Blood and Tears Response

The film really brought to light that there is extremism on both sides. This extremism clouds the issues that are at hand and prevents easy solutions. One thing that can be said fairly is that the Palestinian Arabs have been victims of domination—from history to today. Recently their domination has been at the hands of the nation of Israel. They have been forced off their land and not allowed to return as refugees. I believe that this is wrong. People that leave their land due to wartime concerns for safety, reserve the right to return to their lands when the fighting ends. To me it seemed that many of the Israeli opinions voiced in cameos were mildly ignorant of what the government was doing to the Palestinian people. The woman from the settlements did not seem to care that the land she lived on previously belonged to a Palestinian family, and this has been a major obstacle to peace. This is partly what caused the Oslo Accords to fail. Violence and the continuance of settlements is what caused their breakdown. Even after watching this film, seeing the suffering and passive attitudes, reading the swathes of material and hearing the stories from Mrs. Hekman, I cannot still completely understand their plight, yet I do feel for them. The Israelis that were displaced from their lands have found a new home, why are the Palestinians any different? Do not they have the same right as humans to form their own state too? The media says that they had their chance with Sharon’s “generous” offer, but how can a people live, as the video said, using only the rooms of a house and not the hallways. With no access to the kitchen, or the bathrooms any inhabitant would wither away in filth, which is exactly what the Israelis have forced the Palestinians to do in their own land. That said, it is important to note that on both sides, the silent majority is comprised of those that stand in the middle, yet they remain out of the spotlight, behind those that claim victory for Islam and continue the violence, behind the state that promotes terror.

First Carter Book Response

Jimmy Carter dealt with the Middle East before, during and after his term as president of the United States. He was involved as a Senator, and supervised many important accords, some of which have been followed, some of which have not. In the first part of his book, Carter states that peace is not self-sustained. The two sides of any relationship, be it Israel-Palestine or husband-wife, must both put forth an effort for it to work. After the first Intifada, the United States became focused elsewhere, the regimes concentrated on domestic issues, and there was little communication from the side of Israel. Relationships must be constantly defined at such a high level of complexity because the actions of one party directly influence the other. The audio book also highlighted the need for a legitimate compromise, one that satisfies both sides yet leaves both desiring a little more. The compromise must be pragmatic yet contain the respected ideologies of both parties for it to be successful. Critical to this compromise is the realization that the Israelis will not be eradicated, and the Arab-Palestinians will not leave all of King David’s former lands. At this point, none of the offers from either side has either been serious enough to be considered, or honored by both parties. This is a regretful place to be in, and few can see this better than Carter. The conflict is so much more complex than it is portrayed to be by the news media, considering the history atrocities performed by either side. I want to say to Israel and Palestine—Give up something! Let this come to an end! Is it so difficult to compromise enough so that your children need not live in fear, or in shame? I want to plead with the Israelis to permit the Palestinians to live as people in their own nation. I desire the Palestinian Arabs to accept an offer that is truly in good faith if one comes along. I want both sides to see that they cannot have it all, indeed sometimes they can have little, but I fear that I am still too naïve to judge either side. However, through Carter’s book, Burge’s book and other resources, I desire to know both sides of the conflict and be able to decide for myself, free of bias, what is at the heart of the issue and to be able to play some small part towards peace.

Journal One

The Occupation 101 film that we watched in class today was a very educational experience in regards to the Palestine-Israel conflict. Sadly, I had very little knowledge of the situation in the region beforehand, despite daily news reports and study of the region in secondary school. As far as I knew, the Arab-Palestinians were using unprovoked violence to steal land from what was rightfully Israel. As with overcoming any bias or preconceived notions, I now see how hopelessly naïve my thoughts were about a region that has dealt with so much turmoil. The plight of the Palestinian people is seemingly hopeless—faced with an American community that shows little awareness, and lobby groups exerting influence for the rights of their oppressors, it saddens me, but does not surprise me that the Palestinian people have reverted to violence in some cases. I cannot understand what it would be like to live under occupation from a foreign nation, in land that is my own. Without the ability to be a viable nation-state, without the possibility of economic success, without the support of its neighbors, Palestine will never thrive until they have their own lands free from occupation. A man in the video said that before the conflict the Israelis and Palestinians lived as brothers in the land…brothers…brothers. I see no reason why they cannot live this way once again in the future. This is very contradictory to the false notion that there has always been fighting in the Middle East. Where this notion came from, I do not know, but I do know that until international bodies like the U.N. or others force Israel to heed international law, Palestinians will get nowhere. Groups like AIPAC distort the public image of Palestine as being the antagonists in a story that in reality has only two protagonists. Palestinians are seen as terrorists, when they have been driven there out of sheer helplessness. This in no way condones terrorist groups, but it does put the situation into perspective. Because I have only seen a movie, I cannot fully grasp the condition that Palestinians are living in and the problems they face, but through class this January, I hope to come to a better realization of their quandary and what I can do in my own small way to help them.