I'm sorry I haven't been updating at all, lately. I'm hoping to post later this summer after the semester has ended about my experiences throughout the semester.
This is a repost from a academic blog I'm required to do.
Initially, I shook my head at the vast nature of the first question. I am currently abroad at a school in Israel that is unique in its education platform because of its willingness and pursuit to engage all stakeholders in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no prior (Israeli) adult educational model that does not separate itself, in so many ways, from decades of terrible conflict. That said, Arava has drawn upon much literature in forming a framework that allows for effective peace-building and understanding between “others”. It does not pretend that there aren’t “diversity issues”. It expects them, even from the typically liberal/open students who decide to come to the program. We have PELS, a meeting of at least 3 hours each week, in which we discuss issues that come up, including stereotypes, historical violence, personal trauma, chosen trauma, identity, political and religious polarization, extremism, rights and denial of rights, narratives, etc. PELS also include trips within Israel meant to give an image to narratives, such as our visit to Yad Vashem (Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem) and Lifta, an abandoned Palestinian village whose inhabitants fled in 1947/48 and were never able to return.
I have also explored the concept of concentric circles, laid out by Nussbaum, the process of teaching someone to relate to their home, but also ever expanding circles of identity. However, I had to chuckle when I read about a tool used by the Kalamazoo program: “describe [experiences] in value-neutral terms”. Exploring the origins and purposes of charged language and speaking honestly (emotionally) are structural tools that have enabled the fruitful conversations occurring in my program. There is rarely neutrality here, and I feel we move beyond it. We are taught to engage conflicting opinions and narratives, with a compassionate ear and tongue. I feel that the structure of the AIES program has worked for me in that I feel both knowledgeable about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a political-environmental lens and am also able to empathize with all of the students here, even in tense and heated disagreements. That said, I do think there are personal and structural hurdles to me achieving the goals set out by Lambert.
“Problems of diversity”:
1. Recognizing the space in which it is best to ask about personal conflict
2. Keenly feeling how speaking only English limits conversation
3. Recognizing that our group of 40 people isn’t representative of Israel/Palestine at large
a. How do we move on from here? How do I respond when I’m not in a “safe space” or network of support?
Though PELS activities have created many opportunities to ask others about their identities, I still struggle to recognize the opportune moments outside of PELS. I usually err on the side of caution, not asking my questions if I feel it would inconvenience or upset someone. To clarify, I’m not afraid of asking honest questions that might incite controversy or heated reactions if I feel someone is in a grounded state. But there are many instances where I feel asking to satisfy my curiosity would be at the expense of someone’s vulnerability. Alternatively, sometimes I feel I have not reached a point in a relationship where it is ok to explore and dig into personal opinions, because they are so often stem from tough and potentially triggering experiences. I know my recognition of appropriate moments will improve as the semester continues (one more month!) and I get to know my peers even more personally.
One conspicuous impediment to developing closer relationships has been my lack of non-English language skills. Though all of the students are proficient in English, there is a closeness born from even fumbling through native language (Arabic/Hebrew). I was not able to take Arabic at my school last year because of major-related scheduling conflict, and I feel that loss everyday. My experience here have driven me to commit to taking Modern Standard Arabic next year, and to hopefully continue lessons post-graduation.
I feel very comfortable in expressing my political beliefs regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict among the group of students and interns here. There is an undertone of belief in peace-building, of recognizing the “other” as a human being, which supports my feeling of security. But I recognize that my political support and confidence will be compromised when I leave the program. One large personal development I’ve experienced is changing my identity to encompass “activist”. I shied from the word before coming abroad, perhaps even scorned it. But now, I feel compelled to educate others about the conflict and to voice my personal beliefs. My program has an alum group within the Middle East dedicated to activism, but the North American alum group is scattered and doesn’t appear cohesive. How do I direct my activism ideals when I return to the United States? To do nothing, to be politically apathetic, would be to betray those I’ve come to love here, as well as myself, and I’m not interested in that path. I’m not yet certain how to direct my political will when I return to the US. I do not want my experiences to “add up to merely a list of disconnected activities, lacking a coherent sense of purpose or a comprehending vision of what it means to be educated”. If I’m to commit to being an invested ally (global citizen?), I’ve got to seek out effective ways to engage in ongoing Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Arab, US-Israeli, and US-Palestinian political movements.
In an early morning in Jordan, I tried to process my role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the one I had played prior to education, my present role, and the possibilities of my future role. I hope I always feel the urge for greater reflection on what it means to see myself as one being of a collective, responsible to all others within it. And I hope that I will act.
