Earlier this week, I attended a lecture given by the Israeli ambassador. I was not surprised that many people attended the event, but I was very surprised at how the evening panned out.
I understand that people are very passionate about, and in some cases directly effected by, the situation in Gaza and other such conflicts in which Israel is involved. I was surprised, however, at most of the crowd's behavior. The majority of people who asked questions seemed like they were looking for a fight more than they were interested in hearing a response.
It is important to raise one's voice and to ask tough questions, but I can't help thinking it was naive and rather immature to throw stones at a lecture. The man is a diplomat. Of course he is not going to admit that Israel was overtly wrong about anything--he was chosen for that (what I am sure is a very competitive) position because he is qualified to answer incendiary questions in a diplomatic fashion. I obviously did not learn anything new at the lecture, since an ambassador is not meant to just introduce facts and ideas, but to do so in a way that makes his or her country look innocent and correct in all matters. If nothing else, the evening was useful in that it reinforced the notions (that have been made rather clear in this class) that there is no unbiased opinion in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Although he spoke for over an hour and a half without really saying much, he mentioned something that I thought was very interesting. He noted that the UN and the media focus so heavily on the conflict between Israel and Palestine that they act as though there are no other conflicts in the world. I disagree with his assertion that this justifies caring less about the problems in Gaza, but agree that there are problems of equal importance that are oftentimes ignored by a majority of the public.
The importance of public opinion and sentiment is reminiscent of major themes found in Zayni Barakat. This further supports the notion we discussed in class that the author meant the story to be an allegory for the present world
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think your point of view on the Israel's diplomat is very interesting. I think it is must be very competitive in order to reach that position and there is probably more training afterwards (so they do not crack under pressure).
ReplyDeleteI dislike the idea of using something like that as a forum to speak out on your own beliefs. When someone is taking the time to address you as students, more so as an ambassador even, it is something that you should at the very least show some respect for. To attack the ideas of his nation, many policies in which he is not even responsible for, is not something he should have to stand for especially from young kids with none or little knowledge. It true that it is impossible for people to be unbiased, i just with that there was a way for an intermediary to step around the topic of religion.
ReplyDeleteAs already mentioned in my blog, I think it is very important to ask difficult questions. When doing this, it is almost impossible to leave one's opinion out of the equation. Strong opinions and passion for subjects are vital if one hopes to remain involved and engaged as a student and a citizen. It just seems to me that if one hopes to glean as much information as possible in order to further their opinions and beliefs, they would act in a manner appropriate for the specific occasion. The point I am trying to prove is that immature, close minded behavior does not further a cause, nor does it prove a point. It only serves to discredit.
ReplyDelete