not all, actually, but certainly a clear majority in yesterday's palestinian parliamentary elections - the new york times is reporting that hamas has won 76 seats in the 132-member legislative council.
my immediate reaction to reading this was to grieve for an as-of-yet nonexistent middle east peace. hamas' past history and its political policies make it an unlikely partner for collaboration with the israeli government, even a government that seems to have accepted the reality of a palestinian state. so what does that say about the palestinians? are the majority of them really committed to an ongoing conflict and the destruction of israel?
perhaps. given the situation in which palestinians have been placed - by israel, to be sure, but also by jordan and egypt and the rest of the arab world - it really wouldn't surprise me if most of them were willing to accept hamas' political ideology, so long as they can get food on the table and give their children an education. because the thing is, this election wasn't about the peace process. it was about survival - every day needs.
it's funny, from the outside people think about the middle east and how much the issue of peace dominates the political landscape. even in israel it's probably the biggest political issue. but for palestinians and many israelis - - daily survival trumps peace negotiations. it's similar to the situation here in the us: the war in iraq doesn't actually affect people's lives here on a daily basis - they care more about education and jobs. and this election is a not-subtle reminder of the fact that palestinians need to survive before they can worry about israel's security. not from a governing point of view, but from the typical voter's "i gotta eat" point of view.
it'll be interesting to see how things develop in the political spectrum over the next few months. but for now, this is a good reminder that there are more pressing issues for people than diplomatic maneuvering. in fact, it's quite a luxury to even be able to think about it...
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
words of wisdom from kentucky
i was reading wendell berry's 'another turn of the crank' a few days ago on my commute to work [that's the nice thing about subway commutes - - a chance to do some pleasure reading]. i was introduced to berry, a kentuckian farmer and philospher, not too long ago, and have been soaking in his words ever since. i don't know if i agree with every word he says, but i would feel privleged if wendell berry were a part of my community. what he says - about local living, community, and the importance of being attached to where we are and where we come from - makes a lot of sense.
i was thinking about berry's commentary on life as i sat in a crowded subway car crossing the manhattan bridge. new york city is the epitome of everything berry writes against. but the truth is, our society in general is no longer one that promotes local or natural lifestyles. all over the industrial, 'civilized' world, we live so unnaturally - - in every way from the smallest things [women wearing high heels that wreak havoc on their legs and feet, using A/C and heating in a way that moves our bodies unnaturally from hot to cold, and back, in a matter of seconds] to entire lifestyles [people living in cities and having no connection to nature, to the rest of the natural earth; living in tiny, individual units without knowing their neighbors or feeling a larger sense of community].
this was emphasized by an early morning conversation i had a few days earlier with the woman sitting next to me on the "Q" train. she wanted to make sure that her ipod wasn't bothering me, and her one question turned into a 20 minute conversation on the merits of various MP3 players. when i got off the train that morning, i was basking in the uniqeuess of that conversation and my chance to engage with a stranger - - and yet, why should that be the exception, rather than the rule? why did it seem so strange to have a conversation with someone with whom i was sharing a 48" plastic bench?
society's expectations of us are not what even our own bodies expect of us. i wonder sometimes, if i just let my body take its own course- not setting alarms, eating when and only when hungry - what patterns would arise. i would bet they'd be really, really different from what is 'standard' or what most urban - and even non-urban - dwellers are used to. and yet, what we're used to is so far from what we are physiologically best suited to do.
so what berry says about natural living and community really moves me. his ideas are something i've reflected upon often: how important it is to be part of a community where i'm not invisible, where the producers of goods i consume are not abstract entities, where i am part of a functioning, inter-dependent unit that goes beyond my own individual self and even my immediate family [current and potentialfuture]. i think about how to try to create that in a society that discourages it at every turn. i don't know if i have a solution, other than to 'just do it' and look for other like-minded people with whom to share a community. like berry himself, perhaps...
i was thinking about berry's commentary on life as i sat in a crowded subway car crossing the manhattan bridge. new york city is the epitome of everything berry writes against. but the truth is, our society in general is no longer one that promotes local or natural lifestyles. all over the industrial, 'civilized' world, we live so unnaturally - - in every way from the smallest things [women wearing high heels that wreak havoc on their legs and feet, using A/C and heating in a way that moves our bodies unnaturally from hot to cold, and back, in a matter of seconds] to entire lifestyles [people living in cities and having no connection to nature, to the rest of the natural earth; living in tiny, individual units without knowing their neighbors or feeling a larger sense of community].
this was emphasized by an early morning conversation i had a few days earlier with the woman sitting next to me on the "Q" train. she wanted to make sure that her ipod wasn't bothering me, and her one question turned into a 20 minute conversation on the merits of various MP3 players. when i got off the train that morning, i was basking in the uniqeuess of that conversation and my chance to engage with a stranger - - and yet, why should that be the exception, rather than the rule? why did it seem so strange to have a conversation with someone with whom i was sharing a 48" plastic bench?
society's expectations of us are not what even our own bodies expect of us. i wonder sometimes, if i just let my body take its own course- not setting alarms, eating when and only when hungry - what patterns would arise. i would bet they'd be really, really different from what is 'standard' or what most urban - and even non-urban - dwellers are used to. and yet, what we're used to is so far from what we are physiologically best suited to do.
so what berry says about natural living and community really moves me. his ideas are something i've reflected upon often: how important it is to be part of a community where i'm not invisible, where the producers of goods i consume are not abstract entities, where i am part of a functioning, inter-dependent unit that goes beyond my own individual self and even my immediate family [current and potentialfuture]. i think about how to try to create that in a society that discourages it at every turn. i don't know if i have a solution, other than to 'just do it' and look for other like-minded people with whom to share a community. like berry himself, perhaps...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
