* Can history provide a guide to understanding contemporary affairs? Can it provide a guide to the future? What might be “the lessons of history” for future generations?
History can provide a guide to understanding contemporary affairs. Knowing what happened in the past and why it happened can give insight into what is happening today, given the context of the original situation compared to those today. History can also provide a guide to the future but only to the extent to which we as people can predict it. It can give some insight but there will never be complete certainty as to what will happen in the future. "The lessons of history" for future generations might be to make similar decisions to ones which worked, and to not make the same mistakes as the past.
IRL 20 ( http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Balfour%20Declaration%20and%20its%20consequences.html) discusses the implications of the Balfour Declaration, its anbiguity in its message and the problems that this caused for Palestine, the Jews, the Arabs, and the British. The Balfour Declaration was the first instance of western support for a Jewish national home in Palestine, where the British stated that they supported a Jewish home in Palestine. However the British had also promised the Arabs independence, since they had helped them to fight against their Turkish rulers previously. The ambiguity of the Balfour Declaration, which stated that the British supported a Jewish national home in Palestine, did not state anything about what would happen to the Arabs, and was interpreted by the Jews as a sign of support in the case that they reestablished themselves in their ancient homeland, while the Arabs were certain the British would not allow the Jews to take over their country. This was the beginning of a conflict which can provide insight into the issues going on in the Middle East today - the Arabs believe that their interests were not taken into consideration and that their land was given over to the Jews, who did not rightfully belong there. The Jews believe they finally made it back to their rightful homeland, and this conflict extends back to the Balfour Declaration, when the two groups first started to have increased contact with one another. The lesson that can be learned from this is that ambiguous statements should not be made when regarding issues that pertain to two groups, as each will interpret it however they want and act on it, causing conflict. In addition, this issue shows clearly how one group reacts when another comes into their land and takes it over increasingly with time, showing the hostility and intense conflict, as well as issues of nationalism that result.
IRL 16 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155171.html) discusses a more recent issue, where the Israelis had approved the building of 1,600 new homes in a traditionally Arab/Muslim section of the city. This can be easily compared to past events, such as the invasion and massacre at Deir Yassin, where the Jews moved into an area that was not their own settlement and tried to force out the original group, making their presence there more stable. While there is no violence involved here (this is building new homes), it can be seen that historically and presently, the Jews in Palestine (today Israel) try to expand the area in which they occupy, especially extending into Muslim/Arab areas and switching them over. Looking at past events such as the Deir Yassin invasion, it should have been apparent that the Jews tend to not accept the amount of land they occupy and try to expand. The issue with this is that it does not take into consideration the wishes of the Arabs, or the agreements that were set as to who occupies what land, and this can be seen as a persistent issue that may continue into the future, assuming that these new homes are successfully built and purchased by Jewish people. The lesson that can be learned here is that when something is done successfully in the past, something similar (though in this situation to a MUCH lesser and less harmful extent) can also be carried out successfully, particularly if it is to a lesser extent.
While one can see the correlation between past and present, it is not always obvious, but looking more carefully into situations from both times can often show many similarities, with lessons to be learned from the past. As they say, the past does tend to repeat itself, and old issues often fuel present issues, assuming that the old issues were never solved, and issues relating to the Arab-Israeli crisis, overall, have never been "solved". Solutions have been attempted to be reached, but there has not yet been a solution that works for both sides. Anyone who knows about the history of modern Israel can see that situations similar to this (promising one group of people land on another peoples' land) is not a good idea and only leads to conflicts, and I sincerely hope that nothing like this ever happens again, given the number of reprocussions it has had in the Middle East today. I hope that people can see this as well, and know not to make the same mistakes in the future when it comes to land ownership.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
IRl 23, June 7, 2010.
URL; http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_diryassin.php
This is a very interesting perspective of the Deir Yassin massacre. This article has a definite pro-Jewish slant, which is very evident in the wording.
- "Dir Yassin was certainly not a massacre of a peaceful village, but rather was an Arab-Jewish battle with unfortunate civilian casualties."
The generally accepted viewpoint tends to be that the Jewish were trying to gain as much land as they could by taking over Arab towns, before the UN was to partition Palestine, so that the land held by the Jews would be significantly greater. This article would have one believe that Deir Yassin was attacked due to the actions of the villagers themselves, before the massacre even took place. For instance, this is also stated;
"Dir Yassin was a reasonable military target for Jewish forces, there was warning given before the battle, a fierce battle was fought with casualties on both sides. No massacre, no mutiliations, no atrocities."
This approaches the issue from the viewpoint that there were no atrocities from the Jews, contrary to the common viewpoint that the Jews attacked an innocent village.
Another example of a pro-Israeli slant here is;
"The use of the loudsepaker to warn the civilians to evacuate is a key point, certainly not the action of soldiers planning to murder the population"
The significance of this information to what we are studying in class is that it is a clear and concise example of how the same event can be told from two different perspectives. There is one point of view that the Jews viciously attacked an innocent village, and then there is the point of view expressed here, that the Jews gave advanced warning of what they were going to do and that it wasn't even a massacre, which can be determined from the article in that the word massacre is often put in quotation marks, showing that the writer did not consider it to be a true massacre and is mocking the notion that it was. The main limitation is that this article is definitely slanted toward pro-Jewish viewpoints, and therefore is not an accurate resource in itself for one who wants a balanced view of the Deir Yassin massacre.
This is a very interesting perspective of the Deir Yassin massacre. This article has a definite pro-Jewish slant, which is very evident in the wording.
- "Dir Yassin was certainly not a massacre of a peaceful village, but rather was an Arab-Jewish battle with unfortunate civilian casualties."
The generally accepted viewpoint tends to be that the Jewish were trying to gain as much land as they could by taking over Arab towns, before the UN was to partition Palestine, so that the land held by the Jews would be significantly greater. This article would have one believe that Deir Yassin was attacked due to the actions of the villagers themselves, before the massacre even took place. For instance, this is also stated;
"Dir Yassin was a reasonable military target for Jewish forces, there was warning given before the battle, a fierce battle was fought with casualties on both sides. No massacre, no mutiliations, no atrocities."
This approaches the issue from the viewpoint that there were no atrocities from the Jews, contrary to the common viewpoint that the Jews attacked an innocent village.
Another example of a pro-Israeli slant here is;
"The use of the loudsepaker to warn the civilians to evacuate is a key point, certainly not the action of soldiers planning to murder the population"
The significance of this information to what we are studying in class is that it is a clear and concise example of how the same event can be told from two different perspectives. There is one point of view that the Jews viciously attacked an innocent village, and then there is the point of view expressed here, that the Jews gave advanced warning of what they were going to do and that it wasn't even a massacre, which can be determined from the article in that the word massacre is often put in quotation marks, showing that the writer did not consider it to be a true massacre and is mocking the notion that it was. The main limitation is that this article is definitely slanted toward pro-Jewish viewpoints, and therefore is not an accurate resource in itself for one who wants a balanced view of the Deir Yassin massacre.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)