Everything is Relative

I chose the article called Israeli Decision to Release Palestinian Detainee in April ‘Insufficient’ published in the Palestine News Network. This article discusses the imprisonment of a Palestinian by the name of Khader Adnan by the Israeli government. After his detainment, Khader Adnan began a hunger strike which went on for "more than 10 weeks." Now, the Israeli government has agreed to release him in April. Amnesty International thinks this is not enough. According to the article they believe that he was wrongfully imprisoned and that he should have already been released. The article explains that his health is in severe danger. The article argues against this sort of "administrative detention." The detainees do not get a trial and can be held for an undetermined amount of time. The article mentions a man held for over 5 years. Israeli authorities in the West Bank detain these people because they have been deemed a "security threat."

I think that this article ineffectively portrays both sides of the story so I did a little more research. I found another article in the Jerusalem post that argues the same point, but presented a little more context and information. The article, Khader Adnan Agrees to End Hunger Strike, written in the Jerusalem Post, added that this was not Adnan's first hunger strike or first time he was held in suspect of being a security threat. The article argues in places that this sort of administrative detention is wrong, but that Israel caving in to this one prisoner in response to his hunger strike was like caving in to terrorists. This article points out that he could be a danger, but at the same time points out that this sort of lack of a trial is unacceptable.

I think that with both articles you see the bigger picture, but at the same time it was impossible to find an article that just spoke the facts. The only facts I saw were that Adnan had been held for over 10 weeks without a trial. One side says he's innocent and the other that he's a danger. I think that both articles are addressing the larger issue of whether or not it is right to detain someone without a trial because they suspect they could be a danger. I think both articles are biased towards the opinion that you should not, but the Jerusalem Post article provided a little insight into the other side.

The authors of both articles I think are fairly reliable. The first was written for/by Amnesty International and the second article was written by Ben Hartman and Joanna Paraszkzuc. The facts on both sides seem to match up although the second one provides a bit more details/background. This indicates to me that they are probably both fairly reliable with their facts. The articles are not completely unbiased. They both seem to favor the same side although the second article at least explores a different opinion at the end.

The question of whether this sort of "administrative detention" should continue is difficult. I think that as an American one might have trouble understanding, but as a Jewish American with family in Israel I do understand why they would use this tactic. With the security issues as they are in Israel I can understand that their government would want to take possibly dangerous people and detain them. Now, whether I agree with this is a whole different issue. I think that in horrible situations like this there is no clear right or wrong answer. I think that Israel has a right to protect itself. Where to draw the line can be difficult to agree on. I think perhaps a limit on the length of these detentions might be more humane. After a certain amount of time maybe there should be a required trial. I think that it is wrong to hold someone indefinitely without cause, but at the same time I think they are right to detain people if they perceive them as a threat. After all, this is not a normal "war" between two nations. They are dealing with terrorists. A pregnant woman could potentially kill several people with one suicide bomb. I think the real question is: How can you fight terror? I also think that no one can honestly have a "right" answer to that question.

A Different Reality

The article I chose to read and discuss this week is called "Gur Hasidim and sexual separation" written by Tamar Rotem. This article relates the general principles followed by Gur Hasidism with regards to sexuality. Rotem explains that their religious practices center on the sacred and they view sexuality as a sort of anti-sacred part of life. Men and women are expected to avoid looking at one another, men are expected to avoid looking even at other naked men, and some families even have men and women eat at separate tables if extended family is present. This is not merely a ploy to have more control over the women as Dr. Nava Wasserman explains "Modesty demands which are made of women are also frequently interpreted as acts of oppression by men, but the Gur case proves that the demands for modest attire made of men are even stricter." According to the article this is all partly in response to the overly sexual nature of society today. However, sexuality is not viewed so negatively by other orthodox sects of Judaism. In fact, the article explains that in other Jewish sects they embrace the two weeks that men and women are allowed to cohabit (women are considered "niddah" or unclean for the week of their period and the week immediately following). Most Jewish sects believe that if Halakhah (Jewish Law) allows for an act, practice, etc. then you should embrace that. Gur Hasidism believe that you should restrict yourself even in acts that are permitted. The article discusses how even in marriage sexuality is forbidden except for procreation. They treat women as if they are niddah all the time. Men and women can't even touch one another. The distance created by this and the negative emotional effects at the beginning of the marriage are discussed. More interesting though is Wasserman's observation that "'There is something in the lifestyle that makes them highly independent. Gur women have lots of opportunities for self-expression, ‘she says. 'This is because men do not fill any function in the feminine sphere.'" Also she recognizes that in many Gur Hassidic marriages they find ways to have a positive relationship in spite of these prohibitions against sexuality.

The author, Tamar Rotem, writes from an outsider’s perspective. She writes as an observer and uses fairly reliable sources to relate the facts to the audience. The subject of the article is explored through academics who have detailed knowledge of Gur Hasidism. Tamar Rotem has written several articles for this paper, Haaretz, and seems to be a reliable source. She does not use much opinionated language and explains things as they are in this article. Her sources seem highly reliable. She quotes Wasserman who has spent years studying this topic and even taught at a Gur Seminar according to the article.

I personally found this article interesting because my family has a fairly close connection with the Gur Hasidic movement. Most of my grandfather's family lives in Bnei Brak which was mentioned in the article. His grandfather was a Gur Hasidic rabbi. My mom has always told me stories about how her uncles would all sit in one room with all the men and all the women would be in a different room. When the article spoke about how at extended family functions they separated men and women it brought this to mind. However, my mother always spoke about this with disdain as if the women were treated as less than the men. Now, after reading this article, I can see how this has little to do with the equality or inequality of men and women and more to do with a specific way of observing that which is sacred.