Really?
I didn't like the NYT coverage on this story - it looks like the author is purposefully misrepresenting a genuine sense of shock and moral responsibility as being "disheartened" by Moshe Silman immolating himself. The statements the respondents in the article sounds, to me, merely that they are aware of the gravity of the situation, and how Mr. Silman's act ups the ante for the movement as a whole - I'd hardly say they are disheartened. If anything, they seem more determined.
What is far more intriguing about this article is the description of how the movement is receiving far less support from the Israeli press - in fact, many newspapers who were once their supporters are now fighting against them. The author gives a good deal of sympathy to the newspapers, and much less to the movement that once had the former's support. So much for unbiased reporting.
Article written by Isabel Kershner, and published by the New York Times.
Showing posts with label loyalty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label loyalty. Show all posts
13 July 2012
Can Hybrid Identities Work in Israel?
Service to Israel Tugs at Identity of Arab Citizens
The concept of a hybrid identity is a great idea, in my mind; why shouldn't we create new identities to simultaneously fit into the greater society while preserving our sense of self? One of the main reasons why I like living in the US or Canada; two countries where this is most possible. I've been curious regarding the possibility of similar hybrid identities existing in Israel; given that it is first and foremost a Jewish state, how do Arab Israelis exist there, except as second-class citizens?
While visiting Israel last month, and reading this NYT article today, I remember a great paper presented on the concept of hybridity and hybrid identities in Israel at the Hybridity Conference I helped organize 2 years ago, entitled "A State Without Identity: How and Why Israel Represses the Emergence of an Israeli identity". The paper's author, Dubi Kanengisser, a Ph.D. Candidate over at Political Science, gave a compelling thesis about why the Israeli government will never allow the genesis of an "Israeli" identity which exists in a hybrid state - even though doing so would be truly advantageous for the state of Israel. Mr. Kanengisser used the public service and military service programs as examples of means by which Israel could integrate Arab Israelis, but at the price of making these programs more acceptable to these citizens by dropping a lot of the references to a Jewish state.
The question regards a problem of identity, for both many Israeli Jews and the Israeli state; do they want a Jewish state, or do they want a modern state designed to protect Jews? I don't think these two concepts are incompatible, but it certainly is now, as the culture has been designed by the state thus far. "Israeli Culture" is very much a Jewish culture, with Judaism an inexorable part of that identity; it is similar, in many ways to how American culture was strongly identified with Protestant (and White) Christianity before WWII. While that aspect is still a part of American culture (Christmas trees are a great example), its significance has much less meaning today as American culture continues to become secularized and allowed for hybrid identities. I think Israel would be a much safer and longer-lasting haven for Jews if the state was allowed to truly modernize and secularize in a similar fashion - but doing so would mean downplaying the significance of Judaism, and allowing for a culture war similar to the one happening in the U.S. now.
Given the siege mentality of Israel, I don't see this happening anytime soon; cultural problems like this will be shunted aside quite easily in the name of military expediency. It is much easier to maintain cultural cohesion for the majority by appealing to the idea of resisting a war against a Jewish state. Integrating Arab Israelis could conceivably damage this notion quite severely, and I think it should; I strongly approved of the comparison made in the article between Blacks serving in the American military contributing to the Civil Rights movement, and Arab Israelis serving in the Israeli military. I think Arab Israelis are going to have to fight for their desire to have a hybrid identity, and prove it, through military service.
If the Israeli government allows for that service at all, of course.
Article written by Jodi Rudoren and published in the New York Times.
The concept of a hybrid identity is a great idea, in my mind; why shouldn't we create new identities to simultaneously fit into the greater society while preserving our sense of self? One of the main reasons why I like living in the US or Canada; two countries where this is most possible. I've been curious regarding the possibility of similar hybrid identities existing in Israel; given that it is first and foremost a Jewish state, how do Arab Israelis exist there, except as second-class citizens?
While visiting Israel last month, and reading this NYT article today, I remember a great paper presented on the concept of hybridity and hybrid identities in Israel at the Hybridity Conference I helped organize 2 years ago, entitled "A State Without Identity: How and Why Israel Represses the Emergence of an Israeli identity". The paper's author, Dubi Kanengisser, a Ph.D. Candidate over at Political Science, gave a compelling thesis about why the Israeli government will never allow the genesis of an "Israeli" identity which exists in a hybrid state - even though doing so would be truly advantageous for the state of Israel. Mr. Kanengisser used the public service and military service programs as examples of means by which Israel could integrate Arab Israelis, but at the price of making these programs more acceptable to these citizens by dropping a lot of the references to a Jewish state.
The question regards a problem of identity, for both many Israeli Jews and the Israeli state; do they want a Jewish state, or do they want a modern state designed to protect Jews? I don't think these two concepts are incompatible, but it certainly is now, as the culture has been designed by the state thus far. "Israeli Culture" is very much a Jewish culture, with Judaism an inexorable part of that identity; it is similar, in many ways to how American culture was strongly identified with Protestant (and White) Christianity before WWII. While that aspect is still a part of American culture (Christmas trees are a great example), its significance has much less meaning today as American culture continues to become secularized and allowed for hybrid identities. I think Israel would be a much safer and longer-lasting haven for Jews if the state was allowed to truly modernize and secularize in a similar fashion - but doing so would mean downplaying the significance of Judaism, and allowing for a culture war similar to the one happening in the U.S. now.
Given the siege mentality of Israel, I don't see this happening anytime soon; cultural problems like this will be shunted aside quite easily in the name of military expediency. It is much easier to maintain cultural cohesion for the majority by appealing to the idea of resisting a war against a Jewish state. Integrating Arab Israelis could conceivably damage this notion quite severely, and I think it should; I strongly approved of the comparison made in the article between Blacks serving in the American military contributing to the Civil Rights movement, and Arab Israelis serving in the Israeli military. I think Arab Israelis are going to have to fight for their desire to have a hybrid identity, and prove it, through military service.
If the Israeli government allows for that service at all, of course.
Article written by Jodi Rudoren and published in the New York Times.
Should a Scandal Invalidate a Legacy?
Findings Stun Even Paterno’s Ardent Supporters
The outcome of the investigation isn't what I'm thinking about; rather, what I am considering more is the idea, referenced often in this article, that Paterno's legacy is being actively undermined for his role in the scandal. My question is, does that legacy deserve to be brought down? It sounds like Paterno was a really good guy, a great symbol as well as a philanthropic figure. I merely find it sad that his legacy would (or maybe should?) be limited because of his role in this scandal.
I honestly don't know what to think - the vindictive part of my personality wants to see this guy pay for what he did. He knowingly covered up the sexual molestation of young boys, on what seems to be a regular basis. And it wasn't like he didn't know what was going on; this article and the other article in the NYT today makes that clear. He knowingly covered up for sexual molestation, so maybe he deserves to have his legacy torn asunder.
The other part of me argues for forgiveness, even of crimes like this. One aspect of this is a question of loyalty, and also the culture in which these men lived. We have forgotten that it used to be very common to cover up these kinds of acts, and that it wasn't part of American culture at all to report these sick crimes to the police. Further, it's obvious that Paterno felt a great degree of loyalty to Sandusky; far greater men than he have been blinded by loyalty before. Honestly, however, the idea of forgetting this crime, even in the face of his many accomplishments, sickens me.
I simply find it truly unfortunate that this scandal is going to destroy a man's legacy; everything else that he did over the course of his career is now going to be questioned or viewed through the prism of the Sandutsky scandal. And maybe it deserves to be. I would much prefer, however, a more nuanced view of a man; can we selectively salute someone's accomplishments, even in the face of their failures? We do that a lot in history - look at Andrew Jackson, or any American president, for that matter - but does that work in the present day?
Article written by Bill Pennington and Tim Rohan, published in the New York Times.
The outcome of the investigation isn't what I'm thinking about; rather, what I am considering more is the idea, referenced often in this article, that Paterno's legacy is being actively undermined for his role in the scandal. My question is, does that legacy deserve to be brought down? It sounds like Paterno was a really good guy, a great symbol as well as a philanthropic figure. I merely find it sad that his legacy would (or maybe should?) be limited because of his role in this scandal.
I honestly don't know what to think - the vindictive part of my personality wants to see this guy pay for what he did. He knowingly covered up the sexual molestation of young boys, on what seems to be a regular basis. And it wasn't like he didn't know what was going on; this article and the other article in the NYT today makes that clear. He knowingly covered up for sexual molestation, so maybe he deserves to have his legacy torn asunder.
The other part of me argues for forgiveness, even of crimes like this. One aspect of this is a question of loyalty, and also the culture in which these men lived. We have forgotten that it used to be very common to cover up these kinds of acts, and that it wasn't part of American culture at all to report these sick crimes to the police. Further, it's obvious that Paterno felt a great degree of loyalty to Sandusky; far greater men than he have been blinded by loyalty before. Honestly, however, the idea of forgetting this crime, even in the face of his many accomplishments, sickens me.
I simply find it truly unfortunate that this scandal is going to destroy a man's legacy; everything else that he did over the course of his career is now going to be questioned or viewed through the prism of the Sandutsky scandal. And maybe it deserves to be. I would much prefer, however, a more nuanced view of a man; can we selectively salute someone's accomplishments, even in the face of their failures? We do that a lot in history - look at Andrew Jackson, or any American president, for that matter - but does that work in the present day?
Article written by Bill Pennington and Tim Rohan, published in the New York Times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)