Author's Disclaimer: This post may consist of numerous stream-of-consciousness ideas, as well as disjointed premises, and conclusions. There may also be several typos and mispelled words. Please disregard them. Read at your own risk.
This post has been several days in the making. I've had a couple of experiences lately that have made me feel more "grown-up" and adult than anything in a long time. (I know, I know...I'm 28...I "am" an adult. I don't feel like one though...most of the time I still see myself as that 14 year old kid with HORRIBLE acne and very little self confidence.)
Last night at karaoke, I was sitting between two faily diverse groups of people. On my left were a couple of slightly younger friends, who were talking about the pros and cons of different drinking games. On my right, were some slightly older friends who were discussing the benefits and liabilites of the varying benefits of various insurance programs. You know which conversation interested me most? Yeah, I now know all about the family insurance plan provided by Atmost Energy. It's really good.
Monday, Bibi and I spent most of the afternoon researching America's involvement in Iraq and our history with Israel and Lebanon. It was really interesting; we also have made a concerted effort to watch the world news every night. After our research, from a number of different websites, with a number of tangential side investigations, watching the news was MUCH more interesting.
Today, and a couple of times in the past few days, quite a few people, of various ages have expressed a fairly common objection to watching the nightly news: It's so damn depressing.
That got me thinking.
Bibi and I both mentioned how watching the news represents being an adult, based on our impressions of "adult behavior" from our childhoods. (Translation: Both of our parents watched the news, and that signifies responsible adult behavior to both of us.) So, it feels good...it feels...oh, I don't know...productive to watch the news. But, here's the thing....I don't get depressed watching the news. I know, there are horribly sad and depressing things going on out there....but, well...I don't see watching the news that way. This is cheesy, but it goes back to the G.I. Joe tagline from when I was a kid..."Now you know. And KNOWING...is HALF the battle." I guess I feel like watching the news puts me in a better position to be able to...do anthing about those horrible things. You know...reading is fundamental; and "knowledge is power". That kind of a thing.
It helps me to know our history with Israel, how we've continually helped them and backed them; but it also helps me to know that Hezbollah is backed by Iran, which is another reason that our government uses to justify backing Israel. However, from teaching American History, I know that George Washington, way back in the late 1700's advised us to avoid permanent alliances with foreign powers....which is way I think it's dangerous to blindly support Israel just because we have always supports Israel. However, researching Hezbollah shows me that it is a dangerously militant organization. (It also provides medicine, food, and water to the Lebanese people, which is why the Hezbollah is gaining support--it's also why there is a growing number of countries who think that Israel's actions have been way over the top.)
Ok. So, being educated, and watching the news shows me that there are NO easy answers. That CAN be disheartening, but it doesn't have to be....healthy and lively debate and discussion is a good thing.
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
couple of points:
1) to refute your comment that george washington warns us about making "permanent allies." consider this -- what good is a friend that can't always be counted on? the us and britain have the best relationship because we've always backed each other when necessary. we have certain allies that we will always support - england, israel. this isn't to say we can't disagree with israel's policies: friends can offer constructive criticism and dispprove of each other's actions. but to maintain a good relationship, we must always be faithful.
2) we stick by israel because we have more in common with them than hezbollah. we back israel because we share similar worldviews. we approve of their form of government, economy, and way of life.
3) israel must remain strong. it is surrounded by very unstable countries -- israel is a source of stability in the volatile middle east. a more powerful israel makes a more peaceful middle east. think of it like your classroom -- if a stern teacher is in the room, kids won't act up. if you're a push-over, the kids will be more likely to act up.
obviously, middle eastern relations is MUCH MUCH more complex, but these are some items to consider.
Thank you for your comment...I think my fear is that, given the present administrations lack of a willingness to admit problems, errors, or mistakes, our government might not be so willing to stand against Israel if we think they are making a mistake.
And, as far as Israel offering stability in the region, I also find it difficult to accept that fallible, mistake-prone humans who use the idea that they are ordained by God as their reasoning for all that they do, who also use such force as we have seen in recent weeks "stabilizing." I'm a very strict teacher...I hold my students up to a very high standard. I can do this under two philosophies, however. 1) I am the authority, what I say goes. 2.) I am the teacher, and what I say goes; however, I am human, and I need to perpetually be questioning what I have been doing in order to maintain a healthy relationship with my students. I fear, although I am by no means confident about this, that Israel my lack that questioning.
hmmm. I must take exception to a few of your comments, Tommy.
1)Comparing the relationship between the US and Israel as being equivalent to the relationship between Hezbollah and Iran is simplistic and unfair.
2)To correct your statement,I think the US has been sufficiently (if wrong-headedly) critical of Israel's actions; wasn't Ms. Rice just in the Middle-East to negotiate a cease-fire? The reason its not so vehement, perhaps, is that Israel is doing the exact same thing that the US is doing in regards to fighting terrorists.
3)Since the conflict started, I haven't heard any Israelis impose the "chosen-people" defense. I have, however, seen and heard many a muslim terrorist refer to their duty to "kill the zionist infidel"
4)In so much as Hezbollah (see: terrorist presence in S. Lebanon) receives funding from an insane Theocracy (Iran), is surrounded on all sides by military threats, has continually returned land that it won during 3 wars (initiated by its neighbors), has been a pluralistic and capitalist democracy since its founding, I would say that, indeed, Israel is a model for stability in the Middle East.
4)Israel never wins a PR war, especially when the enemy has been staging and manipulating photographs, and engineering news stories to demonize Israel.
-brad.
I'm normally a confirmed lurker on your site, Tommy, trolling for book recommendations (thanks again for those, by the way!), but I have to weigh in here.
As previous posters have pointed out, there is simply no simple solution -- there is no black and white -- it's like trying to untangle a knot in a fine silver chain and learning that it's actually entwined with every other chain in the jewelry box. You cannot separate any entity in the Middle East (including, now, the United States) from a dozen others, nor can you separate the collective whole from their past.
It is not possible to call one side "right" and the other side "wrong" -- each side has done good and bad; each side has both committed atrocities and defended itself justifiably. At this point, though, I have to take large issue with the violence with which Lebanese civilians have been attacked. For Hezbollah to use civilians as a human shield against Israel is beyond reprehensible, and for Israel to take the bait is equally wrong. For the United States to stand, 100%, behind either side would be a grave mistake. I understand that the administration sees "bigger fish to fry" here in terms of long-range stability in the region, and I am glad for a group of strategists and diplomats who think about the future, and about the peace our grandchildren deserve to see. But long-range wisdom means precious little if not accompanied by short-range compassion. What good is the alleviation of future suffering if we ignore the pain of those who are at our doorstep now? Will we not have to answer for both?
I don't pretend to know what the solution is, but I believe our role as citizens is to monitor what happens, evaluate it, and raise questions as we see them. Tommy, kudos to you and Bibi for seeking to become more informed in this situation. I have been doing the same thing (motivated in large part by concern for friends' families who live in the contested area) and have felt, simultaneously, more civically responsible and incredibly saddened.
Post a Comment