As I was perusing this week's reading assignments, something that has come up several times throughout the semester was brought to mind again. I consider myself an ardent feminist; to me, this means that all people should be treated as people, regardless of gender, race, socioeconomic factors... the list goes on. Obviously, then, I was excited about this week's topic. However, as I read on, I began to question: how does the number of women in the Knesset matter as conflict persists? With both Israelis and Palestinians tired of years of disagreement and warfare, how can anyone, Jewish, Muslim, or Christian, be concerned with any other matter?
This concept was extremely difficult for me to deal with: I put an extremely high importance on women's rights, but in the situation Israel-Palestine what I consider of the highest importance seemed to pale in comparison. While reading, I felt for the socio-economic and racial barrier between the poor and the rich, the Mizrahi and the Ashkenazi... but the separation barrier, the scarcity of building permits, and land grabs returned to mind. No one enjoys the conflict; everyone wants a solution to be found-- that much, at least, Israelis and Palestinians can agree on. But what about more minor issues? Class tensions among the Israelis? Gay rights throughout both populations? Is it even fair to call these essential topics of conversation "minor"? But at the same time, isn't it wrong to try to equate them to a conflict that has raged on ceaselessly for decades?
Now, I turn this internal ethics debate to you: is there any good way to address this moral dilemma? Is it possible to do so without offending anyone? Can there be a legitimate hierarchy of importance in something as touchy as the state of Israel-Palestine?
No comments:
Post a Comment