History has seen the rise and fall of many large and powerful cultures. Romans, Mayans, Akkadians, none of these historic empires have lasted in much more than memory and artifacts. But their decline and eventual disappearance is often a source of intense study and speculation, since many of them don't have clear records of their declining years. However, recent evidence has shown correlations between shifts in the local climate and the disappearance of these large civilizations.
The Mayan empire existed in Central America for around 2000 years before it faded back into the mists of time. The reason? Well, that is still a matter of speculation, to some degree. However, there are some theories that are particularly prominent.
"Some believe that by the ninth century the Maya had exhausted the environment around them to the point that it could no longer sustain a very large population. Other Maya scholars argue that constant warfare among competing city-states led the complicated military, family (by marriage) and trade alliances between them to break down, along with the traditional system of dynastic power. As the stature of the holy lords diminished, their complex traditions of rituals and ceremonies dissolved into chaos. Finally, some catastrophic environmental change--like an extremely long, intense period of drought--may have wiped out the Classic Maya civilization. Drought would have hit cities like Tikal--where rainwater was necessary for drinking as well as for crop irrigation--especially hard."
If you take some additional time to look at these theories, it is easier to see that they could all be part of the same sequence of events. If we start with the drought, then that would lead to the exhaustion of agricultural supplies and means, as well as drinking water and possibly a primary means of transportation. No longer able to sustain the population that exploded with the preceding period of high rainfall and agricultural windfalls, the land began to lose potency, and the people began to suffer. This situation usually leads to civil unrest, and considering the leaders of the culture were also holy figures, they might even be seen as part of the cause of the people's misery. This would lead to the breakdown of government and trade alliances, as people stop listening to distant authorities, and start keeping supplies that might have been previously sent to the capital. As you can see, these possible causes don't have to be mutually exclusive, and in fact become more plausible when combined. This particular series of events has seen increased scientific evidence to its viability as well, with the time of the drought correlating with the time frame of the Mayan civilization's decline. As this hopefully demonstrates, a shift in the climate patterns can have a sudden and drastic impact on a society, to the point that it collapses.
Another example of such shifts in climate causing a societal collapse is the Indus (or Harappan) civilization that was established in the area of modern day "Pakistan, northwestern India and eastern Afghanistan." However, climate shifts also contributed to the establishment of the civilization, since the region was formerly inhospitable due to extreme weather and flooding that was strong enough to sweep away what people would try to build. However, as the monsoons responsible for this extreme weather became more gentle over the years, the flooding became gentle enough that it became an integral part of the farming process in the region. However, this process continued instead of halting in this "Goldilocks status," and since the river that supplied and nourished the region was apparently only fed by rain, with no large body source, the decline in rainfall also meant a decline in available water. In this case, as the river dried up, many people moved to other regions. Some were able to continue farming, since the rains still came, they just would not have been able to produce enough food to feed the city populations that had peaked during the prosperous period of the civilization's history. In this case, the fall of the civilization was a matter of time and circumstance. Unfortunately, without much cause to notice the gradual (oh so very gradual!) change in the weather patterns over the years, and no records to provide a warning (writing was developed during its time, but not from the start), the civilization was doomed to fall as the climate continued its drying trend. So, it becomes difficult to blame the fall of the civilization on their lack of foresight, when they didn't have much hindsight either. Besides, the society lasted for around 2000 years, which would probably span hundreds of generations of people, who didn't have any reason not to take advantage of such a pleasant, fertile region. At least their activities (supposedly) didn't contribute to the climate shift, since it was already part of an established trend.
Which brings up my last point- if a society can collapse due to climate shifts that are already occurring due to shifts in global temperature currents and the like, what will happen when something like this happens on a global scale? Unlike the Harrappans, we won't have anywhere to go if we are managing to afflict the climate processes of entire regions of the globe. We have already seen some of the warning signs of radical changes in the weather- the drought over the summer, Hurricane Sandy's impact on a region that normally doesn't see such violent weather, and generally rising temperatures. Unlike the civilizations of the past, we can tell what is driving the shifts in the climate now- heck, we can even identify contributing factors to their climate shifts. The question is, will we do anything about it, to prevent a permanent shift in global habitability, or will we simply continue along our current path of self destruction?
Extra links:
Roman Empire studies
http://www.groundwatergo.com/blog/the-top-5-ancient-civilizations-destroyed-by-climate-change/
Decline of Akkadian Empire at start of 300 year long dry spell
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Reducing Biofuel Conflict
Something that usually pops into my head whenever I hear people expressing concern on the issue of food supplies being put at risk by biofuel production is that that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Yes, one of the best ways to get high yields of biofuels from a process is to use the part of the plant that actually produces food (such as using corn kernels in fermentation for ethanol). And sure, there is a risk of land that would have been used for food being used to grow biofuel crops. But this issue isn't so much a matter of one or the other as such arguments seem to believe. Biofuels can be produced from a wide variety of sources, which often includes by-products of food production, meaning that both food and fuel can be produced from a single harvest instead of having to be selective about which one should be given precedence.
A good example of how biofuels and food can be produced at the same time, instead of competitively, is corn. While the kernels are almost ubiquitous in our diet now, running from direct ingestion of corn to its use as feed for meat animals, a large portion of the corn plant doesn't get eaten- or used for other applications, for that matter. The stalk, the leaves, the corn silk, and the cob that the kernels are attached to are not able to be digested by the human system, or various other biological systems, due to the cellulose content (which, for that matter, the kernels have a fair amount as well). Cellulose, commonly known as plant fiber, is what makes up a majority of the mass of plants, and has recently been subject to R&D to make it economically viable for a biofuel feedstock. The reason it was not already used as such (no, not lack of foresight) was the fact that cellulose is difficult to break down in general. It is only with recent developments in enzymatic chemistry that such production is able to begin on a large scale- in fact, this article from a few days ago is about the first biocrude startup to successfully begin large scale production "at scale, at parity", and apparently to the great surprise of skeptics since it was done on time, at scale, and within budget. This plant seems to specialize in wood biomass, but I wouldn't be surprised if it could process other sources of cellulose as well.
Another aspect of non-conflict is the fact that many plants have been found that can be used for biofuel production that can be planted on marginal or non-arable land. This type of terrain includes nutrient-poor and dry soils, as well as muddy grounds that are difficult to plant and cultivate, and areas with a troublesome hardpan layer. Some plants are even capable of changing the conditions of the land to make it easier for other plants to grow, such as the wild radish, which is able to break up hardpan layers beneath the topsoil. “The crop matures in 80 days from planting, is cold-tolerant and can be grown without interfering with normal crop rotations... It’s not an earth-shattering oilseed crop. It produces no meal but can be viewed as an organic fertilizer.” It is also able to provide forage for wild animals that might otherwise consume more important crops. This combination of passive utilitarian aspects and an extra use as an oil crop makes it seem very useful and important to my perspective. There is also the plant known as "jatropha, a tropical plant that is resistant to drought and pests and produces seeds containing up to 40 percent oil. 'It can’t take a bad freeze and needs dry roots,' Breitenbeck said. 'But it produces seed in about two years.'" This plant seems to me like something that could be used to try and reverse desertification. While I have no doubt that it would be a slow process, if it could at least halt the advance of the process, it could prove invaluable to the long term survival of certain environments that are at risk of becoming arid wastelands. And if it can help with the fuel problem in the process, than it seems capable of killing two birds with one stone.
I was mentioning in my last post a company called Bluefire, which takes waste streams from dumps and is able to produce fuel sources from them, such as methane given off by decomposition of organic waste in dumps and sources of cellulose that can be converted to biofuels. But there are more ways that waste products can be used. I already mentioned the use of corn stover (the usually unused parts) for cellulose, but there are other waste streams that can be used. For example, soy oil was originally a byproduct of making meal from the soybeans, but with the advent of biofuels, "as demand changed, the oil became the primary product and meal became secondary." The oil could be used to make biodiesel with an esterification of lipids, which are present in many plants and animals. While may seem rather morbid, cast off quantities of fats from animal sources are viable sources of stock for the production of biodiesel.
I'm sure that there are other ways that various waste streams could be used as well. But ultimately, I guess the lesson that should be taken from this is one that was a way of life in the past. The native tribes of North America all followed this practice, and we should probably try to find a way to incorporate it into our lives again, from individuals to companies (practically, of course). That is the practice of using all parts of something that has to be killed to provide for our needs. While I am sure that this becomes harder to do as it gets applied at a larger scale, if we can find a way to make it a point during production, it would probably help solve a variety of our problems, besides just alleviating streams of waste.
A good example of how biofuels and food can be produced at the same time, instead of competitively, is corn. While the kernels are almost ubiquitous in our diet now, running from direct ingestion of corn to its use as feed for meat animals, a large portion of the corn plant doesn't get eaten- or used for other applications, for that matter. The stalk, the leaves, the corn silk, and the cob that the kernels are attached to are not able to be digested by the human system, or various other biological systems, due to the cellulose content (which, for that matter, the kernels have a fair amount as well). Cellulose, commonly known as plant fiber, is what makes up a majority of the mass of plants, and has recently been subject to R&D to make it economically viable for a biofuel feedstock. The reason it was not already used as such (no, not lack of foresight) was the fact that cellulose is difficult to break down in general. It is only with recent developments in enzymatic chemistry that such production is able to begin on a large scale- in fact, this article from a few days ago is about the first biocrude startup to successfully begin large scale production "at scale, at parity", and apparently to the great surprise of skeptics since it was done on time, at scale, and within budget. This plant seems to specialize in wood biomass, but I wouldn't be surprised if it could process other sources of cellulose as well.
Another aspect of non-conflict is the fact that many plants have been found that can be used for biofuel production that can be planted on marginal or non-arable land. This type of terrain includes nutrient-poor and dry soils, as well as muddy grounds that are difficult to plant and cultivate, and areas with a troublesome hardpan layer. Some plants are even capable of changing the conditions of the land to make it easier for other plants to grow, such as the wild radish, which is able to break up hardpan layers beneath the topsoil. “The crop matures in 80 days from planting, is cold-tolerant and can be grown without interfering with normal crop rotations... It’s not an earth-shattering oilseed crop. It produces no meal but can be viewed as an organic fertilizer.” It is also able to provide forage for wild animals that might otherwise consume more important crops. This combination of passive utilitarian aspects and an extra use as an oil crop makes it seem very useful and important to my perspective. There is also the plant known as "jatropha, a tropical plant that is resistant to drought and pests and produces seeds containing up to 40 percent oil. 'It can’t take a bad freeze and needs dry roots,' Breitenbeck said. 'But it produces seed in about two years.'" This plant seems to me like something that could be used to try and reverse desertification. While I have no doubt that it would be a slow process, if it could at least halt the advance of the process, it could prove invaluable to the long term survival of certain environments that are at risk of becoming arid wastelands. And if it can help with the fuel problem in the process, than it seems capable of killing two birds with one stone.
I was mentioning in my last post a company called Bluefire, which takes waste streams from dumps and is able to produce fuel sources from them, such as methane given off by decomposition of organic waste in dumps and sources of cellulose that can be converted to biofuels. But there are more ways that waste products can be used. I already mentioned the use of corn stover (the usually unused parts) for cellulose, but there are other waste streams that can be used. For example, soy oil was originally a byproduct of making meal from the soybeans, but with the advent of biofuels, "as demand changed, the oil became the primary product and meal became secondary." The oil could be used to make biodiesel with an esterification of lipids, which are present in many plants and animals. While may seem rather morbid, cast off quantities of fats from animal sources are viable sources of stock for the production of biodiesel.
I'm sure that there are other ways that various waste streams could be used as well. But ultimately, I guess the lesson that should be taken from this is one that was a way of life in the past. The native tribes of North America all followed this practice, and we should probably try to find a way to incorporate it into our lives again, from individuals to companies (practically, of course). That is the practice of using all parts of something that has to be killed to provide for our needs. While I am sure that this becomes harder to do as it gets applied at a larger scale, if we can find a way to make it a point during production, it would probably help solve a variety of our problems, besides just alleviating streams of waste.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Jamming Cultural Frequencies
Culture jamming is an interesting phenomenon. It's a way to challenge how the public views the world as it is, a way to challenge the status quo. By definition, it is "a tactic used by many anti-consumerist social movement to disrupt or subvert media culture and its mainstream cultural institutions, including corporate advertising." I am inclined to believe that this definition could be easily broadened to include hoaxes that are intended to challenge cultural norms and trends. The term is somewhat derived from the term "radio jamming," which is when radio frequencies get taken over or scrambled by a third party between the broadcaster and the recipient. The difference is that culture jamming is typically a way to share a message, usually counter to the original message in a way that the consumer might not be able to tell the difference. It most often works through the same mediums as the messages they are trying to challenge, though often in a way that doesn't get noticed at first.
An organized example of this is the Billboard Liberation Front. While some of their "improvements" to signs are small enough that they might not get noticed at first, they significantly change the message that a sign is trying to convey. An interesting example I noticed on their front page was a neon sign advertising Camel cigarettes having certain sections blacked out and a modified portion to make it read "Am I Dead Yet?" Being organized online, and with their members largely secret, they work in a guerrilla fashion to improve the advertisements of their "clients" in such a way that they "unlock" messages that would have otherwise been "hidden" in the advertisements. To look at it a bit more objectively, they seem to have a strange sort of tongue-in-cheek humor in their approach to changing advertisements, with a manifesto that tells of the Advertisement as a ubiquitous idea permeating our consciousness to a subliminal level, and affecting out views of the world and ourselves... okay, that's actually the case, but they say it in an almost awe-inspired way. The last part of the manifesto states: "Each time you change the Advertising message in your own mind, whether you climb up onto the board and physically change the original copy and graphics or not, each time you improve the message, you enter in to the High Priesthood of Advertisers." They don't necessarily say that one has to physically change the sign- just that it is best to view it in such a way that you are capable of seeing through the veil, and not being suckered in by what they are trying to say, and to not view it with the eyes of a "consumer," but as an independent mind capable of using it to share their thoughts, or spread a message that is typically counter to the initial Advertisement.
Media hoaxes are also an example of culture jamming, though they may often focus on how people act and work to try and change how people are approaching their lives and interpersonal reactions, as compared to focusing on the media outlets and corporations. A legacy example of this type of culture jamming is a man by the name of Alan Abel. In 1958, he started with a campaign called "The Society for Indecency to Naked Animals," or S.I.N.A. for short. He successfully managed to keep the hoax going for 5 years before Time magazine blew the whistle on the campaign, which was run on about $20 a week, with a fake office that was a broom closet with a plaque on the door. The hoax itself was a commentary on censorship, poking fun at the type of people who would ban and burn books and records for "moral" reasons. The campaign was run very successfully with a small group and most of its public appearances being enabled by the news media, which had various "members" of the group come on to talk about the campaign, as well as interviews with the "president," G. Clifford Prout (really a comedian friend of Abel's named Buck Henry) on major news outlets. The hoax captured the public in a way that is hard to describe- people actually joined newsletters and sent in donations (One woman from Santa Barbara, CA actually sent in a check for $40,000!) to support the "cause." The money that people sent in was returned, but anyone who didn't see the initial outing of the hoax was continuously duped for a few more years through the newsletter. It was a very elaborate prank at times, too: there was apparently a song for the group, that was performed a capella on a show, as well as a coat of arms. While it doesn't seem that the public reaction to the reveal of the hoax was ever really recorded, I would hope that those who learned about it after supporting it had a moment where they really thought about what it was they had been trying to support, instead of simply becoming angry. But then again, the type of people who would send in money for such a cause probably aren't open-minded enough to have a reaction besides anger. Abel has continued to pull various media pranks over the last 50 years or so, with the goal of giving people a swift "kick in the intellect." His work has probably had mixed results over the years, but there is one thing that is certain: the man is dedicated, and very good at this particular form of social commentary.
So, whether it be by hijacking the advertisements of the corporations, or trying to make people think at least a little bit harder about the way that society treats certain actions, or about how information is being presented to them, there are people out there who are working to subvert the monopoly on the public mind that various powers-that-be have on the populace. And I am inclined to say: best of luck. People need all the help they can get on that front.
Extra Links:
http://www.adbusters.org/
Hoax saying the Alberta tar sands would be a setting for Mordor in "The Hobbit"
http://depts.washington.edu/ccce/polcommcampaigns/CultureJamming.htm Excellent article, with even more links
Recounting of an interesting request for customized Nikes
An interview with Alan Abel
http://theyesmen.org/ A particularly famous Culture Jamming group
An organized example of this is the Billboard Liberation Front. While some of their "improvements" to signs are small enough that they might not get noticed at first, they significantly change the message that a sign is trying to convey. An interesting example I noticed on their front page was a neon sign advertising Camel cigarettes having certain sections blacked out and a modified portion to make it read "Am I Dead Yet?" Being organized online, and with their members largely secret, they work in a guerrilla fashion to improve the advertisements of their "clients" in such a way that they "unlock" messages that would have otherwise been "hidden" in the advertisements. To look at it a bit more objectively, they seem to have a strange sort of tongue-in-cheek humor in their approach to changing advertisements, with a manifesto that tells of the Advertisement as a ubiquitous idea permeating our consciousness to a subliminal level, and affecting out views of the world and ourselves... okay, that's actually the case, but they say it in an almost awe-inspired way. The last part of the manifesto states: "Each time you change the Advertising message in your own mind, whether you climb up onto the board and physically change the original copy and graphics or not, each time you improve the message, you enter in to the High Priesthood of Advertisers." They don't necessarily say that one has to physically change the sign- just that it is best to view it in such a way that you are capable of seeing through the veil, and not being suckered in by what they are trying to say, and to not view it with the eyes of a "consumer," but as an independent mind capable of using it to share their thoughts, or spread a message that is typically counter to the initial Advertisement.
Media hoaxes are also an example of culture jamming, though they may often focus on how people act and work to try and change how people are approaching their lives and interpersonal reactions, as compared to focusing on the media outlets and corporations. A legacy example of this type of culture jamming is a man by the name of Alan Abel. In 1958, he started with a campaign called "The Society for Indecency to Naked Animals," or S.I.N.A. for short. He successfully managed to keep the hoax going for 5 years before Time magazine blew the whistle on the campaign, which was run on about $20 a week, with a fake office that was a broom closet with a plaque on the door. The hoax itself was a commentary on censorship, poking fun at the type of people who would ban and burn books and records for "moral" reasons. The campaign was run very successfully with a small group and most of its public appearances being enabled by the news media, which had various "members" of the group come on to talk about the campaign, as well as interviews with the "president," G. Clifford Prout (really a comedian friend of Abel's named Buck Henry) on major news outlets. The hoax captured the public in a way that is hard to describe- people actually joined newsletters and sent in donations (One woman from Santa Barbara, CA actually sent in a check for $40,000!) to support the "cause." The money that people sent in was returned, but anyone who didn't see the initial outing of the hoax was continuously duped for a few more years through the newsletter. It was a very elaborate prank at times, too: there was apparently a song for the group, that was performed a capella on a show, as well as a coat of arms. While it doesn't seem that the public reaction to the reveal of the hoax was ever really recorded, I would hope that those who learned about it after supporting it had a moment where they really thought about what it was they had been trying to support, instead of simply becoming angry. But then again, the type of people who would send in money for such a cause probably aren't open-minded enough to have a reaction besides anger. Abel has continued to pull various media pranks over the last 50 years or so, with the goal of giving people a swift "kick in the intellect." His work has probably had mixed results over the years, but there is one thing that is certain: the man is dedicated, and very good at this particular form of social commentary.
So, whether it be by hijacking the advertisements of the corporations, or trying to make people think at least a little bit harder about the way that society treats certain actions, or about how information is being presented to them, there are people out there who are working to subvert the monopoly on the public mind that various powers-that-be have on the populace. And I am inclined to say: best of luck. People need all the help they can get on that front.
Extra Links:
http://www.adbusters.org/
Hoax saying the Alberta tar sands would be a setting for Mordor in "The Hobbit"
http://depts.washington.edu/ccce/polcommcampaigns/CultureJamming.htm Excellent article, with even more links
Recounting of an interesting request for customized Nikes
An interview with Alan Abel
http://theyesmen.org/ A particularly famous Culture Jamming group
Monday, September 17, 2012
So what is the deal with Israel?
I'll forward this post by saying that I had never really looked that much into Israel and it's history, as well as that of the rest of Palestine. I did know that it was established to some degree after one of the world wars, and that it was smack-dab in the middle of a largely Muslim region, in an area considered holy by Muslims, Jews, and Christians. After some further research that wasn't truly extensive, I now have a better idea about the inception of the country and the conflict surrounding it then and now.
I can understand some of the conflict, since the former minority of the Palestinian region moved in people from other regions of the world as they were escaping other kinds of persecution, to the point that they became the majority. I suppose being able to have their own armed forces under the control of the religiously minded may have been part of the appeal, besides living in the land of people they were related to... very distantly. But so many Jews came to live in Palestine that they displaced many of the people who originally lived there due to religious tension, instead of being able to coexist. Due to the Arab/Israeli conflict in 1948, refugees of both Jewish and Palestinian descent fled the country. After the conflict had ended, the refugees of Palestinian descent were disallowed from being able to come back and claim any of their property. However, this policy was also extended to Palestinians who had not fled, with the introduction of a citizenship status called "present absentee," basically making it so that if a Palestinian left their home, they were considered absent, and their property could be seized and reappropriated for the immigrant populations. Arabs were not barred from moving into Israel, but those returning would be unable to claim their previous holdings. However, it would seem that Jews were somehow exempted from this change in status, thus adding to the tension and feelings of mistreatment in Palestinian minds, and giving fuel to fires of war brewing in other countries.
So far, we have a colony of Jews who had decided they wanted a country for their own religion (guess they thought since there are predominantly Christian and Muslim countries, they wanted one too) and moved into the old promised land of their forefathers to set it up. They pushed out a large population with a similar claim but conflicting... ideals, customs... whatever the religiously minded like to fight over when they meet someone different. But they didn't do it themselves. A large part of the events leading up to the migration to Israel were the result of a movement known as "Zionism." To briefly describe it, it's pretty much jingoism if it had a religion instead of a nation in mind, until a nation was included for them to go on about. They did have a certain amount of vindication for the movement, considering the ethnic cleansing taking place in various countries even before WWI, but they took an angle that expelled another culture from an area with closer ancestral and definite personal ties to the land.
A large part of the issue stems from the fact that they were taking in more Jewish immigrants than they were legally supposed to shortly before the Mandate of Palestine was terminated. However, at that time, Great Britain was in control of the region, and trying to establish the grounds for the self-governance of the region after their planned termination of the mandate proved to be one of the largest problems, since the Arabs seemed adamant about not cooperating with the Jews about... well, anything. The first paragraph on page 6 (you can check via the link) has a bit about how the Arabs viewed the Jews;
"Arab leaders refused this offer [For an Arab Agency, to act along with the Jewish Agency] on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people, adding that they had never recognized the status of the Jewish Agency and had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis."
So, they rejected the offer because the Jews already had one, basically. The comparison of these two factions acting like squabbling children comes to mind again...
Shortly before the Mandate terminated, the Arab Higher Committee instigated attacks against "Jewish targets." While the Jews were initially on the defense, they were able to push back and break the coalition, which led to the first wave of Palestinian refugees. The night before the Mandate terminated, the Jewish Agency declared the establishment of the State of Israel, which at the time (and to a certain degree, now) didn't have particularly clear borders. The next day, they were attacked by a coalition of four Islamic states, to last for about a year before a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders were drawn. Since then, there have been regular covert attacks and overt raids into and from Israel, as well as ten more full-scale conflicts.These have only served to maintain hostility levels, though, as very few of the conflicts actually led to anything changing, and most of the time conquered lands were returned. A productive series of events, wouldn't you say?
So, after all of this, I do feel like I have a certain level of knowledge about the conflict surrounding Israel. While I don't have a particular feeling about who is in the right or wrong on the matter, the one thing that I do find strongly disappointing is the way that Israel is treating the Palestinian issue, especially given some ideas mentioned about possible common lineage in the link about "clear borders." Overall, I just think it's a shame that neither side is willing to relent on their dislike (or full-on hate, as the case may be) of the other, and that due to their history they are so scared of what the other side is planning to do to them. There needs to be a day when people realize if they stop caring about where someone is from, you can come to like them, or at least come to hate them for a more legitimate reason than before.
I suppose a moral can be taken from this: Take your personal meetings on a case by case basis, and you may find that denominations are less effective ways to judge a person than personal interactions. Saves a lot of time and effort that would have been spent on scheming and counter-scheming.
I can understand some of the conflict, since the former minority of the Palestinian region moved in people from other regions of the world as they were escaping other kinds of persecution, to the point that they became the majority. I suppose being able to have their own armed forces under the control of the religiously minded may have been part of the appeal, besides living in the land of people they were related to... very distantly. But so many Jews came to live in Palestine that they displaced many of the people who originally lived there due to religious tension, instead of being able to coexist. Due to the Arab/Israeli conflict in 1948, refugees of both Jewish and Palestinian descent fled the country. After the conflict had ended, the refugees of Palestinian descent were disallowed from being able to come back and claim any of their property. However, this policy was also extended to Palestinians who had not fled, with the introduction of a citizenship status called "present absentee," basically making it so that if a Palestinian left their home, they were considered absent, and their property could be seized and reappropriated for the immigrant populations. Arabs were not barred from moving into Israel, but those returning would be unable to claim their previous holdings. However, it would seem that Jews were somehow exempted from this change in status, thus adding to the tension and feelings of mistreatment in Palestinian minds, and giving fuel to fires of war brewing in other countries.
So far, we have a colony of Jews who had decided they wanted a country for their own religion (guess they thought since there are predominantly Christian and Muslim countries, they wanted one too) and moved into the old promised land of their forefathers to set it up. They pushed out a large population with a similar claim but conflicting... ideals, customs... whatever the religiously minded like to fight over when they meet someone different. But they didn't do it themselves. A large part of the events leading up to the migration to Israel were the result of a movement known as "Zionism." To briefly describe it, it's pretty much jingoism if it had a religion instead of a nation in mind, until a nation was included for them to go on about. They did have a certain amount of vindication for the movement, considering the ethnic cleansing taking place in various countries even before WWI, but they took an angle that expelled another culture from an area with closer ancestral and definite personal ties to the land.
A large part of the issue stems from the fact that they were taking in more Jewish immigrants than they were legally supposed to shortly before the Mandate of Palestine was terminated. However, at that time, Great Britain was in control of the region, and trying to establish the grounds for the self-governance of the region after their planned termination of the mandate proved to be one of the largest problems, since the Arabs seemed adamant about not cooperating with the Jews about... well, anything. The first paragraph on page 6 (you can check via the link) has a bit about how the Arabs viewed the Jews;
"Arab leaders refused this offer [For an Arab Agency, to act along with the Jewish Agency] on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people, adding that they had never recognized the status of the Jewish Agency and had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis."
So, they rejected the offer because the Jews already had one, basically. The comparison of these two factions acting like squabbling children comes to mind again...
Shortly before the Mandate terminated, the Arab Higher Committee instigated attacks against "Jewish targets." While the Jews were initially on the defense, they were able to push back and break the coalition, which led to the first wave of Palestinian refugees. The night before the Mandate terminated, the Jewish Agency declared the establishment of the State of Israel, which at the time (and to a certain degree, now) didn't have particularly clear borders. The next day, they were attacked by a coalition of four Islamic states, to last for about a year before a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders were drawn. Since then, there have been regular covert attacks and overt raids into and from Israel, as well as ten more full-scale conflicts.These have only served to maintain hostility levels, though, as very few of the conflicts actually led to anything changing, and most of the time conquered lands were returned. A productive series of events, wouldn't you say?
So, after all of this, I do feel like I have a certain level of knowledge about the conflict surrounding Israel. While I don't have a particular feeling about who is in the right or wrong on the matter, the one thing that I do find strongly disappointing is the way that Israel is treating the Palestinian issue, especially given some ideas mentioned about possible common lineage in the link about "clear borders." Overall, I just think it's a shame that neither side is willing to relent on their dislike (or full-on hate, as the case may be) of the other, and that due to their history they are so scared of what the other side is planning to do to them. There needs to be a day when people realize if they stop caring about where someone is from, you can come to like them, or at least come to hate them for a more legitimate reason than before.
I suppose a moral can be taken from this: Take your personal meetings on a case by case basis, and you may find that denominations are less effective ways to judge a person than personal interactions. Saves a lot of time and effort that would have been spent on scheming and counter-scheming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)