During the first two weeks of the semester, we have discussed in class the background to the conflict and the centrality of the land of Palestine/Eretz Yisrael in the Muslim and Jewish traditions. We have learned that more often than not, the Jewish/Israeli and Arab/Palestinian narratives contradict each other.
The question we will discuss online this week is:
When thinking about the conflict between Israel and its neighbors, should one understand and recognize the historical narrative of the other even without agreeing with it? If so, why?
I would say yes that the need for understanding and recognizing the historical narrative is crucial even if one does not agree with the other. If for any reason for the sake of respect and understanding the relationship that each holds with the land, taking a step back and realizing where the deep seeded passion that each respective country has and why each country is willing to lose so much over so little land. Each countries historical narrative yields a roller coaster of wars, oppression, destruction, and rebuilding periods. After fighting so passionately for centuries over it, if a country was to lose their piece of this global pie now in the 21st century, it would mean that the loser would have to hear from the winner; no state or nation/country, likes to have a loss rubbed in without fighting back at some point. Thus the historical narrative here would then begin to repeat itself.
ReplyDeleteI say that one should understand and recognize the historical narrative of the other with or without agreeing with it. If one's argument was to have any true validity, let alone be stronger than the other's argument, then it would need to take into consideration the opposing side's stance, how that stance was formed, and from which experiences and backgrounds the other side drew in order to formulate their argument. It's a waste of time and energy arguing against a position whose basis you do not know about, and understanding their historical narrative allows you to formulate points and arguments that appeal or at least fit in with the other's world view. By recognizing the other's historical narrative, you are also showing respect to them, which is a good thing regardless of the differences between each other.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what the Greek philosopher, Plato, once said, “The beginning is the most important part of the work.” One cannot understand the magnitude of a situation, much less resolve a conflict, if he/she does not know the situation’s origin. Therefore, I believe it is essential to understand and recognize the historical narratives of the other. However, I believe the most challenging part of the conflict is not tracing back through history but learning how to push past the narratives and respect the other’s perspective. Of course, this does not mean one has to accept the other’s story, but one must accept and respect that there are other stories. From there, the parties’ must agree to disagree because reaching a consensus on what story is more accurate is never going to occur. Ultimately, recognizing the historical narratives is imperative because they are not just narratives; they are the parties’ ideals and traditions. The narratives are their identity. Consequently, not recognizing their narratives is by extension not recognizing them as people. If the opposing sides cannot see each other as people with difference, then a resolution will never be made.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what has been posted so far but I think that there are some limits to what degree we should accept the narratives provided by both sides. It is clear that any serious study of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict should acknowledge and seek to understand each historical narrative i.e. we must acknowledge that each side has a different version of what happened and not completely dismiss it. However, I think that whenever either side bases its policy solely on a one-sided historical narrative then the logic of that narrative should be open to criticism.
ReplyDeleteClearly we must try to understand the background of any conflict. My classmates have already described the merits of such study. I, however want to take a personal approach to the question. As an Arab American, I am a congenital believer in the Palestinian position, and it's never been more than a black-and-white issue. Simply put, that was somebody's land. Yet, as well versed as I am on the subject, I have to admit the assigned literature, especially the section of Kramer's book on Practical Zionism, has already helped me "soften" my stance and find shades of gray. I believe my own personal response to fresh literature and a two-sided discussion reconfirms the very reason one must search for the historical narratives of any complex issue.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely one should seek to understand the opposition's historical narrative, whether one is in agreement or not. A person's or party's history colors the perspective with which all things are viewed. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to understand the actions of another without recognizing the experiences he or she has thus far endured. While, as an observer or opponent, we may not have come to the same conclusions or chosen the same course of action as the other party, being knowledgeable of their history can help us to understand how they may have come to make the decisions they did.
ReplyDeleteIn the specific instance of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I would venture to say that both historical narratives are marred somewhat by both nationalism and ethnocentrism, but they are still of utmost importance when attempting to understand both party's actions. One can not understand the current situation without understanding first how it began.
In any conflict, one should indeed attempt to understand and recognize the historical narratives of those involved. This is an imperative step in reducing misunderstandings, thus reducing irrelevant arguments; pinpointing where the conflict lies; therefore distinguishing what is a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict and what isn’t; and building legitimate, cohesive arguments which are more likely to yield a positive solution.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a closed-minded mentality would be detrimental to any attempt to understand the historical narrative of other parties involved. To begin with, each party will have their own pre-conceived notions about themselves, other parties involved, and about the conflict in general. Realizing that each party is passionate in regards to their stance in this conflict, they must each initially address their biases and attempt to be open-minded in the pursuit of intellectual honesty, and in order to realize what is and isn’t a legitimate claim. Agreeing with an opponent’s historical narrative is not necessary, however, simply attempting to understand one’s opponent many times lessens the degree of zeal and can encourage each side to find grounds upon which they can agree.
When thinking about the Arab-Israeli conflict or any conflicts, I would say that one should definitely try to understand and also recognize the historical narrative of the other side even without agreeing with it. Indeed, In both historical narratives there might be threads of truth and threads of wrongs and if both sides do not try to understand the oppositions's stance, and motivations, they would never find a solution. However, opening one's mind and trying to understand the opponent's position provides the ground to open an intellectual dialogue and find a compromise to solve the problem.
ReplyDeleteThe conflict between Israel and its neighbors is complicated. It is important to see where all of the complications started and to understand the historical context behind it all. As Siera said above, it is obvious that all parties involved are passionate in regards to their stance on the subject. Many countries pressure the parties involved to find a middle ground and resolve the conflict. This could help, but has not yet. Addressing the issue and addressing when the conflict began is a great way to start resolving things. People in other countries have to understand where Israel and its neighbors biased opinions have come from before they can even fathom what is going on now. When someone is standing on the edge of a cliff, you do not tell them to move forward.
ReplyDeleteThere is a long history of problems and nothing will ever get resolved without recognizing the past issues and finding a resolution where each party feels they can live peacefully. The historical narrative on all sides MUST be recognized and accepted with an open-mind. The logic of the narrative should not be criticized as one of my classmates previously wrote. That would surely outrage people and cause more problems. No one has to agree on the historical narrative, they just need to agree to disagree.
When attempting to understand and resolve conflicts, such as he Arab/Israeli conflict it is absolutely necessary to attempt to recognize and understand the historical background of each side. Groups derive unity, and motivation from their histories, to ignore the history of a group not only belittles them but makes it difficult to understand their actions. In the case of Palestine, failure to recognize each side's history allows stereotypes and misunderstandings about each side to inhibit the peace process.
ReplyDeleteYES most definitely! If one does not understand the other side or won't even read the other side's narratives then the argument will just continue. The problem will never get solved if people don't at least respect the other side; especially in the context of the Israeli/Arab conflict where both sides have hated each other for thousands of years. The best thing to do is not to necessarily read and meditate upon ever single historical narrative and text of the other side but at least know, respect and acknowledge the other side. Without mutual acknowledgement and respect for the other side the problem won't even get past stage 1. Ultimately, there will obviously be disagreements but everyone should treat others the way they want to be treated i.e. "The Golden Rule." The Golden Rule is something that all faiths and cultures recognize and understand.
ReplyDeleteThis question reminds me of the YouTube video Dr. Ayalon showed us in class of the interview with the Israeli professor. Both the professor and the interviewer were well versed in their own historical past but unwilling to understand the other's historical past which led to a passionate debate resulting in a unresolved and confusing argument. It is instances like that interview which will continue the cycle of stereotypes, misunderstandings, and irrelevant arguments thus adding fuel to the conflict.
ReplyDeleteIn order to start a path towards resolution, understanding and recognition of the other's historical past and how that ties into their stance on the conflict is imperative. But it does not stop there, I think both sides know there are two stories of the conflict, it is respecting the other's historical past. I think Shamim is right in saying that "the Golden Rule" needs to be followed if a solution can eventually be made. Until then, we will see many more heated debates such as the interview with the professor that will just end in anger or confusion or a mixture of both.
Having skimmed through what my classmates have answered, I wish I could disagree and start a heated discussion, but "unfortunately" I agree. In any conflict it is crucial to understand where the opponent is coming from. It is difficult for anyone else to relate to what one side is feeling, but it is important to try. Without recognizing the historical narrative of one side, the argument is moot. I have friends back home, Arabs and Jews, who having grown up with each other accept that they both have strong feelings for their side, much due to their history. They accept this and can have rational arguments about what should happen in the future. I know others who simply refuse to consider the others side of the story... and let's just say that it isn't pretty when the topic comes up.
ReplyDeleteUntil you recognize the historical narrative of your opponent, the arguments will never lead to anything.
Predictably, the only reasonable response is that all narratives must be considered. Even from the stance of an antagonistic motivation, a lack of understanding in an opposing claim gives one no tools to debate with. As such, those searching for a resolution to the ongoing conflict must also investigate and invest in the perspective of both the Palestinians and Israelis.
ReplyDeleteTheir is no doubt about it, of course someone must understand the background of the other even if they don't agree with their side. Personally I am taking this course to understand the Israeli side of things. I know I'm still not gonna agree with them and support them, but to be respected during a debate or heated conversation on the subject I want to be able to comment on both sides.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding the historical backgrounds of both actors involved in conflict is an absolute must. Understanding the narrative history of both sides of the Israeli conflict will give you a better understanding of the current arguments and debate relating to the conflict. The current conflict in my opinion is derived from historical context. Comprehending the history before conflict is used in many other examples and is a useful method to better interpret the current situation of the conflict. When one studies any conflict there is always a brief historical context to understand the motives and social reasoning. For example, the motives of Germany in WWII, one must understand historical contexts of WWI, the economical hardship in Germany after WWI, and the rise of Fascism.
ReplyDeleteIn any type of discussion of conflict it is extremely important to understand the histories of both positions. Knowing and acknowledging the narratives of both sides is the foundation of discussion that might lead to conflict resolution. The knowledge of another’s narrative might or might not lead to an immediate resolution, which is obviously seen in Arab/Israeli conflict thus far, but acknowledging the other side’s perspective might ultimately lead to a respect for the other position and hopefully, resolution.
ReplyDeleteOf course we do. Think of it like this: imagine you have two best friends, and for whatever reason, they get into an incredible fight. Assume they both want you to take their side of the argument, and they are both telling you different stories as to what happened to cause the fight. The most diplomatic and helpful response you, as a third party member, could have would be to listen to both sides and not make a judgment call, but rather to help them in anyway possible by your neutrality. As Americans, we have absolutely no reason to not want to explore the history of this specific conflict. Rather than supporting one side or another, we should help find a solution between the two parties. Yet in order to find a solution, we have to know exactly what we're dealing with, and the only way to do that is to know the history of both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
ReplyDeleteOne should always be willing to understand the historical narrative of both sides before believing he or she can fully comprehend the conflict. Though, this is not the case between the majority of supporters on both sides. Few people understand historical aspects of modern events, and this does not only apply to the Arab/Israeli conflict. Understanding the historical narrative does not mean simply knowing what the Bible, Qur'an, and other religious texts say, but understanding all sides of the conflict, religious and secular. When people from both sides understand each other's historical narratives, a less violent resolution is more likely. People today want an outcome immediately. Though, if more people took the time to research history, it would be well worth it in the end.
ReplyDeleteI suppose whether or not an individual deems knowledge of both sides of the Arab/Israeli Conflict crucial is dependent upon whether or not he or she hopes to see the conflict resolved. If one does not see compromise as a viable option or hope for resolution whatsoever, understanding the historical context of both sides is probably unimportant to him or her. For those individuals who do hope for a lasting, peaceful resolution between all parties, however, that will require an equal understanding of both sides of the conflict.
ReplyDeleteWhile this example is somewhat trite, if two children claimed ownership of a single bouncy ball, the individual mediating the conflict would need to understand why each child felt as though he was the rightful owner of the bouncy ball. To dismiss one child’s belief of ownership would be immoral, unjust, and possibly reveal some hidden biases, depending upon who was named mediator -- hopefully not the mother of one of the children, as that would only complicate the issue further.
Nonetheless, I use this example because in any issue there are always two sides, sometimes more. Through examining the intricate details of each side, however, it is my hope that all parties would A. gain understanding of the other perspective and B. possibly even gain a sense of respect for the other parties. The Arab/Israeli Conflict is one of many details and complication for all parties involved; therefore, any possible lasting solution will require deep understandings of both sides of the conflict.
In regards to anything with two accounts, it is imperative to examine and seek understanding of both. More specifically concerning the Arab/Israeli conflict, knowledge of both narratives is crucial because they shape one another. The nature of the conflict is defined by their shared sacred places and history, dueling accounts of their right to the same territory. Furthermore, these commonalities have caused the narratives of both Arabs and Israelis to be conversational - they function in response to one another and one plays an intricate role in shaping the other. Because these narratives are in reaction to one another, it is impossible to understand one fully without understanding the other. Moreover, if one chooses to agree with one side, it is even more necessary to understand the opposing viewpoints; for the sake of having an educated, fully formed opinion, one must recognize in both narratives what its supporters believe to be true and its credibility.
ReplyDeleteEven if just for the sake of forming a more solid argument, one should inarguably know both sides to every story. I find this to be especially true as it concerns the Arab-Israeli conflict (particularly in the beginning) because concrete details often contradict one another. How can one form an educated opinion without knowing the details and historical context of both Arab and Israeli arguments? This conflict is very sensitive in nature because it encompasses more than politics; it seems that religion and culture play a huge role in the division between the people.
ReplyDeleteLooking back at this question half way through the semester, I now realize how essential it is to understand the historical narrative of each side within a conflict. It is incredible, and shocking, to realize that a lot of the discussion taking place among politicians and commentators in the U.S. about the Arab/Israeli conflict is based on inaccuracies. For example, the idea that the conflict can be boiled down to antagonism between Muslims and Jews ignores the reality that when the Jews began to settle in Palestine, the Arab population (which was not entirely Muslim) viewed the Jews as a different form of foreign oppression. Examination of the historical narrative of each side forces anyone interested in resolving, or learning about, the conflict to set aside his or her personal opinion the best they can and examine what actually took place.
ReplyDeleteWith only seven weeks left in the semester, my answer to this question is a definite yes. I originally agreed that one should always understand the historical narrative, but seeing what all I have learned throughout this semester, people should not even attempt to argue for one of the causes without understanding even the slightest about this conflict. From learning about the beginnings of Zionism in the 19th century, to currently discussing the 1967 war, whichever side I take, I am now able to argue more intellectually about the conflict than ever before. With seven weeks of class left, this will only make the understanding even more clear to me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Katie. There is so much more to this conflict than the conflict between Jews and Muslims. We can learn a lot from past Western policies and how even they were based on inaccuracies and details of Israeli and Arab policies that continue to be used, although a lot of their original implications no longer have any bearing today. The West demonized groups by association.
ReplyDeleteKnowing the historical narrative and not taking events, comments, policies, et cetera out of context may even give today’s politicians and policy makers a fair and feasible solution to actually solving the Arab-Israeli conflict rather than just adding fuel to the fire.
What I have learned so far in this semester is that all of the rhetoric and violence that we see and wonder why it is happening isn’t just occurring due to blind animosity or just to terrorize. Although these methods of communication may be wrong, and be received negatively by the West, it is understandable because those are the things that will grab our attention. As generations forget or dismiss history, marginalized groups must find ways to gain attention.
I think that it is quite important to understand the historical narrative of both sides in any conflict, especially this one. From a neutral standing, you have to listen to both sides. Without hearing both perspectives you cannot fully understand what is going on or why. If you’ve already picked a side, it is even more important to understand what you are up against. Rarely does one party get 100% of everything they want. Compromises are usually needed. In order to come to an acceptable compromise, you have to negotiate. To do that well, you have to know what the other party feels entitled to and what is at stake in their minds. Much of that is deeply rooted in their group’s narrative.
ReplyDeleteYes, in conflict in general, if you don’t know the history you aren’t going to get anywhere. Even if opposing sides choose not to recognize the plight of the other, in order to attempt to argue properly both sides of the argument need to be known. Especially this late in the semester, learning about both sides has proven that the conflict has deeper and different roots for different groups and individuals, so it is important to understand where everyone is coming from in order to argue your point best, and so if either side wants to attempt to resolve the situation, it would be imperative that both sides learn the viewpoints of the other.
ReplyDeleteYaron,
ReplyDeleteSomething you said in class recently reminded me of this. Didn't you say that most Israeli children don't go to school or have much interaction with Palestinian children until college? This separation from each other only furthers the schism between respect and understanding of a narrative that differs from your own.
I absolutely think that knowing and understanding both narratives of the conflict is imperative to properly grasping and analyzing this struggle. This particular case is an unique one and takes effort to comprehend. Anyone wishing to study the conflict must first have an appreciation for the complexity of the case, and also realize embellishments as they come across them. Each side has definitely been guilty of stretching the truth here and there. Separating fact from fiction while still considering the passion both sides have is the most effective way to study the struggle.
ReplyDeleteOften people are willing to oppress or engage in conflict with another people group because they do not view them as equals. Oppression is always accompanied by dehumanization. Understanding the narrative of the Palestinians and the Jews humanizes the two groups and explains why certain things are important to each group. It is also important to understand within the narrative how the two groups previously dealt with conflict. In both the Muslim and the Jewish narrative conflict between people groups was not dealt with initially by diplomacy but war. This is evident in the assigned readings and outside reading from the Bible and the Qur’an. The Bible and the Qur’an also explain why Jerusalem and “Greater Israel” are significant to both Muslims and Jews. Whether one agrees with either party about who has the right to this land, understanding the historical narrative leads to understanding why people believe they are justified in fighting for that land.
ReplyDeleteComment on Brandon Bleakley's post:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brandon that understanding the historical narrative is important even if one does not agree with the other. He makes a good point that understanding the passion behind the Arab-Israeli conflict begins by looking at the narrative and understanding why each group reveres the land. I think Brandon belittles the reason behind the Palestinians fighting so passionately for this land when he mentions, “the loser would have to hear from the winner.” The Palestinian narrative includes a history that was much more rooted in the land of “Eretz Israel” at the time of increased Jewish immigration. There reasoning for objecting to Jewish occupation was that their livelihoods were at stake, not simply their national pride. Perhaps Brandon did not overlook this but the language he uses to describe the motivation behind engaging in aggression over the land seems to suggest that the conflict was more emotional than practical, a statement with which I disagree.
Comment on Parker Selby's post:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Parker. Too often historical narratives are perceived as inerrant justification to oppose a certain group of people or claim sole ownership of some place or thing. An obvious example of this is the controversy over Jerusalem. The reading from 1 Kings 8 explains the dedication of the temple in Jerusalem by King Solomon. “I have surely built You a lofty house, A place for Your dwelling forever.” (1 Kings 8:13, NASB) To Jews, the temple and Jerusalem were holy places because the God of Israel dwelt there. If one were to only look at this aspect of the narrative and nothing else, it would be difficult to argue that the Jews should be willing to give up such a culturally and religiously significant city. I think that is why this weekly question is so pertinent because it does discourage a one-sided view of historical narratives. As Parker said, “the logic of that narrative should be open to criticism.” It is necessary to look at both sides to gain a full understanding of the conflict.
Comment on Miranda's post (Feb. 1, 2011):
ReplyDeleteMiranda does a great job relating the Arab-Israeli conflict to real life experience. As Americans our position in the conflict is necessarily one of research, listening, and moderation. Ignorance plagues America especially concerning “hot topics” such as the support of Israel and the Palestinian refugee problem. Not only are the narratives of these two sides unclear and probably biased at first glance but the readers themselves have different backgrounds and beliefs that influence their perception of the conflict. This same idea translates into Miranda’s metaphor of the two best friends. Like any great friend, one must know and understand the parties involved and take a neutral, unbiased, and wise stance on individual issues. Often in these relationships it is necessary to refuse to only take one side on the entire conflict but rather to look at individual issues within the conflict and determine which party is at fault on that issue.