Reading Response Paper #3--"We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families"

The Hutus and the Tutsis are the two major tribes that live in Rwanda. The tribes have been engaged in a continuous battle over the years, with each one, at times, having the upper hand. The tension between the Hutus and the Tutsis is historical, with the presence of a mutual disrespect for the other tribe, and a battle for social dominance ever present. The tension between the tribes grew and intensified over the years, eventually bringing about a violent and bloody genocide. The historical conflict between the Hutus and the Tutsis is hard to exact, as it has been passed down orally through the generations, but it is an accepted fact that both tribes were immigrants to Rwanda. The Tutsis, who originate from the Nile Region—probably Ethiopia—moved in from the East and North. The Hutus came from the Bantu family and were the first of the two tribes to come to Rwanda. The difference in where these peoples came from, globally, lends to a significant difference in their physical appearances, with the Tutsis typically being tall and gangly, with slim faces, and the Hutus possessing the complete opposite characteristics, being known as short, dark colored, round faced people with big lips. Throughout the years, however, a generation of mixed race has emerged—children who have one Hutu and one Tutsi parent—have made it difficult to distinguish between the tribes. This generation emerged as a result of one-time friendly relations between the tribes. These good relations can be attributed to the fact that they were able to speak the same language and share land, leaders and mutual enemies against whom they could unite. This mixed race that has emerged from the inter-relations of the two tribes makes it difficult to label the Hutus or the Tutsis as a distinct ethnic group. Their respective gene pools have been so intertwined that their distinctions no longer set them apart as separate ethnicities. The harmony between the tribes gradually evaporated, as the Tutsis attained greater status than the Hutus in public social spheres and distanced themselves from the Hutu people. The Hutus were modest famers, while the Tutsis raised cattle (a far more glamorous profession). In 1860 when King Mwami Kigeri Rwabuiri, a Tutsi, gained power, he brought immense wealth and political strength to his people. After his death in 1894, Germany assumed control of the country and, knowing very little about Rwandan culture or societal structure, embraced the pre-existing structure of the country, rather than trying to overhaul it. This only added to the upper hand the Tutsis already had on the situation, because of the German reinforcement of their position. At the end of World War I, authority over the German colony of Rwanda was transferred to Belgium, and the new ruler made life even harder for the Hutus. Tutsis could pretty much make Hutus their slaves, and had the authority to tax them as well. Hutu disdain toward the Tutsis intensified—turning to hatred and the Tutsi mindset that looked down on the Hutus intensified as well, creating a crash course bound to end in fighting. This situation can’t really be looked on as a caste system, as there was a significant degree of social mobility, until Rwanda lost its autonomy to Germany and then Belgium. The distinction between the two groups has definitely changed a lot over time. In today’s terms, it has become more of a distinction of origin and social status, as well as one of political rights and restrictions, than race or ethnicity.

Synagogue Encouraging West Bank Settlement of Jews Draws Protesters; Gets National News Coverage

The New York Times Monday, February 26, 2007 "Seeking New Israeli Settlers, Synagogue Draws Protesters" By: Trymaine Lee

A real estate fair in Teaneck, New Jersey, sponsored, in part, by Bnai Yeshurun synagogue, that encouraged Americans to buy homes in the West Bank prompted protests, while Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, of the Bnai Yeshurun synagogue, called it a success. The fair aimed to get American Jews to buy and possibly occupy moderately priced homes in the West Bank's Jewish settlements. Homes that were bought, but whose buyers did not want to live in them would be returned to Jewish settlers of the area. Pruzansky considers the act "fulfilling a biblical commandment"--the commandment for Jews to settle in the land of Israel.
Still though, part of the 2003 "road map" to peace (drawn up by the US, UN, EU and Russia) to which Israel agreed stated that Israel would halt all settlement growth in the West Bank, and that in return, Palestinians would disarm militant groups there. Not un-historically, however, the plan stalled shortly after its introduction. The US sees Jewish settlements in the West Bank as obstacles to peace, as they are on land the Palestinians hope to one day call their state.
Pruzansky puts it in less optimistic, yet possibly more realistic terms, saying, "Peace is an illusion already... By having Jews live there, we are strengthening the land, adding a safeguard."
Israeli government, probably to Pruzansky's dismay, however, has all but cut off funding for new homes in Jewish settlements in the West Bank (one of the reasons for "real estate fairs" such as the one in New Jersey have come into being-- to reallocate money from the pockets of wealthy American Jews into the settlements of the West Bank).
The real estate fair was criticized by both Amnesty International and pro-Palestinian groups. Protesters chanting "racists, racists, racists" assembled across the street from the synagogue during the fair. Protesters said that "what, in essence, we are protesting--that you have a group taking land away from Palestinians, Muslims and Christians and givin it to Jewish people from all over the world." According to Pruzansky, however, these protesters didn't sour the fair, they just gave it "some free publicity".
The Amana Settlement Movement, the Israeli housing group at the fair, said the homes would be built on land owned by the Israeli government and that is designated for settlement. It is not land that is currently being inhabited, and it would not displace anyone.


While I'm not sure that I am in favor of the existence of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, I definitely do not take the side of the protesters of the real estate fair either. The issue has nothing to do with racism of any kind. It has to do with the Jewish religious belief that the Jews are entitled to and meant to inhabit all parts of the land of Israel. That's why the fair was held at a synagogue and not a consulate. While there is a looming possibility of the West Bank becoming part of a Palestinian state, the area is currently one under Israeli control, and one in desperate need of modernization and development--something the Amana Settlement Movement would bring to the area. Additionally, in the "road map for peace" plan, the Palestinians did not stick to their end of the deal either, with the West Bank being the primary area for secret operations of Palestinian militant groups, and they are definitely not disarmed, so they are just as guilty as Israel in not maintaining the peace plan. The homes being sold in the West Bank are not being sold at rock bottom prices, as the protesters, one of whose signs (in the article's photograph) reads "Support Ethnic Cleansing-- Buy Stolen Palestinian Land CHEAP" would have you believe. The mean price for one of the Amana homes is in the $117,000 range-- near the same price a modest suburban home in the American Midwest would cost. On the contrary, the land is not stolen, and has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. The land is under the authority of the Israeli government, and no one would be displaced from it to build these homes or to put Jewish settlers into them. Additionally, many Jews who want to move to Israel can not afford to live in areas such as Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, due to the almost astronomical cost of living there, and would not be able to realize their dream of making aliah (immigrating) to Israel otherwise. The West Bank is not the most appealing of real estate, it is, as of now, still the right of a Jew or Israeli citizen to live there, even if the Knesset isn't in full support.

Israel Enforces Curfew on West Bank Town of Nablus after two Bomb Laboratories are Found-- Palestinians find "aggression" against peace efforts...

Accompanying an article appearing in the Monday, February 26, 2007 New York Times titled "Israeli Troops Place Curfew on West Bank City", there is a picture of a desolate looking West Bank street, lined with run down Arab shops, and depicting two army vehicles patrolling down the street as, as the caption states, "A Palestinian youth ran from Israeli military vehicles yesterday in Nablus after a curfew had been imposed."--inciting the reader to look at the Israeli forces as oppressors of the poor, peaceful, disenfranchised Palestinian people. To the contrary, however, the military operation (the biggest in the area in two years) came about after Israeli forces discovered two explosives factories in two days in the city, and, if I may be so bold as to say, it looks like the kid is about to pick up a rock and throw it.
In these factories, soldiers found pipe bombs, a hand-held Lau guided missile and launcher (that had belonged to the Israeli Army), and lots of bomb-making materials. The operation to enforce the curfew began Saturday and intensified throughout the night, with 100 Israeli Jeeps and armored vehicles blocking Nablus roadways and troops began sweeps of the historical city. Palestinian responses ranged from people throwing chunks of concrete and stones to the firing of weapons, wounding two Israeli soldiers. Six Palestinians were wounded as well, by rubber coated Israeli bullets, fired in defense.
Nablus, a large city in the West Bank, is known to harbor numerous Palestinian militants, and the Israeli army regularly patrols the area, but this new operation was devised to "trim back" militant groups who were stock piling materials (such as the explosives and rockets found in the bomb factories earlier in the week). Hamas, which is much more secretive in the West Bank than in Gaza has been secretly organizing in Nablus and has been secretly recruiting for a "police force", as the one in Gaza is dominated by the rival Fatah faction.
Some 10,000 people in central Nablus were said to be under curfew, with schools being cancelled and Israeli forces taking control of the TV and radio waves. The crackdown was said to remain in effect for several days. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said this situation will, "undermine the efforts that are being made to sustain the cease-fire with Israel." Additionally, Abbas has said, "This aggression by the Israeli occupation government is like cutting the road forward after all our efforts to find peace." Hamas officials say the raid had meant to undermine efforts at creating a unified Hamas-Fatah government.

Honestly, I see nothing wrong in Israel's actions here. They found BOMB factories--- it is their duty to protect themselves, especially from a group of decentralized guerilla fighters who are ready and willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill Jews and Israelis. How can the Palestinians say that Israelis protecting themselves from bombings is undermining cease fire efforts, when these Palestinians who claim to be in a cease fire are mass producing explosives?
Additionally, I'd like to express my extreme dislike of The New York Times. Its crybaby liberal bias against Israel is pretty ridiculous. First a huge string of articles outlining how corrupt the Knesset is--when there is other more important Israel-related news to print, followed up by articles with a strong bias to the Palestinian cause. All in all, I see nothing wrong with the preventative measures taken by Israel in this situation, and I think the response of Palestinian and Arab leaders to this issue just goes further to show how untrustworthy and unwilling to compromise and reform they really are.

Police official resigns after investigation into '99 dealings with crime family

The New York Times
"Top Israeli Police Official Resigns Amid Charges of Dereliction"
by Steven Erlanger
February 19, 2007

The police commissioner of Israel resigned Sunday night after his actions in a 1999 case involving an Israeli crime family were severely criticized by an investigating committee. Police commissioner, Moshe Karadi's term would have ended in August said he was making his resignation immediate, "to set a personal example," and spare the police the damage a scandal would cause, while still insisting the allegations to be false. Yaakov Ganot, the current director of the prison service, will be his replacement. In addition to Karadi, the deputy police commissioner, Benny Kaniak, is also being removed from his position and being offered Ganot's former job in an effort to better the Israeli police system. While the case dates back to '99, the scandal is the latest in the country, already reeling from political scandal: President Moshe Katsav had to resign because of rape charges, PM Ehud Olmert and his suspended office director Shula Zaken are under suspicion of corruption, the director of the Tax Authority, Jackie Matza resigned Sunday night in response to an ongoing investigation, finance minister Abraham Hirshson is under investigation for embezzlement from a nonprofit organization and Olmert's predecessor, the deathbed-comatose Ariel Sharon was widely suspected of political corruption, and his son Omri has been sentenced to jail but is allowed to remain free because of his father's coma. These do not even account for all the recent political scandals in Israel. The investigations are part of an effort to change what is becoming a tradition of political corruption, but it has been badly interrupted by this past summer's war with Lebanese Hezbollah, followed by the resignation of Israel's military chief of staff.

The corruption in Israeli government has reached a level of ridiculousness and is beginning to interfere with the country's ability to govern. While the investigations do bring out a bad side of the government to the public, they seem to be necessary to correct the problems at this point. Still though, I feel that there are more pertinent issues the news media could focus on than government corruption, or at least report on in addition to these stories.

Saudi Arabia reaches out to Israel and American Jews, but sadly could be stuck in 1967

In a front page article appearing in the February 12 edition of USA Today, the article headlined "Arabs try outreach to Israel, U.S. Jews--Saudis, others seek to counter extremists" paints a hopeful picture of the current situation between Israel and her neighbors. Saudi Arabia is leading Arab states in making public overtures to Israel, as well as American Jews in an attempt to "undercut Iran's growing influence, contain violence in Iraq and Lebanon and push for a Palestinian solution," the article says. The outreach objective coincides with the role the Saudis played last week in helping to broker a deal for a coalition Palestinian government.
Last month, the article says, a departing Saudi ambassador to the United States made an "unprecedented appearance" at an event hosted by a number of American Jewish organizations to honor a State Department diplomat appointed to combat anti-Semitism.
Saudi Arabia is among a group of countries including Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates that have "stepped up contacts with Israel and pro-Israel Jewish groups in the USA," with "the Bush administration's blessing," of course. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that a peace deal between Israel and Palestinians would weaken militant groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Rice has also stated that six gulf states, Jordan, Israel and Egypt are a "new alignment of moderates to oppose extremists backed by Iran and Syria," the article says.
The intensification of these contacts has been part of a strategy that aims to undercut extremists and help usher along an Israel-Palestinian peace deal. It is of great concern that Iran is setting the political agenda of the region.
Of the 21 Arab countries on the map, only three--Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania-- formally recognize Israel. A Saudi peace plan offered up in 2002 offers diplomatic relations with the other 18 Arab states if Israel agrees to withdraw to the borders proposed in 1967--which would require Israel to give up the West Bank and Golan Heights. The proposition would turn this land into a Palestinian state.

Personally, I find the 2002 Saudi proposition ridiculous, and if the peace deals the Saudis wish to broker now even remotely resemble the 1967 border plans, there is no way the proposition will go through a committee of Israelis or American Jews. The Golan Heights especially are an invaluable asset to Israel, providing physical protection as it is at the border with both Syria and Lebanon. It also carries an emotional attachment because of how hard Israelis have had to fight to keep this land--much of which was abandoned after the Syrians turned it into a minefield, and refused to turn the maps over to Israel. Also, a huge majority of Israel's fresh water comes out of the Golan Heights--not something they really want to turn over to the control of countries who have denied their existence for the past 58 years, referring to Israel just as the "Zionist entity". It is a great step forward for Arab countries to reach out to American Jews and Israel, but it is unrealistic for them to come to the table with a failed plan from 1967 and expect it to work today.

Reading Response Paper #2

Reading Response Paper #2: Stewart argues that it was the difficult interactions and meetings between the coalition officials and Iraqis that ultimately determined the fate of the early years of the occupation. Provide one example of a meeting from both Nasariyah and Amara that occurred between Stewart and a local Iraqi figure(s). What was difficult about these two meetings? Were the meetings difficult for the same reasons? Did these difficulties impact the outcome of the meetings? How could these difficulties have been overcome more productively?

Rory Stewart, author of The Prince of the Marshes, describes his time as Deputy Governorate Coordinate over the Iraqi provinces of Amara and Nasariyah. In this position, Stewart met with Iraqi Sadrists of the area whose tense meetings with Stewart and stubborn dispositions set the stage for the difficult interactions that ultimately set the tone for the early years of the occupation. In both his handlings of Amara and Nasariyah, however, Stewart’s own actions are quite sloppy, with Stewart exuding too much confidence and not nearly enough tact to carry out these already complicated meetings and interactions in the most befitting manner.

The first of Stewart’s meetings, took place in Amara, a town where most of the secular middle class—who held aspirations of living in a peaceful liberal democracy—had fled, was brought about by a large, spur-of-the-moment, demonstration in front of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) compound. Stewart invited representatives of the protesters into his office to speak on the concerns of the people. This was merely a façade though, as Stewart took no mind to the list of grievances they prepared for him. He continuously interrupted the men, and aggressively cut off the representative’s objections with comebacks of his own, before giving up and angrily showing them the door.

Stewart’s other botched meeting was in Nasariyah, where the provincial council was adamantly opposed to the Coalition. This time, three thousand Sadrists had assembled around the CPA compound. Looking for Stewart, Jawad and Sheikh Muwayad, two representatives of the protestors, risked arrest as they entered the compound to present Stewart with another outlined list of their grievances. During their recitation of the preamble of these grievances, Stewart cut them off and urged them to get to the point. Once they did make their points, however, Stewart exhibited no real effort to understand them, and spent little time trying to explain his own position. As a result of the discontent Jawad and sheikh Muwayad felt after their meeting with Stewart, the two planned and carried out a series of terrorist attacks throughout the country.

It is extremely clear that Stewart mistreated these people. Yes, there was a large degree of resistance, and the people were hard to negotiate with, as their goals were pretty opposite to Stewart’s, but still, Stewart could have handled these dealings in a much more appropriate manner. These people were disempowered, disenfranchised, frustrated, and militarily mobilized for action, and Stewart, regardless of all these factors, treated them inappropriately. He could have leveled with them—he could have dropped his façade of superiority and come off his high horse to speak with them on a more respectful and befitting level. While many of the requests of the people he was working with were not probable or realistic, Stewart could have still given them more patience and attention. The delicacy of the situation was, even at this point, very obvious, and Stewart failed to take the rising tensions into account in his dealings with his subordinates. Rather than shooting down these people, he should have used this time as an opportunity to show them the kindness of the foreign forces and to teach trust and cooperation. Stewart realizes this, albeit a little too late, saying, “I should have seen it more from their perspective. They had walked into a coalition base—taking the risk of being arrested…I had not allowed them to read out the manifesto they had written with such care. And now, I insisted on knowing what they wanted,” (Stewart 321). This situation can easily be looked at as Stewart failing to realize a rare and crucial opportunity to enhance the image of the occupying foreign forces in the eyes of the Iraqi citizens.