Global Honors Blog

Presented by: Assistant Professor Turan Kayaoglu and guest speakers

Imagine living in an environment where your children are constantly at risk of stepping on explosive remnants of war while at play.  A threat like this is beyond my everyday reality.  However, countless people across the world live in landmine and other debris of war affected areas.  These remnants left in the wake of conflicts add a deadly dimension to daily life.

I was introduced to this pressing global issue for the first time during a lecture on November 10th, 2010 hosted by Assistant Professor Turan Kayaoglu for his Introduction to International Relations class.  The lecture featured four guest speakers that promote landmine awareness: Daniel Antonio, UN Ambassador from Mozambique UN Ambassador from Mozambique; representatives from two non-profit organizations that actively work to remove land mines in affected areas; and Steve Costner, deputy director of the U.S. State Department’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs.

The four speakers covered the issue from their individual vantage points.  The two representatives from the non-profits extensively covered why debris of war are a threat.  Kurt Chesko, vice president of the U.S. chapter of the Hazardous Area Life-support Organization, or HALO Trust, which operates in nine countries with its biggest organization in Afghanistan, said, “A huge amount of what HALO works towards is clearing these mines.  They’re just left behind once war is over, and develop into a huge problem for locals.”

The most pressing problem with debris of war is that locals grow accustomed to them, adding to their danger.  Over time, people get used to having explosive remnants in their backyards.  Yet both non-profit representatives pointed out that they inevitably encroach on locals’ lives, seriously injuring a family member or inhibiting their ability to farm.  This seemed unforgivable to me.  Why should innocent people directly feel the consequences of wars not of their making?  Shouldn’t those countries that initiated the wars ensure that explosive debris is cleared at the wake of a war?

Chesko emphasized that the consequences for locals are high if de-mining fails to be initiated.  In many developing countries with extensive tracts of land littered with land mines, those who are injured by mines are devalued, as in Afghanistan where crippled wives are most often abandoned by their husbands.  Landmines do not solely have societal repercussions, but also negatively impact economic development.  Without a global commitment to de-mining, its clear to me that many worn torn countries economic advancement will be stymied.  Imagine being kept from school because landmines litter the perimeter around the building.  Access to education is vital for progress.

I was encouraged when I learned that the U.S. government also engages in landmine removal activities.  Governmental support of such efforts is vital for the success of such endeavors, because of the financial backing that it can provide.  Deputy Director Steve Costner said that the governmental agency works in conjunction with non-profits like HALO and Humpty Dumpty Institute, the two mentioned above.

Ambassador Daniel Antonio spoke about the problem of land mines in his country, which, along with other kinds of small arms and ammunition, were placed in the millions by warring factions during the country’s decades long civil war.  According to the UN ambassador, land mines are a part of everyday life in Mozambique; they’re near roads, houses and cow pastures.

“It prevents people to go to work. It prevents children to play. And it even prevents families to meet each other,” he said. Efforts to remove landmines began in 1983 in Mozambique. It is hoped that with the help of organizations like HALO and Humpty Dumpty Institute, and with the support of the international community, the entire country will be cleared by 2014.

Even though I live far from landmine affected areas, I believe that creating awareness about the dangers of explosive debris and efforts that actively work to remove them is vital for resolving the issue.  Hopefully, global awareness can push for more de-mining missions.

This last winter I attended a fascinating lecture called, “Being the Change – Ecovillage Experiments Around the World,” presented by Karen Liftin at the University of Washington Tacoma.  The lecturer began by explaining that the changes that these ecovillages hope to make will always be in a ‘bottom-up’ manner, and not ‘top-down.’ She gave a great picture of what an ecovillage is – simply a group of people doing their best to live in a sustainable way. They are more prevalent in country side landscapes, each one being unique and differing in a number of ways, yet following a trend of being counter cultural. A main part of what ties them together is their underlying commitment to living holistically. Their mission is not one of protest, but of “being the change” they want to see in the world.

Liftin then went on to discuss four primary dimensions that are present within ecovillages – social, ecological, economic and spiritual. The social dimension involves the idea that the people within a village need to get along and be able to cohabitate with each other in a civil manner. This – in their opinion – is of the utmost importance. Economic – needing to be able to pay the bills – and Spiritual – having a sense of deep meaning and purpose – were also vital aspects of a successful ecovillage. In 1995, the Global Ecovillage Network was established, connecting for the first time the significant amount of ecovillages that had been established around the world.

The presenter provided numerous case studies to support her argument that ecovillages do provide an example of how to increase a community’s positive influence upon the world. She discussed a few examples of successful American villages, but focuses mainly on villages around the world. Some examples included locales like Scotland, the Netherlands, Berlin and Denmark. Some are small, some large. Some are agriculturally focused, while others focus specifically on spirituality. Many even strive to be increasingly diverse in an urban environment.

A very unique and interesting ecovillage that was focused on specifically was one called ZEGG, which is located near Berlin, Germany. According to Liftin, the community is all about sexuality, art and forum. They experiment with differing ideas of ‘free love,’ encouraging members to branch out and experience new things. This village is a pioneer in communication, having implemented an institution known as ‘The Forum,’ which involves dramatic expression of ideas and thoughts. The Forum system has now been patterned after and put into practice by various communities around the globe. As put by Liftin, the community puts large emphasis on the “deep honesty and emotional transparency” of its members.

All in all Liftin’s presentation of the benefits of ecovillages was quite convincing. Not that it necessarily caused me to want to run off and join one or start my own, but I walked out of the lecture agreeing completely that they play an important role in the moving of our society from a materialistic and lavish lifestyle to a simple, efficient and environmentally beneficial way of life. What was most inspiring about the lecture was the notion that these people take their beliefs and put them into action, despite what others may think or say about them. They do whatever it takes, no matter how radical it may seem, to be the change they wish to see in our world. I would hope that as I move forward in my studies and in my career that I would hold the same passion and conviction as these people do. As the presenter put it oh so well, “you’re more energized and passionate when moving towards something you want rather than moving against something you don’t want” – so move.

On June 28^th, 2010, I attended the lecture, “The German Economy,” by Dr. Alex Pfisterer at the University of Mannheim in Mannheim, Germany. Pfisterer explained various aspects of how the German economy has come to be what it is today, including the influence of an unlikely source.

The presenter stated that the German economy is now the fourth largest economy in the world, largely due to its products. Germany is an exporting nation, with its number of exports largely out-weighing its imports. When one thinks about this, it can be both a good and a bad thing. Something that has been seen to be helpful recently is that dependency on exports can be vital in the event of a local financial crisis. However, it means that the country is then also heavily dependent upon the quality of the world market. Few know that the Netherlands is Germany’s most important trade partner, with even China being more important to them than the USA. Specific areas that Germany lacks strength in are those of marketing and profiteering.

During the years of 2003 to 2006, the German economy saw significant changes based upon four criteria – GDP, inflation, unemployment and their budget deficit, the last of which was unique and vital to Germany. 2005 saw Germany with its worst year for growth of GDP at 0.9%, which caused the country to lose its title as the, “engine of Europe.”  However, in 2006, the country bounced back. Why? The Futball! That year, the World Cup Tournament was held in Berlin, Germany – an event that would change Germany and its culture forever. Many positive results came as consequences of Berlin hosting the world-famous tournament. Not only did country ‘self-esteem,’ or pride, increase, particularly in youth, but most importantly, people started spending money.

Different and controversial reforms that were put on the German futball team by their coach became a precedent and an encouragement to the country as a whole to implement some major changes. In January of 2005, right before the World Cup, a reform policy known as Hartz IV was introduced with the goal of lowering unemployment and increasing GDP. Despite a few negative opinions within the German population, the policy overall was an incredible success, dropping the unemployment from a level of 5 million to 3 million. The dramatic changes that occurred in Germany during this time can in a large way be attributed to the hosting of the World Cup in Berlin.

Something I found particularly interesting about this topic was that it was very relevant to my experience I had when I traveled to Germany two months ago. Being that I was there during June, near the end of the most recent World Cup, the world soccer tournament was again a huge event affecting every part of the world, including my local city within Germany. Upon my arrival, and all the way to the end of my visit, you couldn’t walk down the street or take a train ride without seeing numerous German flags or hearing someone mention their excitement for German futball team.

A few members of our study abroad team that attended this lecture felt a close personal connection to the topic of the World Cup’s influence upon the German economy and population just four years ago. We had a total of four Germans in our group, all under the age of 25. They all agreed that being raised in Germany, they were rarely taught to have German pride, to display flags or have a positive view of the country as a whole – all obviously due to the harsh history of WWII. One person in particular pointed out how in his personal life, the hosting of the world cup revolutionized his view of his home country, and for once, he was proud to call Germany home. I happened to be the only person within this group from the USA, or as they kept calling it, America. Being from a country where national pride has for a long time been a common practice, the idea of national shame was a completely foreign concept to me. It made me appreciate all the more my country’s history and unity. Although I had previously studied 20^th century Europe, WWII, and its impacts on German society, this lecture experience gave me a whole new connection to Germany and its people that I will not soon forget.

“Cultural Diversity in Europe”

Lecture presented by: Rob van der Vaart

While studying abroad this summer at the University of Utrecht in Holland, I attended a lecture concerning the notion of a shared European identity.  The lecture, presented by Rob Van der Vaart, a history professor at the University of Utrecht, explored the reasons why to this day “Europe” remains an unimportant identity layer for many Europeans.

Before discussing the root of the problem, Professor Van der Vaart introduced and defined the term identity.  This word, which initially seemed straightforward to me, had a deeper meaning and significance when connected to citizenship.  First, identity is changeable depending on its context.  Second, it is constructible.  Thus, identity can be molded to carry out political ends, while at the same time it is highly malleable; it does not remain static over time.

If identity is so easily manipulated, then why does the European Union remain an at best nascent construction in the hearts of Europeans?  Professor Van der Vaart attributed this to a persistent shaper of identity in most European countries: nationalism.  In other words nationalism, or a strong identification of a group with the political entity of the nation-state which gained importance in European in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, still shapes Europeans’ connection between self a greater group.  Thus, each individual nation in European has a unique identity, separate from other nations’.  Professor Van der Vaart said that each nation’s identity is shaped by a focus on normative, rather than legal, citizenship.  By normative citizenship, he means that citizens focus on feelings of belonging, relatedness, and shared norms to shape their sense of identity in nation-states.

This focus on nationalism gains expression in most European countries, some more than others.  Professor Van der Vaart used the example of the Netherlands in order to highlight how most Europeans lean toward a national identity, rather than the supra national European identity.  The results of a knowledge quiz taken by a wide representation of the Dutch populace showed that they had a much deeper knowledge of Dutch identity (i.e. its history, institutions, politics) than European identity.  The quiz takers had a disturbingly low understanding of EU institutions and decision-making processes.

Why is this the case?  Professor Van der Vaart attributed it to a number of reasons: the media’s overwhelming focus on national news over European Union affairs; the urgency of national politics; the direction and speed of the European integration process; and a poor sense of collective memory among Europeans as a whole.

Professor Van der Vaart closed the lecture with some hopeful thoughts.  Despite the course European integration has taken for the past fifty years, which primarily focused on economic and political motives without appealing to the people, the 50^th anniversary celebration of the Treaty of Rome (1957-2007) turned out to be a forward looking event.  A new sense of collective European identity seemed to permeate the celebration.  Professor Van der Vaart considered this an important step towards embracing a common identity capable of overcoming European division culpable for countless wars and economic instability over the centuries.

Lecture presented by: Karen Liftin

With all the propaganda surrounding the environmental damage that we inflict on our planet, nearly every individual wonders how they can exclusively make a difference in our fragile ecosystem. In her lecture “Being the Change: Ecovillage Experiments Around the World,” Karen Liftin discusses the growing phenomenon of living in collective, environmentally-friendly communities called Ecovillages. The formation of an Ecovillage begins when a group of individuals have a common goal to reduce their carbon footprint. Whether individuals wish to go back to the basics or protect their environment, the popularity of Ecovillages is growing tremendously. From urban Berlin to rural Scotland, these self-sustaining Ecovillages are quickly sprouting up around the globe. Despite the fact that each Ecovillage has its own unique way of conserving resources, they collectively have the same goal of protecting the earth from over-exploitation. On average, living in an Ecovillage is nearly half as economically destructive as a modern home. In a world in which our ecosystem is quickly depleting, living green- in an Ecovillage- may be a step closer to effectively preserving our planet.

This lecture helped me understand the importance of a global commitment towards improving our environment. Our diminishing ecosystem is a global dilemma that demands attention from citizens around the world. In order to save our planet, a large amount of people need to make an active effort to preserve our resources. The escalating prevalence of Ecovillages demonstrates this process towards globalization. In several countries around the world, Ecovillages are used to protect our earth as a commons. Despite cultural differences, these Ecovillages work together towards the same cause of protecting our planet.

Even though I am not ready to move into an Ecovillage myself, this lecture has motivated me to live in a more environmentally-friendly way. The lecture has also inclined me to research Ecovillages and “green living” further. I now practice living green by utilizing my bicycle instead of driving to close locations, buying decomposable products, and reusing items. I have also told my family and friends about the lecture, which has led them to make eco-friendly changes in their lives as well. In the future, I would like to learn about even more effective ways to reduce my carbon footprint. This lecture has also reminded me of the importance of individual and group participation in our planet’s commons, which was a key concept in Professor Tenenberg’s Global Challenges course.

I felt as though most of my questions were answered by Karen Liftin during the lecture; however, I still have a few unanswered questions that have been occupying my thoughts. Generally, I know that it can sometimes be more expensive to buy “green” products; however, living green can also be less expensive due to the conservation of expensive resources such as water, power, and gas. With this in mind, is it generally more or less expensive to live in an Ecovillage? Could the average citizen afford to live in an Ecovillage, or are they communities that are limited to upper-class individuals? On average, how much more or less would an individual have to spend to live in an Ecovillage?

Lecture presented by: Barb Flanagan

In her lecture titled, “The Difficulty of Providing Neutral Humanitarian Ethics in War: The ICRC- A Neutral Actor,” Professor Barb Flanagan discusses the difficulties associated with the ICRC’s (International Committee of the Red Cross) mission to “protect the innocent” while maintaining neutrality. Barb first explains that the ICRC was established in 1833 to help civilize war. In order to effectively “civilize” world conflicts, Professor Flanagan explains that the ICRC must remain completely neutral in the situations that they encounter. She defines neutrality as the ability to treat all parties in a neutral manner without siding with one party over the other. Not surprisingly, there are many difficulties associated with neutrality. Barb spends a majority of her lecture time elaborating on two difficulties in particular: interference in World War II and The Korean War. In regard to WWII, the ICRC did not meet its standard of neutrality when it appeared bias to the world; due to this “bias” the ICRC was unable to access Nazi concentration camps to help innocent victims of the war. Years later during the Korean War, the ICRC seemingly supported the capitalistic West. Again, the lack of perceived neutrality from the ICRC became a dilemma for the organization. Throughout her presentation, Professor Flanagan emphasizes the difficulties of providing neutral support during times of war, especially since the concept of neutrality is perceived differently among varying parties. Despite these difficulties, Flanagan emphasizes that the ICRC currently has a good reputation in many parts of the world, and has been predominately successful.

This presentation shines light on the importance of neutrality in the process of Globalization. Without perceived neutrality, the ICRC cannot access areas in which innocent citizens are being treated in inhumane ways. In order to creep closer to world access and establishment of war ethics, the ICRC must keep a clean track record of perceived neutrality.

This lecture, along with Dr. Crawford’s Global Challenges class, helped me understand the difficulties involved in obtaining world peace. Several of the topics discussed in the lecture were similar to the readings and discussion in Global Challenges, especially regarding the ongoing difficulties between the Arabs and Israelis. Attending the lecture reminded me that there are countless conflicts in the world that cannot be solved with neutrality alone, which was a key concept in class. This lecture also reminded me of a common factor in world dilemmas discussed in class: differing viewpoints.

After the Lecture ended, I felt as though I had several unanswered questions. Most of my questions relate to the ICRC’s involvement in WWII. How could the ICRC remain neutral in a situation that most likely affected them emotionally? What could they have done differently to remain neutral in that situation? Instead of attempting to stay neutral in this position, might it have been more effective to take more aggressive measures? Furthermore, the ICRC’s mission to rescue the innocent while remaining neutral seems like an ambitious task; is this organization bound to fail like other organizations used to “govern” the world?

The University of Washington, Tacoma featured “The Difficulty of Providing Neutral Humanitarian Ethics in War: The ICRC a Neural Humanitarian Actor” presented by Dr. Barb Flanagan on April 29, 2010. The ICRC stands for the International Committee of the Red Cross its mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance. The goal of the ICRC is to be neutral; however, this is very difficult if not impossible. Neutrality involves how the ICRC positions themselves with countries they serve, treating all parties in a neutral manner, cannot side with one party, and may not be involved in a state according to Dr. Flanagan. There are many difficulties with neutrality which includes the issue of unintentional bias and political interference to name a few. However, ICRC has a “good reputation of neutrality” this reputations allows this organization to help many people with acceptance by many parties. This organization provides aid to people such as medical supplies and general assistance to anyone in need such as prisoners of war to civilians.
This presentation supports the notion that this is interdependent world because many people depend on someone else to help us in time of need such as during war. People may need aid in order to survive especially during wars or other civil unrest situations. The world is interconnected because everyone is affected by one group of people at war and civilians are being killed or injured. When people are being assisted the way ICRC does they are helping everyone one because of the economic, political, and social effects war has on the world. This organization is a great example of helping other in need which is something I am very interested in pursuing. This seems like a great organization to donate my time.
This lecture left me curious of what the psychological consequences of war on children and adults alike. I know that there has been some research in this area; however, I would be interested in doing this type of psychological research. I would also be interested in how successful aid is evaluated, and what it consists of such as how do organizations such as ICRC evaluate whether their aid was effective besides the number of lives they saved. The main question that I have is what happens to people once the aid is no longer given? Are there ways that the ICRC helps in services that are sustained in the countries after they leave? It is very important to create services that are sustainable so the people can continue to be successful.

I attended a very intriguing lecture titled “Culture as Diplomacy,” which was presented by Janeil Engelstad on April 22, 2010 at the University of Washington, Tacoma. The surface meaning of this lecture is about public art; however, if you stand back and think about the true meaning of this lecture it involves many global topics that have been discussed in our Global Honors seminars. This lecture is about how public art affects people’s lives every day. This affect can be in a positive way such as promoting environmental awareness with the “environmental photography which demonstrates how the environment has changed” (Engelstad’s lecture). These photographs are intended to make people aware of the environmental changes and to make everyone think about what they are doing in regards to promoting our inhibiting the health of our environment. Even though I am not an environmental science major, I believe that the safety of our environment should be of interest to everyone because it directly affects everyone. This part of the lecture does not directly relate to my major or interests of study, but it is very important to be knowledgeable about.
However, the human rights issues the presented discussed is very pertinent to my major of psychology. Some of the human rights issues mentioned is the importance of recording personal history thorough digital recordings which were later written about people thoughts about a variety of topics ranging from personal stories to what they thought about the overall treatment of people in their countries. There are some very interesting interviews on voicesfromthecenter.net. These interviews have people discussing their views about politics and how government in Slovakia and other Eastern European countries has affected their lives. One of the main topics discussed by participants was the comparison of communism to socialism and how this has affected their lives many of the older generation preferred communism while the younger generations preferred socialism which allowed them to be free in many aspects. Recording people’s stories and sharing this with a variety of people through the medium of writings in public places has allowed for people to express themselves which is important in promoting human rights in my opinion. Hearing a variety of opinions is a very important way to promote human rights, which includes the right to freely express ones opinions.
Another interesting concept to public art is its ability to promote dialog among artists, students and the community members. One piece in particular struck me as very fascinating, this was the installation of flowers outside of the U.S Embassy (I think it was the US embassy). According to the presenter, the flowers have historically indicated a place to shoot however that was not the meaning in this case the purpose was to ask people if they felt like a flower which in return was intended to create a dialogue about politics. Along with psychology, I am very interested in political issues which this presentation discusses in particular personal opinions about the government and the flower installation. This presentation brought up some very interesting topics that I would like to explore such as the connection between art and politics and how art can express political opinions.
Dr. Engelstad did a great job at discussing how public art, social justice issues, and political dilemmas is interconnected in a global context. One cannot have public art and not make some kind of statement whether that is political or otherwise. Art is a way to express concepts which can be expressed in many mediums and affect people in a global context. This presentation was great at getting the word out about the importance of a variety of ways to express people opinions; however, I would be interested to see how we, as a society, create solutions for some of the complex issues that this presentation touched on. This may be very idealistic of me, but I would like to think that public art can help create solutions to some complex political and human rights based issues discussed in this presentation. This presentation has actually made me think about the importance of art and self expression and how this impacts society.

The two most obvious and readily available narratives in Israel are those of the Zionist movement and of the Palestinian resistance. While these two definitely are not the only narratives, they are, I think, the two most observably associated with Israel. The Zionist movement is that to make Israel a Jewish state–a country home for the Jewish people of the world. The Palestinian narrative tells a mournful story of displacement in the wake of that movement.
For this paper, I have chosen two lectures from two seemingly diametrically opposed narratives–first, from the holocaust museum, Yad Vashem; and second, from a tour of the Arabic part of Jaffa. One to tell a portion of the Jewish narrative and one to tell a portion of the Palestinian narrative.
I am going to write about these two lectures strictly from memory. I choose to do this so that I can properly convey the emotion involved in these stories. There is a time and a place for academic prose. This is not it. I choose to ignore the academic here. Israel is and always will be, in my recollection, first and foremost, about human emotion. Human emotions such as anguish and memory, attachment and antagonism, love and sorrow, and, most importantly, hope and despair make Israel the story it is. These emotions envelop my experience at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem and at Jaffa near Tel Aviv, and it is these emotions that imprint the stories more clearly on my memory than any lists of dates or names or organizations ever could.
—————
Yad Veshem
Tuesday, July 13, 2010 in Jerusalem

Our first activity on the morning of July 13th was a trip to the Holocaust Museum, Yad Vashem, in Jerusalem. I wrote my first report on the holocaust when I was about 12 years old, in 7th grade, about 27 years ago. No amount of research and no number of years studying this tragedy could have prepared me for the emotion involved in a tour of Yad Vashem in the heart of the Jewish world–Jerusalem.
After a brief explanation of the grounds and architecture of the museum, our guide took us to the main building on the site. It is a long building, skillfully planned to begin above ground with the life of the European Jewry prior to WWII, sink underground with the catastrophe of the Holocaust, and then rise again, above ground, to open on the Zionist movement back to the Promised Land. As we entered the building, we were met with a giant screen, playing happy music and depicting Jewish people in Europe prior to WWII. They are dancing, singing, eating, worshipping, and living just like anyone. It expresses their humanity and intimately connects them to the viewer. As we walked away from the screen, we were guided down and down into the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust. We experienced how German people were led to believe in the inhumanity of the Jewish people. Down-down-down from idea into action. Our senses were accosted by photographs, sounds, and films of the sorrow. One film is burned into my memory. It was that of a little girl in the Warsaw ghetto, obviously starved and alone with her little brother. She is crying out and shaking his head, trying in futility to wake him. He is starving to death, too. And who is filming this? It is a Nazi propaganda video made with the aim of showing how lazy the Jewish people are! The Jews will just sit and starve instead of working is what the Nazis intend to portray with this video. As I watched the little girl crying for her brother, a starved mother walked by on the screen, crying out and clutching her dying baby. I knew, because I know history, that I was watching dead people. People who would die for one reason: because they are Jewish. I felt sad and angry and helpless. You cannot stop what is already done.
In this portion of the museum, the portion depicting the mass murders, the portion of the building that is underground, you feel the weight of it–the dark depths. It’s oppressive. At one point, I noticed our Israeli guide, Yoav Malachi, sitting off to the side with a look I took to be one of quiet desolation. I wondered what he was feeling at that moment. I wondered what my professor, Dr. Gad Barzilai, whose mother survived a concentration camp, felt. (Later, he would tell me, when I asked, that the tour at Yad Vashem is wrought with difficult emotions for him.) As we approached the end of the Holocaust period, we were ushered into a large room called the Hall of Names. In this huge room, we stood above a well, at the bottom of which was reflected the pictures and stories of just 600 Jewish Holocaust victims, spread across a conical display above our heads. The room is quiet and haunting. As you look up at the pictures and stories above your head you feel a spiraling, sinking feeling. It is hard to look away. Just then, our guide took us out of that room and to the very end of the museum: a deck that opens up to the outdoors. The view is a canopy of red-roofed Jewish homes. A settlement in Israel–a home in the Promised Land. Here is hope and a new beginning.
Globalization is a relatively new idea. It is the idea that we are all connected now by technology. Very little separates world communities. We have ease of communication and, for some, ease of trade and of movement. For the Jewish people, globalization, I think, is nothing new. The Diaspora scattered them across the world, but their shared faith (and fate) kept them connected in a way that is not easily explained by modernism. They are connected through time and history to Zion. That they would return to Israel after the sufferings of the Holocaust seems a natural concession. Give them their homeland. Give them freedom from persecution. Give them the security of a Jewish state. The problem is that Israel had not been a Jewish state for 2000 years. New occupants resided there. A different people called it home. Globalization and its bedfellow technology play no part in the struggle over Israel. It is a sticks-and-stone struggle. It is a struggle built on ideals and religiosity–a struggle as old as recorded history.

The Arabic part of Jaffa
Friday, July 2, 2010 south of Tel Aviv

The people who resided in Israel at the time it became a Jewish state in 1948 were the Palestinians. They are still there, some living peacefully among the general population of Jewish Israelis, some living in the West Bank and in Gaza. Many left Israel in the 1940s. They left behind homes and lives and livelihoods and became refugees. Many would never return. Many who did return would find that they were dispossessed of their homes. Some still fight to hold on to homes that have been in their family for generations. (The house key is a powerful symbol for Palestinians, our guide said.) We saw the residence of a Palestinian family in Jaffa who had owned the home since the 1920s, but were dispossessed of this property by the Jewish state. They still resided there, tenuously, and were fighting to maintain it, even though it has been sold right out from under them. Inasmuch as the Holocaust is a bewildering tragedy for the Jewish people, this dispossession is so for the Palestinians. The question arises: how does the world make right one terrible wrong without committing another? In all the time I spent in Israel, an effective answer to this question never arose except in the idea of a two-state solution in Israel: one Jewish and one Palestinian. One can imagine Israel in terms parallel to the United States–European settlers and the Native Americans–with the Jewish people as settlers and the Palestinians as Natives. How do you take and give at the same time? America never solved this problem in any way remotely resembling a just one. How does the young Jewish state hold on and let go at the same time? How do they regain their historic lands, maintain their hope for security and deal justly with the Palestinians at the same time? No amount of globalization or technology or foreign diplomacy will solve this problem. It is love of land. Homeland is the pungent problem in human history and it is truly understood only in terms of human emotion. It is not cut and dried. It is not black and white. It is gray and mixed and confused.
—————–
The question that remains in my mind after the trip to Israel is the same as the question I went with: how can the Jewish state remain and succeed through time? I learned that this question cannot be clearly answered by anyone. Every learned person has a different solution. Inasmuch as the Middle East is a hodge-podge of people and ideas and beliefs, the answer to this question is, too. No person will ever concisely solve this dilemma to the satisfaction of all. Only time will see the answer play out in this tiny vacuum, center stage of the world.