Hands down, this past week in Israel has been one of the most intellectually stimulating journeys I have ever embarked upon. I am not only experiencing a new culture and way of life, but I am also constantly faced with the ideological onslaught of having to reconcile two competing narratives of nationalist visions in my own head. Yet, overall, this past week has given me a much more cognizant view of Israel’s diverse culture and fascinating governmental system, and also a much more holistic understanding of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
First of all, I was completely fascinated by the position of the Haredim in Israeli society. The walk through Meah Shehrim was probably one of the most uncomfortable situations I have ever been in, and I must say, I felt that there was judgment on both “sides” when our two very different cultures met. More broadly, I constantly find myself shifting between my cultural relativist mindset and the parts of me that are highly a) feministic and b) concerned with what I have been socialized to view as “human rights.”
Indeed, having been raised in the U.S., which tends to guarantee women a bit more freedom and equality in society, I found the documentary in class a bit difficult in some ways. Seeing that women are not deemed fit to study the Bible at the level that men can was pretty shocking and quite honestly, highly revolting to me. Additionally, it is difficult to see things like the Kotel, which is distinctly divided between the sexes. Knowing that the majority of people who visit this wall disagree with this policy is a bit disconcerting. I suppose this is an issue that Israelis and other pilgrims throughout the world will be forced to continually deal with, seeing that the Haredi community is multiplying at a rate much faster than the other communities of Israeli society, and has a large influence in religious matters in Jerusalem.
In the future, this extraordinarily fast birthrate also will continue to have a greater and greater influence in Israeli political affairs. Today, the Haredim have a pretty decent stake in the Israeli governmental policies, including the ones concerning peace with Palestinians. The thing that I find a major problem with is the fact that many of them, as a part of their own highly conservative religious ideologies, support the highly controversial settlements of the West Bank and Gaza (which the majority of Israelis today find anathema). Their hardline, uncompromising approach to this diplomatic dilemma might have negative implications in the future of the peace process, as it has in the past. Therefore, I wonder what ways the Haredi community might be able to be persuaded of a more moderate path, or if this is simply unfeasible. Regardless, it will definitely be interesting to see how their inevitable expansion throughout other neighborhoods in Jerusalem (and other areas in Israel) will affect their view on politics, and society in general, in Israel. Maybe this expansion might prove to be an avenue for change in these attitudes.
I was equally fascinated by evolving Israeli nationalism, especially in terms of who or what it tended to include or exclude throughout history in terms of immigration policy. In class, talking about how anyone who could be considered a “Jew” (and thus, eligible for Aliyah) was according to Hitler’s Nuremburg laws was quite interesting. Yet, I was also interested in the complications surrounding this national program of immigration. I especially enjoyed hearing about the morally ambiguous case of non-Jewish refugee immigrants, which I talked about in great detail with one of the native Israeli guides on one of the trips I attended. He talked about Israel’s difficulty with resolving this problem a few years ago, especially when it came to illegal immigrants.
I saw many parallels and gaps between the immigration policies in the U.S. as well. On one hand, both countries struggle with a moral call/obligation to take in peoples who are in danger in their native lands. However, comparing the U.S. and Israel is also pretty different. For example, the U.S. populace has been built upon waves of immigrants from all over the world, with extraordinary different ethnic, national, religious, and cultural differences. However, Israel is an entirely different case. Indeed, Israel’s very establishment was founded on its identity as a Jewish state. Therefore, Israel and the U.S. face an entirely different set of questions when it comes to who they will and will not let into their borders. Generally, while diversity is less of a controversial subject in the U.S., religious and ethnic background is preferred to be Jewish in the state of Israel. This creates a moral dilemma, for while securing a haven for unsafe peoples is of course ideal, the importance of preserving a Jewish states is still one of the utmost concerns to Israelis. This basic conflict about the makeup of Israel points to the broader issue of evolving Israeli nationalism, and how it changes to accommodate changing times and circumstances in terms of immigration policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment