Here is an assignment about current events, due tomorrow (Sunday) night:
1. Please check out the website: http://www.timesofisrael.com and get an update of the news of the weekend.
2. Please read the following two articles and write a comment taking a stand. (Which approach did you prefer? Why? Do you agree/ disagree?)
Moving the match away from the powder keg
For Netanyahu, the word is mightier than the deed
While I think that blocking any political or controversial religious visits to the Dome of the Rock is a wise move, it is relatively insignificant in the face of greater issues Israel faces today. In the United States we have few religious centers of extreme importance, so the concept of having to protect sites from specific groups is fairly alien to us. Although he won the recent election, BB faces criticism in both Israel and in the US that can't just be poo-pooed as antisemitism or antizionism. Many of us are just exhausted of him and his approach to politics, heavily focusing on foreign issues rather than domestic ones. I'm tired of reading in American media about Israel as an apartheid state, or the alleged war crimes the IDF commits against Palestinians of all ages, when I know that they're slanted towards a readership that supports Palestinian sovereignty. Instead of focusing so much on Iranian nuclearization, which is a problem for another time, perhaps we should be redirecting our efforts to calming down the state from within, as stabbings evolve into gunshots.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard for me to believe that Netanyahu can just ban any person who's interested in being religious at Dome of the Rock. It may be a smart decision when it comes to violence, but that could also just be in theory. People are going ot get angry when they don't have the place they want to do what they want with it, so it could stir up more anger than solve issues. Although it says that peopel can go just not for "vested reasons" it doesn't make much sense to me. How can one prove that someone is tehre for a "vested reason" and not a just one? I think Netanyahu hs to be more active in solving more current and important problems like the recent wave of terror instead of focusing on which exact poeple can go to the Dome of the Rock and who can't, I also agree in that people are tired of him just talking and not really doing anything beneficial for the Jewish State at the moment.
ReplyDeleteI feel like in banning people from the Dome of the Rock would, in theory, be a good idea however given how people are with this kind of stuff I just think that that'll result in problem. Also with his wording, how would he distinguish between the people and types of people going there? I don't reckon that's the smartest choice in dealing with religious affairs especially since we're in the middle east (more specifically Israel). I think BB has to get it together because he clearly isn't doing enough and given how many Israelis despise him I don't think he's making the right and appropriate decisions as a leader.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the two articles are comparing the notion of passivity and taking action. In "The Word is Mightier Than the Deed" the author observes that Netanyahu's way of taking action is to give a speech with the intent of bringing problems to light and starting discussion. Yet by the end of the article, the author appears to be criticizing this approach by saying that simply talking does not make one active. The author seems to be actively searching for legitimate action taken by the Israeli Parliament. This is contrasted by "Moving the Match Away from the Powder Keg", which discusses Netanyahu's decision to ban both Arab and Israeli politicians from going to the Temple Mount. This can certainly be qualified as action, regardless of whether or not you support the decision. I must say, while I don't necessarily see how resorting to speeches and speeches alone is entirely effective, I certainly don't support the decision regarding the Temple Mount. As Noah said, it might be speaking from an American perspective, but the concept of barring people from a religious center puts at a vague state of unease. It seems like destructive rather than constructive, and again as Noah said, the notion is rather foreign to Americans. I can only hope that continued discussion of issues in Israel with continued international media coverage will do something to change the general worldview about what is to be done in this country. But, as of right now, the solution eludes me and many others, so it seems all we can do is talk.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in order to maintain control for now BB needs to make hard decisions like the bans on religious sights. BB in my opinion has been a smart person that looks at the bigger image of things. For example in my opinion it was wrong to trust Iran and when he would bring his opinion to the media he set a lot of people on the right track. Today in order to combat extremist i believe we need to make rash decisions that will defend our land and people and not worry about what will hurt others feelings.
ReplyDeleteBanning anyone who wants to be religious from visiting the Dome of the Rock will only cause more tension within the religious community. As we have seen again and again in the US (and often with our parents), banning people from something often makes them want it even more. This solution will only cause religious tension and divide the country more, though it will possibly diminish the physical violence.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, Netanyahu constantly giving speeches will not help either. Though he does use beautiful language, words will never end the violence and tension completely. While I admire his taking action (and I do believe his speeches qualify as action) I'm not optimistic that his words will be enough to solve the tension.
I do not agree with the approach of banning people from the Dome of the Rock. This is a very sacred place for many. I think that it is very unfair to deny people the right to pray in a sacred place like that. Even if it is a place where a lot of violence happens, there is no way for one to determine whether or not someone's visit has spiritual reasons or otherwise. Especially with the war we need to make sure that both religions are being fully respected. This ban could be seen as disrespectful to the Muslim religion.
ReplyDeleteI believe banning everyone from Temple Mount was a wise decision on Netanyahu's part. This keeps people from rioting and harming others at this important religious site. This tactic reminds me of when my sister and I used fight over things much less important than the Temple Mount. The solution would always be that neither my sister nor I would et our way. Although neither of us were happy, the fighting still ceased. By saying this, I do not mean that the fight over Temple Mount is the same as a petty argument between siblings, but I think Netanyahu had the same results in mind for the two groups of people involved. We cn only hope that this decision will result in peace at the Temple Mount.
ReplyDeleteBefore I start this assignment I would like to state: I am not a pacifist but I am against religious discrimination and wars because of it. now I am going to try to interpret what I have just read. I think completely closing off The Dome of the Rock was not a smart choice. This is an extremely holy site for Muslims and Christians, and where does BB plan on hosting these religious members. I can not imagine us not being able to go to the Kotel because "its closed". I may be not as educated as I wish on this topic but it makes me uneasy thinking that the now upset people could terrorized the Kotel. Im no politician but I feel like a change in security could have beenn an effectful, not so harsh way of dealing with this.
ReplyDeleteI cannot argue with the fact that he is capable of great speeches and clearly states points needed to be addressed. However, there are so many points needing to be addressed that before I could take sides on anything, I have got read more and understand more from multiple viewpoints. I do though agree with banning people from the Temple Mount whom only are there to use it for public attention and coercion. So yeah, ban the politics.
ReplyDeleteI think that the two articles contradict each other, in a way. In the first, it says that Netanyahu essentially banned anyone from being religious at the Dome of the Rock. In the other article, it is mentioned that he is word over action. This doesn’t make sense to me. More is being proved of him simply speaking words and not enforcing them through action, so I don’t understand how banning religious activity on the Dome of the Rock will actually happen. Sure, Netanyahu can SAY it, but will it be enforced? As much sense as it may make to prevent more violence issues in places like that, would saying religious activity is banned actually ban religious activity, or would it create more issues? I agree that Netanyahu doesn’t take enough action, but I also agree with the fact that he’s attempting to use his words in a (poor) attempt to prevent negative action.
ReplyDelete-Rachael Coleman
By banning people of a certain religious or ethnic group from the Dome of the Rock, you are only going to create higher, unwanted tensions. Although, acts of violence had been committed before Netanyahu placed the banning, these heinous crimes are only going to get worse. When you control a sacred area that has spiritual value to multiple religions, and a group of people gets banned, you will have an outburst of anger. Had Netanyahu not banned anyone and tried to focus on releasing tensions in a more civil way, more citizens would be pleased, therefor less violence would occur. Like Sarah stated, i think it would be in Netanyahu's best intrest to focus on solving the problem of the current wave of terror, rather then deciding who has a practical reason for being allowed at the Dome of the Rock.
ReplyDeleteIn considering these two articles, I am more inclined to agree with the author of "For Netanyahu, the Word is Mightier than the Deed." While banning certain groups from visiting the Dome of the Rock for the mere purpose of sensationalism is certainly action, it is a mere drop in the ocean of domestic and international issues faced by Israel. In his powerful, yet arguably empty, speeches, Netanyahu makes broad and declarative assertions, many of which we never see come to fruition. While the ban on politicians at the Dome of the Rock may help address some short-term issues, broader, more pressing issues still present an unaddressed conundrum.
ReplyDeleteI think completely closing off The Dome of the Rock was not a smart choice. These actions are only going to create higher, unwanted tensions. Although, acts of violence had been committed before Netanyahu placed the banning, these heinous crimes are only going to get worse. I think that it is very unfair to deny people the right to pray in a sacred place like that. Even if it is a place where a lot of violence happens, there is no way for one to determine whether or not someone's visit has spiritual reasons or otherwise. I think this could also be insulting to some people.
ReplyDeleteI think that banning a group of people from visiting The Dome of the Rock was not a good choice because of the higher tensions that will arise. However, it does show that Netanyahu is taking some action to try to find a solution to the conflicts but, towards the end of the article "For Netanyahu, the Word is Mightier than the Deed", the author states that Netanyahu is talking about making changes and solving problems instead of taking action and carrying out the ideas that he is proposing in his speeches. Discussion and compromise is needed to try to end the ongoing tensions between the Jews and the Arabs but following through with actions is important for getting any closer to peace between the two groups.
ReplyDelete