So for those people still reading the blog, you might have noticed a new person, or maybe that person has been there all along, called Anonymous. I thought I knew who Anonymous was, but in the last post, Anonymous revealed that s/he is from Katy. I think I know who it is. I have two strong guesses. Don't out yourself yet. This is fun.
Anonymous says we didn't have exposure to Jewish people growing up. But I did.
Anonymous questions my links to Jewish people. Like I said before, I started taking a class at the Hillel called "Introduction to Rabbinic Literature." Of course, it was just getting my feet wet. But with that, and the people I met there, who I still talk to, and the very, extremely cool rabbi who taught it, many of my Christian-formulated ideas about Judaism were shattered. And I can say I do know more than many of my Christian friends. Somehow many Christians think they understand Judaism because we read the "Old Testament." And Christians like to talk about what religion and life was like when Jesus was around. But of course, this is misleading and doesn't tell us anything about how Judaism is practiced in its myriad forms today.
Okay, but that's irrelevant.
I should stop saying I'm paranoid. As I talk to some friends, about my conspiracy theories, they say it's true. Do I know about the Carlisle group? Or not wanting to get on a boat with a bunch of Americans during a war situation. Some of my friends (those who also hate Fox) think all these thoughts are true. But somehow I still feel silly saying them, because so many people just dismiss that stuff.
Sorry. But I'm still digging through a backlog of e-mails, that I had stuffed in different folders. I haven't come to that one explaining the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the Israeli side that Wally sent out before. But when I find it, I will respond to it.
And I like these three comments:
1) "broadening your fairly myopic and increasingly tiring perspective on the issues in a region that you claim to have so much perspective on."
My perspective is myopic and increasingly tiring. Yes, the issue of Israel/Palestine gets so tiring, doesn't it?? The same arguments and facts getting spun round and round. But myopic, hmmm, that's a little harder to understand.
2) "How about taking a break from looking for people to blame and trying to put all of this in context."
Sorry. But I spend a lot of time going through e-mails people have sent me, and sorting through magazines and even books. Please don't accuse me of not taking the time to put all of this in context. I can say that's what I've been doing too much. And I actually have been trying hard to take a break from all of this. Since you are one of those people I grew up with, I think you do know how much of my life, has been concerned about studying Christianity and then dabbling in Arabic and Islam. Since you know me, you know I've spent much time trying to "put all of this in context."
3) "A little self-examination and perhaps some recognition that reasonable people can disagree . . ."
This makes me think I know how you are because you're resorting to this argument. I love how in high school all those debater people loved to dismiss me because I was the irrational, girl who would just get too emotional and upset during our little philosophical/political debates.
But again, since you know me, I think you know how much "self-examination" I'm always involved in, and how much I engage with "reasonable people" who disagree with me. Why are you throwing this stuff out, when you see what I'm trying to do now?
===================================
Do you really want me to keep all the discourse "rationed" and "reasoned" devoid of the personal and emotional? Keep it to that bland academic speak that tries not to offend so as nothing gets said whatsoever???
I mean is there really any evidence to counter what is very well-documented evidence that there is bias in the American media towards Israel or that Israel commits major abuses against its own population?? I can point to a million different sources, which I have cited in the blog. You haven't countered or criticized these sources, or these basic facts that I've been claiming. Instead, you call me "arrogant," "paranoid," and "ironic."
So you're going to give me some good evidence showing that the American media is really showing how it is in this side of the world? Or you are going to justifiy how Israel treats its native-Arab, Palestinian population? Yes, please do that.
I think that's what Wally's 18 Israel and Jerusalem facts tried to do. Which if that was the case, it failed. But maybe he's been referring to another post. If so, please resend it.
1 comment:
I think some additional information you could pass on to your blog readers, for a better perspective, would be this idea:
From the time of Islam's inception, or soon thereafter, what is today known as the Middle East was one empire or political entity. Even if political subgroups or caliphates arose, the region was fairly united under one Empire--Arab or Ottoman. Islam was the dominant religion in the entire region, although Christian and Jewish minorities existed.
Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the colonization of the Middle East by the British and French, there has been mass confusion over Middle Eastern identity, particularly for the Muslims.
The British convinced many Arabs at this time (1910's) to fight the Turks by promising to reward them with their own Arab mega-state. This never happened. I don't think the British ever intended to make good on this promise.
At the same time, the defeated Turks began a concerted effort to distance themselves from Islam and Arabs. (See Kamal Ataturk). Turkey declared itself a democracy, changed its alphabet from Arabic to Latin script, and officially became "secular". It even formed an alliance with Israel. But still, ironically, Turkey is considered "too Muslim" to be apart of the European Union. (Damned if you do, damned if you don't).
For the defeated Arabs/Muslims, there was and continues to be a social movement to re-establish their national identity by recreating this Empire. This Empire is defined as much by polical considerations as it is by social and cultural considerations. When Al-Qaeda talks about re-creating a Muslim Empire, THIS IS NOT ANYTHING NEW. George Bush just wants us to think that it is.
Politically, we saw the rise of many "secular" nationalists in the 1940's and 1950's, or Pan-Arabists, like Nasser in Egypt, and the rise of the Ba'ath Party in Syria and Iraq. These Pan-Arab secularists were strongly opposed by Britain and the U.S. because they challenged Western hegemony over the region, particularly its oil supplies. After all, it's easier to control people who are divided and weak. So, secular Arab Nationalism was marginalized by the West.
Culturally, we saw the rise during this time of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, who tried to resist Westernization and secularization, especially after seeing what Turkey had done.
So, there is this confusion as to how to politically organize the peoples of this defeated Empire, and a confusion as to who they are culturally. Historic animosity between European Christians and Middle Eastern Muslims did not help this situation.
For the West, they would be happy to see all of the Middle East go the way of Turkey. Even better than just changing their script to Latin letters, the Europeans powers would have loved it if everyone converted to Christianity, or at least if the Christian minorities came to power. (See Lebanon civil war, "divide and conquer").
But the thing that most complicated the development and growth of the defeated Muslim Empire, I think, was the creation of the State of Israel. For the creation of this (European) Jewish State dashed Arab/Muslim hopes of re-creating the Empire (politically and geographically) and called into question the cultural supremacy and even relevancy of Islam and Arabic culture in the region. It also showed that Britian was not supportive of re-creating a powerful Arab hegemon in the Middle East. In fact, the British would do almost anything to prevent the rise of a single Arab/Muslim political unit in the Middle East.
Arab animosity toward Israel, I think, comes largely from this feeling that the British (and now Americans--the "red headed step-child" of England) did this purposefully to thwart Arab aspirations for political and cultural unity and hegemony. Whether that political or cultural unity and hegemony would have created a liberal, democratic, and capitalistic society is another question. But that's the question that most interests the West. (For example, conservatives argue that even when countries like Iran were left alone, they developed "the wrong way" by becoming more Muslim, not more secular!)
I think that as long as a Middle Eastern country doesn't support Israel, Britain and the U.S. will ensure that the country doesn't "succeed"--at least not enough to threaten Israel. The recent bombing of Lebanon supports this idea very well.
One of the commentators on your blog said that the Arabs need to stop blaming Israel and start focusing on they're own shortcomings. I understand that and think there is truth to it.
BUT, in the end, Arabs are highly educated and entrepreneurial people. When I see how badly they are doing economically, it really makes me wonder to what extent they are being "kept down" so to speak.
Finally, I don't think there is anything immoral about Arab nationalism, or any other kind of nationalism. In fact, strong currents of nationalism usually arise when a particular ethnic group feels disenfrachised and oppressed, i.e., "Black Power" only arose as a reaction to "White Power"--Zionism arose after repeated Jewish persecution in Europe--a call for a Muslim Empire is a response to the observable creation of an Anglo-American Empire.
I think that in the age after colonization (1950's-1960's), all nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America went through the same "identity crisis." Who are we? How, if at all, have things changed now that formal colonization is over? Am I really an autonomous and free person or nation, or am I still your black, brown, or yellow servant, stuck in your European "sphere of influence"?
Finally, I see the rise of China as a good example that a good economy alone does not erase nationalism or erase historic feelings of humiliation by the West. China's determination to take back Hong Kong, and maybe Taiwan, illustrates this well. It's nationalism, identiy, and pride that are at play. A call to re-unite China after it was broken apart by the West. I understand that Westerners may be oblivious to this. I think that Americans, in particular, as part of a fairly new nation, are even more oblivious to these considerations of history.
If your readers want you to present a better "perspective", I think this is it.
Post a Comment