placed the coffee pack on the shop shelf, and in between all the different actors involved in this process. Pushing the reasoning, she could thanks Watt for the invention of the vapour mechanisms, which allowed the boat to bring coffee overseas, and even the individuals responsible for the construction of the road between the shop and her place. At the end of the day, we would view humanity as a constellation of individuals directly responsible in the functioning of society, and the whole project of humanity.
On a similar idea, I would meditate on the pleasure I experience when I play a sonata written by Beethoven, let's take the example of the Pathetique. For this sonata to travel through time implies generations of teachers explaining to students how this music should be basically understood. Moreover, classical music labels such as Deutsch Gramophone also take action in the release and marketing of new interpretations of the famous sonata - Glenn Gould or Horowitz would show us two different worlds within the same sonata, each one is a subjective appropriation of Beethoven's creation, and add rather than conflict to the masterpiece.
Glen Gould's interpretation of Pathetique (first movement): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL0u9QXNvEg
Horowitz's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weEYNgeHyDA
Moreover, my personal understanding of the piece is a result of the many lessons I took with different teachers. My first teacher was a student of Le Conservatoire de Paris, while the two others were students at Moscow Conservatory...
Arises the question of society. As a matter of fact, from this perspective, we all take action in the shape of society. Moreover, leaving in an idealistic world where our coffee is really a fair product (thus the money we pay for it would be a fair amount necessary to the well being of the farmer etc.), would make us all better off than leaving in a world where things seems to work less idealistically.
I discussed these political ideas in previous articles, and it seems that everything goes back to this idea of being actor of the change we want to see. In my case, the central subject of my blog, Israel, is a case I feel I have the duty to understand in order to respectfully influence who should be...
A part from the philosophical ideas I showed up here, I believe I felt way better during the day than I usually do. It is a little early to state the link between meditation and general well being, but I will strive to better assess the link during my future sessions.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Israel: When all my family gets involved
I sent my second entry (What happened to the Zionist inspiration) on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to my uncle Michel, currently living in Washington, to ask him what looks biased, irrelevant, or unclear, in this first tentative draft. Why my uncle? I think that my uncle is someone who always strives to understand things beyond their simple appearance, and is the most suited person in my family to help me since he is less emotionally aroused about the issues than my family currently living in Jerusalem.
The point I will discuss in this paper concerns a relevant point outlined by my uncle.
My paper: "As evidence not envisioned by Herzl, throughout the history of the Jewish country, and from its very first day, the Palestinians, Muslims or Catholics, would never accept the creation of a Jewish state within "their country" (part of the Ottoman Empire before the British mandate).
"Uncle Michel's answer: "not quite true see the document I sent you. The opposition came mostly from Arab neighbors and the idea initially was one of a two state country. Also the exodus of Palestinians was often inspired by arab leaders see
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/refugees.html"
The idea for "Palestine"
To address this issue I would first like to do a brief recap of the agenda. I previously covered the historical Jewish presence in the land of Israel (first paper), the history of the Jewish diaspora, and the rise of the Zionist idea for a Jewish homeland in the 19th and 20th century (second paper). Christeen agreed to discuss the history of the "Palestinian" people, and how history made them become a people (or whether it is legit to call them a people). Before reading Christeen's research, I briefly googled this. The province of Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire until the end of the First World War, and the Treaty of Sevres, enacted the split up of the Ottoman Empire. The different provinces were ruled by different countries, and as we know, Palestine was under a British Mandate (from 1917). Bad luck for the "Palestinian people" of the former Ottoman Empire, they did not have much time to deal with the nationalist question; that is, history did not let them ages to philosophy on their "new identity" following the split up of the Ottoman Empire. Although there was already Palestinian nationalist organisations which emerged at the end of WWI; in Jerusalem, Februrary 1919, the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations, which met for the purpose of selecting a Palestinian Arab representative for the Paris Peace Conference, adopted the following resolution: "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds." However, after the failure of the establishment of the Kingdom of Greater Syria, a distinctive form of Palestinian Arab nationalism took root between April and July 1920. Following the French conquest of Syria (formerly part of the Ottoman empire), the mayor of Jerusalem, Musa Qasim Pasah al-Husayni, declared: "Now, after the recent events in Damascus, we have to effect a complete change in our plans here. Southern Syria no longer exists. We must defend Palestine". Therefore, following the split up of the Ottoman Empire, the "Palestinian" identity issue is urging as the Zionist ambition was becoming more and more influent (let's recall that the British accepted to work for a Jewish homeland in Palestine in the Belfour Declaration of 1917).
The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
Following the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which was planned to create an Arab state and a Jewish state side by side, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria attacked the state of Israel (known as the Israeli war of Independence). From my research, I learned that the Palestinian exodus was an idea essentially lead by the Palestinian leaders, who would clear the path for the Arab armies, and it was planned that the Palestinians would come back as soon as the armies would eradicate the new Jewish state. Therefore, my statement: "the Palestinians, Muslims or Catholics, would never accept the creation of a Jewish state within "their country"" is loose. However, I would like to speak about this with Christeen (we are meeting tomorrow), and we need to understand what was the Palestinian reaction at the time (how the Palestinian population felt about a Jewish state side by side a Palestinian state). If the Ottoman Empire would not had split up, the issue would had been much easier for the Palestinian Ottomans, they would find a home in the surrounding Empire…but they lost the historical "musical chair" game, and the surrounding Arabic countries, formerly co-citizen, were not that fraternal with the Palestinian refugees - Christeen would bring more details on this. The case for the Palestinian refugees was born, and how Israel would deal with it along. I believe we now have properly set the layer, and it is now time to look more precisely at the conflict between the Jewish and the Palestinian itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edit:
Here is the full email exchange between my uncle and me:
My uncle's answer to my "What happened to the Zionist inspiration?" article (first email):
Changes in ownership of land and changes in boundaries are not specific to Israel, so that situation should be put in context: look at the many, many, changes of borders in Europe, Ottoman empire, roman and greek empires, and very recently after 1870, 1918, South Asia in 1948, Africa in the 60s, Yugoslavia, etc… What makes the Palestinian issue – as sad as it is - such a lasting cause whch cannot find attenuation with time? Were all the other situations of refugees caused by historical shifts resolved? Were all other refugees compensated? Given a land? Treated as equals in the country they “lost” (by the way Lucie lost her house, her land, her properties in South Vietnam, when are the South Vietnamese in exile, going to get their country and assets back? When is CNN going to do a segment on this issue?
Look at the space of Jews, and Catholics and other religious minorities in Arab countries and question why there is so much undiverted attention to the issue of Palestinians in Israel and so little to the issue of the discremination against non arabs in arab countries. Where are the “doves” in Arab lands?
Why did the Arab countries of the region not welcome Palestinians, thus creating a major refugee issue in Israel?
How is Israel’s human right record compared to other countries in the region in terms of rights of minorities, role of women, democracy, openness of society, media and access to information, access to judicial redress? Is Israel the only country with walls and labor and security restrictions?
Suggest you acknowledge the importance to find solutions that reconcile Palestinians aspirations and Israel’s need for security and protection in the context of different demographics.
Good luck with the project… it is great one. As to me, I have hope that a two state solution, as foreseen at the creation of Israel, is feasible and will set the conditions for peace at last. There are no ways to settle rights and wrongs, simply a common interest to find peace.
My answer (second email):
>Merci pour ces commentaires.
>
>J ai quelques points de desacord. Bien que les Juifs aient des racines historiques a la terre d Israel, on ne peut pas envisager que tous les peuples du monde, disperses par le cours de l histoire, revendiquent un etat souverain la ou un autre s est installe depuis bien longtemps. Comme le dit Herzl, les Juifs sont un cas parmis une multitude de diaspora (kurdes etc.).
>Donc:
>"Are you saying that people who have lost their land and are persecuted outside their lost land are not always justified in their quest to restore their rights to a safe land? When is such quest legitimate? Who legitimizes it?"
>Une telle quete a toujours un cout pour quelqu un, et c est toute la question derriere mon projet.
>Qui legitimise la creation d un etat? Je pense que le point de vue de mon projet doit etre omniscient : d un point de vue universel, l humanite (ou l UN) peut elle justifier pragmatiquement la creation d un etat de sorte que les couts subis par les populations locales soient au moins contre balances par le benefice de la nation qui retrouve un etat? Les exemples sont nombreux, le Tibet, les Kurdes, les Kossovards, et meme les Corses!!
>
>"Although, the upcoming Holocaust certainly would had strengthen the legitimacy of a Jewish state for whom?. why?" au yeux du monde (et de l UN)! Parceque nombre de pays impliques dans la guerre ont considere avec une dette envers le peuple juif apres l Holocauste.
>
>-(although the episode of the Holocaust might haved helped the moral evidence justification? for the need of a Jewish country indeed!).
>Indeed je ne suis pas sur, comme tu le disais, ton pere, mon grand pere Claude a toujours considere que les Juifs n avaient rien a faire dans un etat Juif, comme tu me l as dit.
>La seconde guerre mondiale et holocauste ont completement modifie l Europe . Je ne pense pas que les Juifs soient encore a risque en Europe, c est un argument partage par Simon Veil par exemple, qui considere que l antisemitisme aujourd hui en France n est pas un probleme, et l argument de la reminiscence de l histoire n est plus valable etant donne que le contexte des Juifs en Europe est a present radicalement different. Je me fais plus de soucis pour les arabes qui eux ont beaucoup plus de mal a ses faire une place dans la societe francaise.
>
>-J ai trouve que Herzl, Jabotinsky et Ben Gurion ont ete les plus influents dans leur temps. Si jamais il faut que je me penche vers d autres penseurs, donne moi leur nom et je me renseignerai d avantage.
>
>-why would they accept to be stolen their land! Are you saying that the land belonged to Palestinians or that Jewish claims based on cultural, historical roots as we as UN decisions were not legitimate?
>La province de Palestine n etait pas un etat mais un territoire de l empire Ottoman, il n empeche que les Palestiniens non Juifs etaient bien installes dans tout le pays, et Ben Gurion lui meme reconnaissait qu ils n avaiebt aucune raison d accepter l apparition d un nouveal etat dans "leur" terre (aux yeux des arabes palestiniens evidemment). Je ne parle pas de la legitimite de la decision de l UN mais la reaction logique des populations arabes.
>
>-You should acknowledge that the historical argument is to say the least complicated. C est a dire????
>
>-Were all the other situations of refugees caused by historical shifts resolved? Were all other refugees compensated? Given a land? Treated as equals in the country they “lost”
>Je me penche sur la question d Israel qui est deja tres compliquee! Ce n est pas parceque les autres pays ont fait pire que Israel a le droit de...
>
>-On s en fiche de savoir ce qu il se passe dans les pays musulmans ou arabes autour d Israel, ca n a rien a voir avec le probleme qu ils sont pires ou mieux qu Israel.
>Et qu ils n aient pas aides les Palestiniens prouve que le peuple arabe ne peut pas etre vu comme "un", et justement que la terre des Palestiniens est en consequence nulle part d autre que en Palestine!
>
>-Suggest you acknowledge the importance to find solutions that reconcile Palestinians aspirations and Israel’s need for security and protection in the context of different demographics.
>C est le resultat a terme, je commence tout juste ce travail avec une amie Palestienne, et on envisagera des solutions quand on aura deja bien cerne le sujet.
>
>Merci et bises,
>Jonathan
His answer (third email):
Jonathan,
Le fait que d' autres nations ont ete forme au cours de l'histoire est un contexte important a ton etude - chaque fois il y avait une perte pour ceux qui etaient la avant, une consequence tragique du changement. On se focalise souvent sur Israel dans les salons bien pensants, ce qui a amene certains a parler d' antisemitisme nouveau, plus acceptable, car on ne parle plus de haine du juif, mais haine d' Israel. C' est aussi pourquoi il est tout de meme utile de mettre en contexte le traitement des palestiniens en israel et celui des minorites non musumanes dans les pays arabes, dont curieusement on parle moins et qu' on censure moins souvent. Tu dois au moins te poser la question de l'incroyable focalisation sur Israel dans les medias et les assemblees internationales, et te demander son origine, plutot que dire que toi aussi, ce que font les autres, tu t' en fous.
Le lien historique d' israel a la terre ne doit pas etre oublie. Oui il y avait des palestiniens, qui eux aussi ont une revendication a la meme terre, mais la revendication d' Israel est aussi legitime et historique (l' annee prochaine a Jerusalem). Le fait que l'ONU , le forum des nations ait au depart consacre la creation est un point important, meme s'il ne fait rien pour resourdre le probleme des populations qui vivaient sur la terre. Encore une fois, il est essentiel de noter dans ton etude que la creation d' un etat palestinien a ete envisage des le depart et soutenu par les fondateurs.
Dire que l' antisemitisme est maintenant sous controle me parait un peu facile, et que les arabes ont plus de mal me semble un argument bizarre, D'abord tu compares un peuple qui avait perdu sa terre (Israel) et qui maintenant l' a recupere a une population migrante qui a toujours des racines et une appartenance nationale. Deuxiemement beaucoup en Allemagne et en France pensaient que les evenements de 1933 allaient passer, que les Francais juifs seraient epargnes etc. Simone Veil ou mon grand pere avaient leurs opinions, mais la realite en Espagne en 1492, en France en 1940, en allemagne en 1933 a ete tres differente de ce que les optimistes avaient imagine. Donc on ne peut pas sous estimer la perspective de ceux qui ont vu dans la creation d' israel la seule solution.
L' attitude des pays arabes vis a vis des palestiniens est inacceptable - une mitigation des problemes de migration et creation d'etat a souvent ete l' accueil par d' autres etats culturellement lies aux refugies. Ton etude devrait au moins considerer la question de l' absorption, pourquoi les arabes ont prefere fermer leur frontiere et miser sur la destobilisation d' Israel a terme, et pris cette decision au mepris des destins indivuduels de ceux qui n' ont pu refaire leur vie?
Il n' y a pas de solution miracle, et le probleme des palestiniens en israel est aujourd'hui un probleme qui exige une solution, et de facon urgente, mais dans la mesure ou tu"essaies de voir le probleme sous tous ses angles, les perspectives ci dessus se doivent d' etre prises en compte, et serieusement.
Sur ce je vais rater mon avion si je ne pars pas tout de suite.
Michel
The point I will discuss in this paper concerns a relevant point outlined by my uncle.
My paper: "As evidence not envisioned by Herzl, throughout the history of the Jewish country, and from its very first day, the Palestinians, Muslims or Catholics, would never accept the creation of a Jewish state within "their country" (part of the Ottoman Empire before the British mandate).
"Uncle Michel's answer: "not quite true see the document I sent you. The opposition came mostly from Arab neighbors and the idea initially was one of a two state country. Also the exodus of Palestinians was often inspired by arab leaders see
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/refugees.html"
The idea for "Palestine"
To address this issue I would first like to do a brief recap of the agenda. I previously covered the historical Jewish presence in the land of Israel (first paper), the history of the Jewish diaspora, and the rise of the Zionist idea for a Jewish homeland in the 19th and 20th century (second paper). Christeen agreed to discuss the history of the "Palestinian" people, and how history made them become a people (or whether it is legit to call them a people). Before reading Christeen's research, I briefly googled this. The province of Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire until the end of the First World War, and the Treaty of Sevres, enacted the split up of the Ottoman Empire. The different provinces were ruled by different countries, and as we know, Palestine was under a British Mandate (from 1917). Bad luck for the "Palestinian people" of the former Ottoman Empire, they did not have much time to deal with the nationalist question; that is, history did not let them ages to philosophy on their "new identity" following the split up of the Ottoman Empire. Although there was already Palestinian nationalist organisations which emerged at the end of WWI; in Jerusalem, Februrary 1919, the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations, which met for the purpose of selecting a Palestinian Arab representative for the Paris Peace Conference, adopted the following resolution: "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds." However, after the failure of the establishment of the Kingdom of Greater Syria, a distinctive form of Palestinian Arab nationalism took root between April and July 1920. Following the French conquest of Syria (formerly part of the Ottoman empire), the mayor of Jerusalem, Musa Qasim Pasah al-Husayni, declared: "Now, after the recent events in Damascus, we have to effect a complete change in our plans here. Southern Syria no longer exists. We must defend Palestine". Therefore, following the split up of the Ottoman Empire, the "Palestinian" identity issue is urging as the Zionist ambition was becoming more and more influent (let's recall that the British accepted to work for a Jewish homeland in Palestine in the Belfour Declaration of 1917).
The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
Following the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which was planned to create an Arab state and a Jewish state side by side, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria attacked the state of Israel (known as the Israeli war of Independence). From my research, I learned that the Palestinian exodus was an idea essentially lead by the Palestinian leaders, who would clear the path for the Arab armies, and it was planned that the Palestinians would come back as soon as the armies would eradicate the new Jewish state. Therefore, my statement: "the Palestinians, Muslims or Catholics, would never accept the creation of a Jewish state within "their country"" is loose. However, I would like to speak about this with Christeen (we are meeting tomorrow), and we need to understand what was the Palestinian reaction at the time (how the Palestinian population felt about a Jewish state side by side a Palestinian state). If the Ottoman Empire would not had split up, the issue would had been much easier for the Palestinian Ottomans, they would find a home in the surrounding Empire…but they lost the historical "musical chair" game, and the surrounding Arabic countries, formerly co-citizen, were not that fraternal with the Palestinian refugees - Christeen would bring more details on this. The case for the Palestinian refugees was born, and how Israel would deal with it along. I believe we now have properly set the layer, and it is now time to look more precisely at the conflict between the Jewish and the Palestinian itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edit:
Here is the full email exchange between my uncle and me:
My uncle's answer to my "What happened to the Zionist inspiration?" article (first email):
Changes in ownership of land and changes in boundaries are not specific to Israel, so that situation should be put in context: look at the many, many, changes of borders in Europe, Ottoman empire, roman and greek empires, and very recently after 1870, 1918, South Asia in 1948, Africa in the 60s, Yugoslavia, etc… What makes the Palestinian issue – as sad as it is - such a lasting cause whch cannot find attenuation with time? Were all the other situations of refugees caused by historical shifts resolved? Were all other refugees compensated? Given a land? Treated as equals in the country they “lost” (by the way Lucie lost her house, her land, her properties in South Vietnam, when are the South Vietnamese in exile, going to get their country and assets back? When is CNN going to do a segment on this issue?
Look at the space of Jews, and Catholics and other religious minorities in Arab countries and question why there is so much undiverted attention to the issue of Palestinians in Israel and so little to the issue of the discremination against non arabs in arab countries. Where are the “doves” in Arab lands?
Why did the Arab countries of the region not welcome Palestinians, thus creating a major refugee issue in Israel?
How is Israel’s human right record compared to other countries in the region in terms of rights of minorities, role of women, democracy, openness of society, media and access to information, access to judicial redress? Is Israel the only country with walls and labor and security restrictions?
Suggest you acknowledge the importance to find solutions that reconcile Palestinians aspirations and Israel’s need for security and protection in the context of different demographics.
Good luck with the project… it is great one. As to me, I have hope that a two state solution, as foreseen at the creation of Israel, is feasible and will set the conditions for peace at last. There are no ways to settle rights and wrongs, simply a common interest to find peace.
My answer (second email):
>Merci pour ces commentaires.
>
>J ai quelques points de desacord. Bien que les Juifs aient des racines historiques a la terre d Israel, on ne peut pas envisager que tous les peuples du monde, disperses par le cours de l histoire, revendiquent un etat souverain la ou un autre s est installe depuis bien longtemps. Comme le dit Herzl, les Juifs sont un cas parmis une multitude de diaspora (kurdes etc.).
>Donc:
>"Are you saying that people who have lost their land and are persecuted outside their lost land are not always justified in their quest to restore their rights to a safe land? When is such quest legitimate? Who legitimizes it?"
>Une telle quete a toujours un cout pour quelqu un, et c est toute la question derriere mon projet.
>Qui legitimise la creation d un etat? Je pense que le point de vue de mon projet doit etre omniscient : d un point de vue universel, l humanite (ou l UN) peut elle justifier pragmatiquement la creation d un etat de sorte que les couts subis par les populations locales soient au moins contre balances par le benefice de la nation qui retrouve un etat? Les exemples sont nombreux, le Tibet, les Kurdes, les Kossovards, et meme les Corses!!
>
>"Although, the upcoming Holocaust certainly would had strengthen the legitimacy of a Jewish state for whom?. why?" au yeux du monde (et de l UN)! Parceque nombre de pays impliques dans la guerre ont considere avec une dette envers le peuple juif apres l Holocauste.
>
>-(although the episode of the Holocaust might haved helped the moral evidence justification? for the need of a Jewish country indeed!).
>Indeed je ne suis pas sur, comme tu le disais, ton pere, mon grand pere Claude a toujours considere que les Juifs n avaient rien a faire dans un etat Juif, comme tu me l as dit.
>La seconde guerre mondiale et holocauste ont completement modifie l Europe . Je ne pense pas que les Juifs soient encore a risque en Europe, c est un argument partage par Simon Veil par exemple, qui considere que l antisemitisme aujourd hui en France n est pas un probleme, et l argument de la reminiscence de l histoire n est plus valable etant donne que le contexte des Juifs en Europe est a present radicalement different. Je me fais plus de soucis pour les arabes qui eux ont beaucoup plus de mal a ses faire une place dans la societe francaise.
>
>-J ai trouve que Herzl, Jabotinsky et Ben Gurion ont ete les plus influents dans leur temps. Si jamais il faut que je me penche vers d autres penseurs, donne moi leur nom et je me renseignerai d avantage.
>
>-why would they accept to be stolen their land! Are you saying that the land belonged to Palestinians or that Jewish claims based on cultural, historical roots as we as UN decisions were not legitimate?
>La province de Palestine n etait pas un etat mais un territoire de l empire Ottoman, il n empeche que les Palestiniens non Juifs etaient bien installes dans tout le pays, et Ben Gurion lui meme reconnaissait qu ils n avaiebt aucune raison d accepter l apparition d un nouveal etat dans "leur" terre (aux yeux des arabes palestiniens evidemment). Je ne parle pas de la legitimite de la decision de l UN mais la reaction logique des populations arabes.
>
>-You should acknowledge that the historical argument is to say the least complicated. C est a dire????
>
>-Were all the other situations of refugees caused by historical shifts resolved? Were all other refugees compensated? Given a land? Treated as equals in the country they “lost”
>Je me penche sur la question d Israel qui est deja tres compliquee! Ce n est pas parceque les autres pays ont fait pire que Israel a le droit de...
>
>-On s en fiche de savoir ce qu il se passe dans les pays musulmans ou arabes autour d Israel, ca n a rien a voir avec le probleme qu ils sont pires ou mieux qu Israel.
>Et qu ils n aient pas aides les Palestiniens prouve que le peuple arabe ne peut pas etre vu comme "un", et justement que la terre des Palestiniens est en consequence nulle part d autre que en Palestine!
>
>-Suggest you acknowledge the importance to find solutions that reconcile Palestinians aspirations and Israel’s need for security and protection in the context of different demographics.
>C est le resultat a terme, je commence tout juste ce travail avec une amie Palestienne, et on envisagera des solutions quand on aura deja bien cerne le sujet.
>
>Merci et bises,
>Jonathan
His answer (third email):
Jonathan,
Le fait que d' autres nations ont ete forme au cours de l'histoire est un contexte important a ton etude - chaque fois il y avait une perte pour ceux qui etaient la avant, une consequence tragique du changement. On se focalise souvent sur Israel dans les salons bien pensants, ce qui a amene certains a parler d' antisemitisme nouveau, plus acceptable, car on ne parle plus de haine du juif, mais haine d' Israel. C' est aussi pourquoi il est tout de meme utile de mettre en contexte le traitement des palestiniens en israel et celui des minorites non musumanes dans les pays arabes, dont curieusement on parle moins et qu' on censure moins souvent. Tu dois au moins te poser la question de l'incroyable focalisation sur Israel dans les medias et les assemblees internationales, et te demander son origine, plutot que dire que toi aussi, ce que font les autres, tu t' en fous.
Le lien historique d' israel a la terre ne doit pas etre oublie. Oui il y avait des palestiniens, qui eux aussi ont une revendication a la meme terre, mais la revendication d' Israel est aussi legitime et historique (l' annee prochaine a Jerusalem). Le fait que l'ONU , le forum des nations ait au depart consacre la creation est un point important, meme s'il ne fait rien pour resourdre le probleme des populations qui vivaient sur la terre. Encore une fois, il est essentiel de noter dans ton etude que la creation d' un etat palestinien a ete envisage des le depart et soutenu par les fondateurs.
Dire que l' antisemitisme est maintenant sous controle me parait un peu facile, et que les arabes ont plus de mal me semble un argument bizarre, D'abord tu compares un peuple qui avait perdu sa terre (Israel) et qui maintenant l' a recupere a une population migrante qui a toujours des racines et une appartenance nationale. Deuxiemement beaucoup en Allemagne et en France pensaient que les evenements de 1933 allaient passer, que les Francais juifs seraient epargnes etc. Simone Veil ou mon grand pere avaient leurs opinions, mais la realite en Espagne en 1492, en France en 1940, en allemagne en 1933 a ete tres differente de ce que les optimistes avaient imagine. Donc on ne peut pas sous estimer la perspective de ceux qui ont vu dans la creation d' israel la seule solution.
L' attitude des pays arabes vis a vis des palestiniens est inacceptable - une mitigation des problemes de migration et creation d'etat a souvent ete l' accueil par d' autres etats culturellement lies aux refugies. Ton etude devrait au moins considerer la question de l' absorption, pourquoi les arabes ont prefere fermer leur frontiere et miser sur la destobilisation d' Israel a terme, et pris cette decision au mepris des destins indivuduels de ceux qui n' ont pu refaire leur vie?
Il n' y a pas de solution miracle, et le probleme des palestiniens en israel est aujourd'hui un probleme qui exige une solution, et de facon urgente, mais dans la mesure ou tu"essaies de voir le probleme sous tous ses angles, les perspectives ci dessus se doivent d' etre prises en compte, et serieusement.
Sur ce je vais rater mon avion si je ne pars pas tout de suite.
Michel
Friday, May 28, 2010
The "Yes Man" experiment conclusions
On a lighter tone than the Israeli-Palestinian debate, my "Yes Man" experience was prolonged a little, but the experiment finally came to an end.
What did I do that I would not have done otherwise? Well, I went running with a friend at...8.45 am in the morning on Sunday, May the 16th (I did not wake up before 10am for a very long time before this!!). Quite surprisingly, I enjoyed the experience. A day starting that early feels way better than staying in bed until noon (in terms of moods, attitude towards tasks etc.). Moreover, on Thursday May 3rd, I went out with friends to the Tokyo club, on Saint Laurent, although I hate clubs. This time, I did not maintain the experience, since I got too bored simply queuing to enter the club. Finally, I accepted to play a geeky strategic video game (Age of Empires) on Friday, May 4th, although I initially had different plans.
What should I learn from the experiment? First, it looks like I am not that negative: I accepted just 3 propositions I would not naturally do. Second, a movie is a movie, and what happens to Jim Carrey in Yes Man did not happen to me. I wanted to check if I was missing crazy things in my life, but it does not look like it!
However, it was interesting to notify what I am naturally up to doing (watching movies), and what I more reluctant to do (going clubbing for instance). Digging on this, perhaps there are many good occasions I miss because I have preconceptions. Going running at 8.45am in the morning was a very good experience I am ready to
replicate (but not right now!!).
The conclusions are not plentiful for the moment, but I will try to keep the Yes-attitude until the end of the semester, and post the eventual surprises.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
What happened to the Zionist inspiration?
Following the fall of Judea (the land of Jews around 70AC) during the Jewish-Roman wars, as described in my precedent post, the Jews were scattered around Europe, Roman provinces, the Middle East, and North Africa. After the fall of their land, some Jews were sold as slaved, or transported as captives. However, some Jews stayed in the former land of Judea. Those Jews in the Diaspora experienced restrictive conditions to practice their religion. During the Middle Ages, Jews divided into distinct regional groups, the Ashkenazi of Northern and Eastern Europe, and Sephardic Jews of Iberia, North Africa, and the Middle East. Judaism was never welcomed in the European countries (France enacted an interdiction of Judaism in 1308, and Spain expulsed the Jews in 1492, among other persecution episodes in European history). The Jewish Diaspora continued towards Eastern Europe, where their condition would not be better, as they would be gathered in ghettos, isolated from the population, and persecuted in pogroms (for instance, anti-Jewish pogroms of 1881-1884 in the Russian Empire). The idea for a new Jewish country would rise in this climate of European anti-Semitism. Hovevei Zion is considered as the forerunner movement of the Zionist movement. As early as 1880, the movement would facilitate the immigration of Jewish citizen, and the implementation of agricultural settlements, to the land of Palestine, part of the Ottoman Empire at this time. However, the idea for Zionism would become influent among the Jewish intellectuals of the time, with Theodor Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian journalist. In fact, the man considered the previous attempts as being "wrongly conceived". He wrote Der Jundenstaat in 1896 (The Jews' state), as a political program for the creation of a Jewish State, and a first Zionist congress would be organized in Basel, Switzerland, the following year. I read The Jews' state in order to gain a proper understanding of the initial ideas that lead to the creation of the State of Israel.
Theodor Herzl
Foremost, what surprised me is Herzl's conception that the only solution to the issue of anti-Semitism, is the creation of a sovereign states for the Jews. His vision emerges from an overall context of various "Nationalist claims resulting from globalization, and the strengthening of the communication links among the scattered peoples. He believes that his political program would be adopted by Jewish, and anti-Semites, and that everybody would be better off with a State for the Jews: "The governments of those countries affected by anti-Semitism have a lively interest in providing us with this sovereignty". He conceives that: "The peoples with whom Jews live are all anti-Semites, without exception, discreetly or brazenly", but that "anti-Semitism will cease immediately everywhere" as soon as the Jewish state would announce its independence.
Herzl designs a plan to build a Jewish state around two organizations that would serve as the main engines: The Society of Jews (intellectual organism), and the Jewish Company (responsible for liquidating the assets of immigrants, among other technical tasks...).
The plan is consciously detailed, and straightforward, for it has to charm the Jewish potential builders of the country: "First the poorest Jews will go and make the land arable. (...) they will build the streets, bridges and railways. (...) Their work will lead to business."
Nevertheless, Herzl opens the discussion in the Conclusion to a honest objection of his plan: "One of the big objections is that the Jews' situation is not the only perilous one in the world". The question remains relevant: could every historical nation claim its independence, and be given a piece of land? Although, the upcoming Holocaust certainly would had strengthen the legitimacy of a Jewish state.
Herzl ideas made their way through history, and the idea for the state of Israel would get the support of the British in 1917 -they had a mandate in Palestine at this time- (Balfour declaration), and would get the UN approval in 1948 (although the episode of the Holocaust might had helped the moral evidence for the need of a Jewish country). As evidence not envisioned by Herzl, throughout the history of the Jewish country, and form its very first day, the Palestinians, Muslims or Catholics, would never accept the creation of a Jewish state within "their country" (part of the Ottoman Empire before the British mandate). The declaration of the independence of Israel (14th May 1948) would trigger are fierce conflict between the Arabs and Jews known as the War of Independence. The focus of this paper is not to erect a historical summary of the sixty years of conflict between the Palestinian Arabs and the Jewish state, but rather to stress out a problem in the root ideology: How should Arabs be treated in the "Jewish State"? Among other influent intellectuals for the fight of Zionism, are the works of Jabotinsky (Russian journalist). The man believed that: "Each one of the ethnic communities will be recognized as autonomous and equal in the eyes of the law." Herzl would go along this idea: "It would be immoral if we would exclude anyone, whatever his origin, his descent, or his religion, from participating in our achievements. For we stand on the shoulders of other civilized peoples."
Among defenders of the Jewish State is the common argument that Arabs ever fought against Israel and never wanted to live with Israeli. These people forget that it seemed clear to Ben Gurion (founder of the state), that the Arabs would never accept Israel; in fact, why would they accept to be stolen their land!
Nowadays, the dilemma is very complex, and I will strive with Christeen, and Anthon, to better understand the diverse attempts of orthodox Jews, non-religious Jews, Catholic Arabs, Muslim Arabs etc. Although we will certainly not find a solution to the conflict, it is a first step to thoroughly understand what lead us to a terrible situation, both for the Israeli, and the Arab populations. In the following posts, I will try to better understand how the political life in Israel is designed, and what the eventual solutions to the conflict are.
Theodor Herzl
Foremost, what surprised me is Herzl's conception that the only solution to the issue of anti-Semitism, is the creation of a sovereign states for the Jews. His vision emerges from an overall context of various "Nationalist claims resulting from globalization, and the strengthening of the communication links among the scattered peoples. He believes that his political program would be adopted by Jewish, and anti-Semites, and that everybody would be better off with a State for the Jews: "The governments of those countries affected by anti-Semitism have a lively interest in providing us with this sovereignty". He conceives that: "The peoples with whom Jews live are all anti-Semites, without exception, discreetly or brazenly", but that "anti-Semitism will cease immediately everywhere" as soon as the Jewish state would announce its independence.
Herzl designs a plan to build a Jewish state around two organizations that would serve as the main engines: The Society of Jews (intellectual organism), and the Jewish Company (responsible for liquidating the assets of immigrants, among other technical tasks...).
The plan is consciously detailed, and straightforward, for it has to charm the Jewish potential builders of the country: "First the poorest Jews will go and make the land arable. (...) they will build the streets, bridges and railways. (...) Their work will lead to business."
Nevertheless, Herzl opens the discussion in the Conclusion to a honest objection of his plan: "One of the big objections is that the Jews' situation is not the only perilous one in the world". The question remains relevant: could every historical nation claim its independence, and be given a piece of land? Although, the upcoming Holocaust certainly would had strengthen the legitimacy of a Jewish state.
Herzl ideas made their way through history, and the idea for the state of Israel would get the support of the British in 1917 -they had a mandate in Palestine at this time- (Balfour declaration), and would get the UN approval in 1948 (although the episode of the Holocaust might had helped the moral evidence for the need of a Jewish country). As evidence not envisioned by Herzl, throughout the history of the Jewish country, and form its very first day, the Palestinians, Muslims or Catholics, would never accept the creation of a Jewish state within "their country" (part of the Ottoman Empire before the British mandate). The declaration of the independence of Israel (14th May 1948) would trigger are fierce conflict between the Arabs and Jews known as the War of Independence. The focus of this paper is not to erect a historical summary of the sixty years of conflict between the Palestinian Arabs and the Jewish state, but rather to stress out a problem in the root ideology: How should Arabs be treated in the "Jewish State"? Among other influent intellectuals for the fight of Zionism, are the works of Jabotinsky (Russian journalist). The man believed that: "Each one of the ethnic communities will be recognized as autonomous and equal in the eyes of the law." Herzl would go along this idea: "It would be immoral if we would exclude anyone, whatever his origin, his descent, or his religion, from participating in our achievements. For we stand on the shoulders of other civilized peoples."
Among defenders of the Jewish State is the common argument that Arabs ever fought against Israel and never wanted to live with Israeli. These people forget that it seemed clear to Ben Gurion (founder of the state), that the Arabs would never accept Israel; in fact, why would they accept to be stolen their land!
Nowadays, the dilemma is very complex, and I will strive with Christeen, and Anthon, to better understand the diverse attempts of orthodox Jews, non-religious Jews, Catholic Arabs, Muslim Arabs etc. Although we will certainly not find a solution to the conflict, it is a first step to thoroughly understand what lead us to a terrible situation, both for the Israeli, and the Arab populations. In the following posts, I will try to better understand how the political life in Israel is designed, and what the eventual solutions to the conflict are.
Monday, May 24, 2010
A history of the Jews in Israel
I decided to write a consistent history of the Jewish presence in Israel as an entry for my blog. This is one of many entries I will write in order to grasp a thorough understanding of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The coming entries will relate on the history of Diaspora (Jewish scattered around the world), and the emergence of the idea of Zionism. I will also speak about the political life in Israel. The information available on the internet do not relate specifically to the precise question of the “political organization” of the Jewish community over time, and is either too precise or too vague. I had to go through the painful process of gathering many different source of information to write this historical summary:
The Promised Land
The Promise Land is a term used to describe the land promised by God, according to the Hebrew Bible, to the Israelites (the descendants of the Biblical patriarch Jacob). The Promised Land was given to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it describes a territory from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates river. However, the Israelites become a local political power with the emergence of a United Monarchy.
United Monarchy (autonomous)
Thanks to King Saul, from 1020 BC, the decentralised Israelite tribal confederacies were gathered into a local political power. The increasing pressure from the Philistines, and other neighbouring tribes, forced the Israelites to unite as a more singular state. This unification is known as the first united Kingdom of Israel.
However, David, in 1006 BC, is accounted as being responsible for the strong unification of the young Israelite monarchy. He established Jerusalem, its national capital, and set up a monarchical government. Under his reign, the United Kingdom of Israel achieved prosperity and superiority over its neighbours. A period of peace and prosperity would follow under David’s successor (Salomon). However, under king Rehoboam, in 930 BC, the country split into two kingdoms: Israel in the north, and Judah in the south. The split is a result of political rebellion against Rehoboam who refused to lighten the taxation and services imposed on his subjects.
The Kingdom of Israel (Northern Kingdom) and the Kingdom of Judah (Southern Kingdom)
(autonomous)
The Kingdom of Israel existed as an independent state until around 720 BC, when it was conquered by the Assyrian Empire. The Kingdom of Judah existed as an independent state until 586 BC when it was conquered by the Babylonian Empire. Nebuchadnezzza II (Babylonian Emperor) invaded the Kingdom of Judah. After an 18 month siege Jerusalem was captured in 586 BC, 4,600 Jews were deported to Babylon and Solomon's Temple was razed to the ground. At this time, many Jews fled to surrounding Moab, Ammon, Edom and other countries to seek refuge. This event puts an end to the independent Kingdom of Judah. The information on the deportation and spread of the population is particularly relevant to the upcoming discussing on the current debate.
Yehud Province (under Babylonian, then Persian, then Greek-kingdoms rule)
After the destruction of Judah, Babylon created Yehud Province (Jewish autonomy within the Babylonian Empire), for the remnant of the Jewish population in a part of the former kingdom. At this time, Jews that had taken refuge in surrounding countries would return to Yehud Province. However, the population that was left in the land, and those that had returned fled to Egypt fearing a Babylonian reprisal. The refugees would settle in Migdol, Tahpanhes, Noph, and Pathros. The numbers that were deported to Babylon and those who made their way to Egypt and the remnant that remained in the land and in surrounding countries is subject to academic debate.
The Persian Empire took over the Babylon Empire, while Yehud province was already in existence. In 538 BC (first year as emperor), Cyrus the Great enacted a decree in which he allowed the Jewish deportees to return to Yehud province, and rebuild the Temple. The Persian kings after Cyrus tended to treat the Jews kindly, and the Jews were given a permission to build the Second Temple. This period is known as “The Return to Zion” period. About 50,000 Jews returned from Babylon to Yehud, following Cyrus the Great’s decree.
Yehud province remained a peaceful part of the Persian Empire until the empire fell to Alexander the Great (Macedonian Empire) in 332 BC. Upon Alexander's death in 323 BCE, Yehud province changed hands regularly between two Greek successor-kingdoms, the Seleucids of Syria and the Ptolemies of Egypt. There arose in the Jewish nation pro-Seleucid and pro-Ptolemaic parties; and the schism exercised great influence upon the Judaism of the time.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Syria (174-163 BC), when he gained control of Yehud, attempted complete Hellenization of the Jews. His desecration of the Temple sparked the Maccabee rebellion in the 2nd century BC, which ended in victory for the Jews with the expulsion of the Syrians and the re-consecration of the Temple, and the establishment of the Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel (140–37 BC) which replaced Yehud.
Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel (autonomous)
Hasmonean dynasty, which ruled from 164 BCE to 63 BCE, reasserted the Jewish religion, expanded the boundaries of Israel and reduced the influence of Hellenism.
Herodian Kingdom of Israel (Roman Client state known as Iudaea Province by the Roman Empire)
Hasmonean rule lasted until the Roman general Pompey captured Jerusalem and subjected Israel to Roman rule, while the Hasmonean dynasty itself ended in 37 BCE when the Idumean Herod the Great became king of Israel and king of the Jews. He would erect the second temple. Herodian Kingdom was established as a Roman client kingdom (Roman rule began in 63 BC).
Three Jewish-Roman wars would end up making Iudaea Province part of the Roman Empire. In 66 AC, period known as the Great Revolt, Jewish rebellions would trigger conflicts between the Roman Empire and its client state (Iudaea Province). Hadrian then changed the name of the province to Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina in an attempt to erase the historical ties of the Jewish people to the region. The defeat of the Jewish revolt altered the Jewish diaspora, as many of the Jewish rebels were scattered or sold into slavery. Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, 97,000 were captured and enslaved and many others fled to areas around the Mediterranean. After this event, Judea formed a separate Roman province governed by a legate. Nevertheless, forty years later the Jews put forth efforts to recover their former freedom. These efforts, resolute but unwise, were suppressed by Trajan (115-117), and under Hadrian the same fate befell the attempt of the Jews of Israel to regain their independence (133-135). 43 Jewish communities in Israel remained in the sixth century. Jews remained scattered for close to two millennia; their numbers in the region fluctuated with time.
The Promised Land
The Promise Land is a term used to describe the land promised by God, according to the Hebrew Bible, to the Israelites (the descendants of the Biblical patriarch Jacob). The Promised Land was given to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it describes a territory from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates river. However, the Israelites become a local political power with the emergence of a United Monarchy.
United Monarchy (autonomous)
Thanks to King Saul, from 1020 BC, the decentralised Israelite tribal confederacies were gathered into a local political power. The increasing pressure from the Philistines, and other neighbouring tribes, forced the Israelites to unite as a more singular state. This unification is known as the first united Kingdom of Israel.
However, David, in 1006 BC, is accounted as being responsible for the strong unification of the young Israelite monarchy. He established Jerusalem, its national capital, and set up a monarchical government. Under his reign, the United Kingdom of Israel achieved prosperity and superiority over its neighbours. A period of peace and prosperity would follow under David’s successor (Salomon). However, under king Rehoboam, in 930 BC, the country split into two kingdoms: Israel in the north, and Judah in the south. The split is a result of political rebellion against Rehoboam who refused to lighten the taxation and services imposed on his subjects.
The Kingdom of Israel (Northern Kingdom) and the Kingdom of Judah (Southern Kingdom)
(autonomous)
The Kingdom of Israel existed as an independent state until around 720 BC, when it was conquered by the Assyrian Empire. The Kingdom of Judah existed as an independent state until 586 BC when it was conquered by the Babylonian Empire. Nebuchadnezzza II (Babylonian Emperor) invaded the Kingdom of Judah. After an 18 month siege Jerusalem was captured in 586 BC, 4,600 Jews were deported to Babylon and Solomon's Temple was razed to the ground. At this time, many Jews fled to surrounding Moab, Ammon, Edom and other countries to seek refuge. This event puts an end to the independent Kingdom of Judah. The information on the deportation and spread of the population is particularly relevant to the upcoming discussing on the current debate.
Yehud Province (under Babylonian, then Persian, then Greek-kingdoms rule)
After the destruction of Judah, Babylon created Yehud Province (Jewish autonomy within the Babylonian Empire), for the remnant of the Jewish population in a part of the former kingdom. At this time, Jews that had taken refuge in surrounding countries would return to Yehud Province. However, the population that was left in the land, and those that had returned fled to Egypt fearing a Babylonian reprisal. The refugees would settle in Migdol, Tahpanhes, Noph, and Pathros. The numbers that were deported to Babylon and those who made their way to Egypt and the remnant that remained in the land and in surrounding countries is subject to academic debate.
The Persian Empire took over the Babylon Empire, while Yehud province was already in existence. In 538 BC (first year as emperor), Cyrus the Great enacted a decree in which he allowed the Jewish deportees to return to Yehud province, and rebuild the Temple. The Persian kings after Cyrus tended to treat the Jews kindly, and the Jews were given a permission to build the Second Temple. This period is known as “The Return to Zion” period. About 50,000 Jews returned from Babylon to Yehud, following Cyrus the Great’s decree.
Yehud province remained a peaceful part of the Persian Empire until the empire fell to Alexander the Great (Macedonian Empire) in 332 BC. Upon Alexander's death in 323 BCE, Yehud province changed hands regularly between two Greek successor-kingdoms, the Seleucids of Syria and the Ptolemies of Egypt. There arose in the Jewish nation pro-Seleucid and pro-Ptolemaic parties; and the schism exercised great influence upon the Judaism of the time.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Syria (174-163 BC), when he gained control of Yehud, attempted complete Hellenization of the Jews. His desecration of the Temple sparked the Maccabee rebellion in the 2nd century BC, which ended in victory for the Jews with the expulsion of the Syrians and the re-consecration of the Temple, and the establishment of the Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel (140–37 BC) which replaced Yehud.
Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel (autonomous)
Hasmonean dynasty, which ruled from 164 BCE to 63 BCE, reasserted the Jewish religion, expanded the boundaries of Israel and reduced the influence of Hellenism.
Herodian Kingdom of Israel (Roman Client state known as Iudaea Province by the Roman Empire)
Hasmonean rule lasted until the Roman general Pompey captured Jerusalem and subjected Israel to Roman rule, while the Hasmonean dynasty itself ended in 37 BCE when the Idumean Herod the Great became king of Israel and king of the Jews. He would erect the second temple. Herodian Kingdom was established as a Roman client kingdom (Roman rule began in 63 BC).
Three Jewish-Roman wars would end up making Iudaea Province part of the Roman Empire. In 66 AC, period known as the Great Revolt, Jewish rebellions would trigger conflicts between the Roman Empire and its client state (Iudaea Province). Hadrian then changed the name of the province to Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina in an attempt to erase the historical ties of the Jewish people to the region. The defeat of the Jewish revolt altered the Jewish diaspora, as many of the Jewish rebels were scattered or sold into slavery. Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, 97,000 were captured and enslaved and many others fled to areas around the Mediterranean. After this event, Judea formed a separate Roman province governed by a legate. Nevertheless, forty years later the Jews put forth efforts to recover their former freedom. These efforts, resolute but unwise, were suppressed by Trajan (115-117), and under Hadrian the same fate befell the attempt of the Jews of Israel to regain their independence (133-135). 43 Jewish communities in Israel remained in the sixth century. Jews remained scattered for close to two millennia; their numbers in the region fluctuated with time.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
A political science understanding
In order to complete my business education, I decided to take a concentration in International Relations. I thought that International Relations would help me to better understand how the international economy works. I was really interested by the theorems studied in the introductory class Poli243. However, these theories are always about broad concepts. I would like to clear the bridge between these macro concepts of the world, with more concrete "micro-meaning". One of the striking theory learned in this class is Wallerstein World-Class Theory based on the rejection of the notion of a "Third World". Instead, he claims that there is only one world connected by a complex network of economic exchange relationships, a "world-system" in which the "dichotomy of capital and labor" and the endless "accumulation of capital" by competing agents account for frictions. This approach is known as the World Systems Theory. The described frictions go along Elgin's idea in Voluntary Simplicity that "we cannot expect to live in a peaceful world with such enormous disparities between the rich and poor." Wallerstein reckons that the origin of the "modern world-system" is due to the 16th century slight advance in capital accumation in Western Europe and the Americas. This accumulation itself is due to specific political circumstances at the end of the period of feudalism. As a result, only one global network or system of economic exchange exists, and by the 19th century, every area on earth was incorporated into the capitalist world-economy. However, this "world-society" is not homogeneous in economic terms; it is instead characterized by fundamental differences in social development, accumulation of political power and capital. An inherent feature of the world-system is a lasting division of the world in a core (developed countries with political clout), semi-periphery (developing countries) and periphery (undeveloped countries) organization. There is a fundamental and institutionally stabilized "division of labor" between the core and periphery: while the core benefits from a high level of technological development, the periphery supplies raw materials, agricultural products, and provides cheap labor for the expanding core. As a the core exploits the semi-periphery and periphery, while the semi-periphery exploits the periphery. Economic exchange between core and periphery takes place on unequal terms: the bargaining power of the core will higher over time, and the terms of trade will deteriorate for the periphery, as the core will ask more and more primary products-imports from the periphery against less and less complex products-exports. This state stabilizes itself do to quasi-deterministic constraints, and natural resources, land, and labor are gradually being stripped of their "intrinsic" value.
As a business student, I could try to dig in this theorem by looking at particular business activities involving the core and periphery. We know that business corporations nowadays benefit from global value chains, and outsource their activities in specific areas of the world. As the companies implement their manufacturing plants in Asia, or Africa, they benefit from cheap labor. But, when we say that these corporations "exploit" the cheap labor, what really matters is that core-citizen would still buy the clothes, and indirectly benefit from cheaper prices, than what they should pay for. Therefore, I am partly responsible for Wallerstein description of unbalanced economic relationships between the core and periphery since I wear those clothes made in Asia etc. At the bottom line, the question raised here is the alternatives to buying those unfair products.
Fair Trade is a rising movement. "Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers – especially in the South. Fair Trade Organizations, backed by consumers, are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade."
However, this movement has its limits. According to Adam Smith Institute estimates, only 10% of the increase in price over a similar non fair trade product ends up in the hands of producers. This paradox shows how today's trade, ruled by liberal institutions such as WTO, is deeply rooted in exploitation schemes. If even the Fair Trade institute struggles to reward the producers for their work, what else could be done?
Moreover, one could think of the many weaknesses of this initiative. The real problem, as described by Wallerstein, is the incapacity by the periphery countries to transition from a stage of primary product producer to a more technologically advanced stage. With such an initiative as Fair Trade, periphery countries are still being locked in by the core in the position of exporting primary products to the core countries, and their revenues for primary goods would depend on the willingness of core citizen to pay a premium.
To be continued...
As a business student, I could try to dig in this theorem by looking at particular business activities involving the core and periphery. We know that business corporations nowadays benefit from global value chains, and outsource their activities in specific areas of the world. As the companies implement their manufacturing plants in Asia, or Africa, they benefit from cheap labor. But, when we say that these corporations "exploit" the cheap labor, what really matters is that core-citizen would still buy the clothes, and indirectly benefit from cheaper prices, than what they should pay for. Therefore, I am partly responsible for Wallerstein description of unbalanced economic relationships between the core and periphery since I wear those clothes made in Asia etc. At the bottom line, the question raised here is the alternatives to buying those unfair products.
Fair Trade is a rising movement. "Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers – especially in the South. Fair Trade Organizations, backed by consumers, are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade."
However, this movement has its limits. According to Adam Smith Institute estimates, only 10% of the increase in price over a similar non fair trade product ends up in the hands of producers. This paradox shows how today's trade, ruled by liberal institutions such as WTO, is deeply rooted in exploitation schemes. If even the Fair Trade institute struggles to reward the producers for their work, what else could be done?
Moreover, one could think of the many weaknesses of this initiative. The real problem, as described by Wallerstein, is the incapacity by the periphery countries to transition from a stage of primary product producer to a more technologically advanced stage. With such an initiative as Fair Trade, periphery countries are still being locked in by the core in the position of exporting primary products to the core countries, and their revenues for primary goods would depend on the willingness of core citizen to pay a premium.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)