Mock Elections and Coalition Building

  With so many different political parties that are active in Israeli government today, I had no idea how I was going to memorize them all and their specific ideologies.  Reading about them in Freedman’s book was definitely helpful, but the party assignment and mock elections were very effective in giving me a solid overall knowledge of many of the parties.  Being able to choose our partners and the party that we would research made it not only educational, but also fun!  I learned so more about the Yesh Atid party that I ever thought possible in the short amount of time here on study abroad.  It was so interesting to be able to research a party that was so successful in the last Knesset election, but also one of the newest parties, being founded just last year in April of 2012.

     The actual mock election was such a creative way to get everyone interested in each party’s presentation, since we were actively involved in choosing how many seats each party received.  Not to mention that I think each group did an excellent job of holding the audiences’ attention and describing their main focuses of their platforms.  Although the presentations and election were fun and interesting, the coalition building process was even more entertaining and really gave us a feel for what it might be like for party leaders of the Knesset to have to compromise in order to be awarded certain ministries.  Admitteditly, it was a bit chaotic and loud at times when each party was trying to persuade Meretz why they should get a certain ministry, but I’m sure it is not any less chaotic when it comes to the actual coalition building and ministry assignments of the Israel Knesset!  I was especially satisfied that Yesh Atid, received the ministries of education, religious affairs, and deputy of the Interior.  All in all, this experience was not only enjoyable for me, but helped me learn about many of the parties in a hands-on way. 

Peres Center for Peace

  Visiting the Peres Center for Peace made me feel hopeful about the chance for peace among Israelis and Palestinians.  I remember taking a taxi a few days prior and talking with the taxi driver about his views on politics and the Arab-Israeli conflict overall.  He admitted that he was much more hawkish than doveish, and he even bluntly stated that “The only good Arab is a dead Arab”.  While I appreciated his honesty, I was disheartened hearing this and wondered how many other adults share his views.  It seems to me as though that once somebody reaches a certain age, they have already accumulated many prejudices and are set in their ways with their harsh opinions.  It is important to try and promote peace and get through to all age groups, but I really found it clever that many of the programs that the Peres Center for Peace runs are grassroots type strategies that focus on debunking prejudices and stereotypes that children hold against “the other”.   Naturally, children are more open-minded and therefore targeting the young age groups could prevent the expansion of prejudice and eventually lead to a more tolerant and peaceful environment among Israelis and Palestinians. 

     They talked briefly about the many programs and opportunities they provide such as putting on skits for children that display the similarities between the two groups and advocate for intermingling and providing healthcare and surgeries for both Palestinian children in the West Bank and Israelis.  The program that caught my attention the most, however, was the soccer league they made for Palestinian and Israeli children.  Not only does this program bring together children from both groups, but it also gives children the chance to play a sport when they might not otherwise have the means to do so.  I really liked hearing that they always intermix Palestinians and Israelis to be on the same team because then they have to work together instead of just compete against each other.  It was heartwarming to hear that many of the children go home to their families and tell them about the new friends they made that are from “the other” group.  As a result of this, not only do the children learn to put aside their prejudices, but their parents and family members are also exposed to the positive outlook of seeing “the other” as fellow human beings rather than enemies.    

The Parent's Circle

     My first reaction to the personal stories of tragedy told by The Parent’s Circle” was that they were so brave in opening up to a roomful of strangers, and apparently this is something they do often.  I could not imagine re-telling the stories of the death of one of my family members, especially when the stories may not be so well received depending on the school they are out and the audience that they are talking to.  It was extremely heartbreaking to hear the story of how the woman’s husband was shot down, and how a suicide bomber killed the man’s fourteen-year-old daughter.  Despite the grief they endure every day, they are striving to reach out to Israelis and Palestinians from all over to promote peace and mutual respect between the two peoples, and I cannot express how much I admire them for their efforts.  I do believe, however, that at times during their presentation they both let their emotions and anger get the best of them.  As a result, some issues were blown out of proportion and some of their comments contradicted their intent of discrediting stereotypes and prejudices.  For example, when the man over generalized and stated that the IDF is a terrorist organization, it stereotyped the majority of Israeli people as terrorists since it is a requirement for them to join the military after high school.  Also, the woman made it seem as if the Israeli government is constantly shutting off the water supply to the West Bank.  Regardless of these few rants that the two of them went on, I think their overall message prevailed and I hope that it prevails for at least some of the local students that they visit.  They may have overgeneralized a bit, but they are right in the sense that we all as human beings need to evaluate our actions because each and every one of us is capable of great harm and evil.  I do believe that their message would be much more effective if they focused on specific events of wrong done by individuals rather than overgeneralizing and scapegoating an entire people. 

Haredim

  Reading about the Haredim was extremely interesting, but having the opportunity to visit a Haredi neighborhood in Jerusalem was an experience that helped me understand their lifestyle and culture even greater.  Before visiting their neighborhood, I knew many of their strict values and rules that they abide by, such as having the men remain jobless in order to study the Torah in depth, dressing conservatively, and marrying only within their own communities.  However, I did not realize to what extent they followed all of these rules and how these rules affected their daily lives.  I was surprised to see a sign when walking down their streets that stated “We beg you with all our hearts, please don’t pass through this neighborhood in immodest dress.  Modest dress includes closed blouse, long sleeves, skirts – no pants”.  The sign asking to dress modestly did not bother me at all.  I respect different cultures and I respect their religious beliefs.  Nevertheless, I cannot condone the intolerance that I observed when viewing the vandalized section of a street sign that was in Arabic.  I tried to keep in mind that not just the Haredi have prejudices against Arabs, but many other Israelis do as well, and I also tried not to generalize that all Haredi are intolerant.

     Despite our entire group being modestly dressed, glares from the Haredi were frequent and the overall atmosphere did not feel welcoming at all.  I can tell that they are trying to isolate themselves from modern society and that our being in their safe haven made them feel very uncomfortable and possibly even threatened.  Even the small children stared at us and one young boy even spit towards our direction as if to tell us that we should not be there.  It was apparent that this neighborhood was very poor, most likely due to the fact that they strictly adhere to rule of the husband not working.  Each family seemed to consist of many children, a few of which seemed to have rashes or other health concerns.  This really saddened me that these families cannot even afford proper care for their many children.  This experience overall made me realize that although it is important to respect other cultures and ways of life, disagreeing with certain things is normal and okay, and I do not agree with the Haredim continuing to have children when they cannot afford any more.

Counter Terrorism Conference

Attending the conference on Israel's conflict with the Gaza Strip was not only a great experience, but it also raised many questions and challenged me to create an opinion of where to draw the line when it comes to human rights issues.  My first impressions of the panel was that it was not as diverse as I expected it to be. There was only one person representing a human rights organization while the other panelists consisted of officers of the IDF, a spokesperson for the IDF, a journalist that mostly supports the actions of the IDF, and other Israelis mostly in support of the IDF.  Because of this apparent disadvantage on the human rights side of the debate, I especially tried to have an open mind when the human rights activist spoke.

     Despite having an open mind and giving the human rights activist a fair chance at persuading me, I ultimately decided that her requests that the IDF perform an investigation on every civilian death is unreasonable, and that in order for Israel to effectively protect its own citizens against the Hamas terrorists, regulations cannot be so strict (they already have very strict regulations in comparison to other countries).  I thought that Professor Schmidt from the United States Naval Academy made an intriguing response to the human rights activist by bringing to everyone's attention that despite that Israel is so often terrorized by the Hamas, their military force still continues to be more cautious than any other country when it comes to the possibility of civilian death and he stated that because of this the IDF deserves an award.  Furthermore, I believe that the human rights organizations would be much more successful and useful if they focused their efforts on a case by case basis instead of making the unreasonable request that the IDF investigate every case.  The IDF is dealing with a complex type of warfare, a war on terrorism, which requires that certain measures be taken in order to protect its citizens  This needs to be put into perspective when deciding where to draw the line on human rights and how tediously these civilian casualties need to be investigated.

Amanda Kruzel: Blog #5

I found our last class’s discussion surrounding leadership in the peace process to be a fascinating one! Professor Aronoff asked a question, “How important are relationships between Israeli and U.S. leaders?!” I was really excited during this discussion in class because A) Who doesn’t love to talk about relationships!?, and B) I think this is an incredible topic to discuss in context of diplomacy!

            Some hardcore realists may assert that relationships do not matter in international relations. They might say that all nations will act according to selfish interests in line with Machiavellian principles, without taking human relationships or personal biases into the equation. However, I completely disagree with this line of thinking. In my opinion, relationships are the keys to successful diplomacy! There have been many studies done on the importance of cultural-specific practices in international politics and how understandings/lack of understandings of different cultural practices have positively/negatively affected these politics! (For example, things such as eye contact, body posture, etc, can make a large difference in these relations!)

            I think the same principles apply at an individual level, and I believe that by creating good relationships between diplomats/heads of state, more positive relationships between countries can be created! In the “special” relationship between Israel and the U.S., these individual relationships have been crucial in determining the relationship between the two countries.

           

            I found it absolutely fascinating to compare the relationships between Presidents of the U.S. and Prime Ministers of Israel! One of the most interesting things was hearing about how ideological similarities contributed very positively to the relationship, while ideological differences contributed very negatively to it. This is something I had never really thought about before, but something that made so much sense! I also found it very interesting to hear about how this principle greatly affected the attempted influence over the other country’s elections, especially in the second election campaigns of Obama and Netanyahu, where both overtly and covertly vied to oust each other out of office.

We also talked a bit about strategic ways that the U.S. can attempt to get Israel to make concessions in the peace process. We talked about Option A, the “high pressure” strategy, where the U.S. gives Israel a serious ultimatum and essentially forces them to concede different things in the peace agreement. Option B, on the other hand, was what Professor Aronoff colloquially called the “hugging strategy,” where the U.S. sympathizes with Israel and then gently urges the country’s leaders to make concessions.

At first, when I heard these two options, I immediately thought to myself that it was probably a combination of both strategies that was needed to re-boot the peace process. But after a little bit of reflection, I think it definitely might depend on who is in leadership positions in Israel. I think different leaders probably respond differently to various styles of advocacy in diplomacy, and maybe looking at diplomacy from a more individual level would bring about positive results in American-Israeli foreign affairs, in relations to the peace process.

Amanda Kruzel: Blog #4

             For me, one of the most fascinating readings from the program was the Hamas Covenant of 1988. Not only did it explain Hamas’s radical position on the state of Israel, it also revealed the extraordinarily narrow interpretations of Islam held by this group. I found the text to be highly problematic in many ways.

Of course, I find the call for the destruction of Israel to be absurd. In my mind, the ridiculous nature of this appeal can be taken for granted and I do not believe it necessary to write further about this.

However, I would like to write on a few critiques I have on specific elements of the charter.

First of all, I see the violent and militaristic nature of Hamas as horrendous. As a shameless peacenik/pacifist/Gandhi lover, I find violence to be a move comparable to shooting oneself in the foot. In the long term, I believe it is a terrible policy in terms of bringing about positive change in society. As Macbeth says, “blood will have blood.” Yes, there are problems with Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza. Yes, there are problems with Israeli policies concerning Arabs in Israel proper. But as one of my classmates said when we were discussing the charter, “Come on, grow up Hamas.” Rather than calling for (a highly controversial definition of) jihad and the destruction of Israel, it seems to me that a more productive stance would be to adopt a more pragmatic approach to the current situation, and assume a less militaristic platform.

Secondly, I would like to focus on the interaction between Islam and politics in this specific context. Clearly, Islam (or at least Hamas’s perception of Islam) is at the heart of the charter. I found the near-incessant quoting of the Qur’an to be absolutely fascinating! The religious citations, references, and evocations of the protection of God took up nearly half of the charter!

            From what I’ve found in classes about Islamic politics, Islam (like other religions) often becomes a more salient power when it is partnered with politics. Used as a common unifier of Muslims, it can be harnessed as a large and powerful force to create change in society. Therefore, I think one might contend that some central tenets of the Hamas charter, such as jihadist violence and resistance against Jews, is not a component of Islam, but rather, a political argument made in light of a specific situation at hand.

            In looking at Islam in a political framework, it is interesting to note that the religion is often used as a unifying force against what the umma see as an injustice. For example, Professor Ayoob argues that it has often been utilized as a force against imperialistic projects that have denied Muslims the right to self-determination, such as occupiers like as Britain, France, and the United States. Of course, in some ways, Hamas views Israel as a colonial power, rejecting the idea that Jews are entitled access to their historic homeland, believing that any success for Zionists was made at the expense of the Arabs.

Yet, if Hamas’s underlying purpose is fighting what it considers to be the injustice of a colonial occupier, I find the text to be inherently contradictory. Indeed, the fast-paced Islamic expansion in the years after Muhammad’s death (705-715 CE) was itself of an imperialistic nature!

This contradiction can be seen in light of the fact that Hamas sees Islam as the most perfect (indeed, ultimate) faith. The charter says, “This belief is made evident in other areas throughout the text as well. One example of this concept is the prevalent belief that Muslims are the best employers of religious freedoms throughout the world, and throughout history as well. As the charter states, “Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions – Islam, Christianity, and Judaism to coexist in peace and quiet with each other… it is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror” (237). Of course, this was not always true. While the dhimmi were often treated well compared to other places in the world at the time, they were also often persecuted badly in other realms of Islam throughout its history.

This somewhat simplistic view of Islam as a perfect religion displays the more black-and-white approach that Hamas shows toward history, politics, and ideologies. This can especially be contrasted with the role of Fatah, which has played a more moderate role in recent years. Yet, as some might argue, Hamas is beginning to display moderation as well. Maybe it would not be a bad thing for the Israeli government to start private negotiations with Hamas’s more moderate leaders, encouraging the development of pragmatism in Palestinian right-wing leadership, rather than continuing to reject talks, which might lead to the further radicalization of the Hamas leadership.