A Journey to the Middle East
By Alma Freeman
Understanding conflict can be as much about observation as
it can be about research. This summer, a group of 18 Emory administrators,
faculty, staff, and alumni traveled on a Journeys program to Jordan,
Israel, and the West Bank in an effort to more deeply comprehend
the nature of the ongoing conflict in the region. The Journeys
program, an inter-religious project sponsored by Dean of the Chapel
and Religious Life Susan Henry-Crowe, sends groups every year
to regions experiencing conflict or oppression. Over the course
of 11 days, the participants explored historical sites such as
Jerusalem’s Old Town, Bethlehem, Jericho, the Dead Sea,
Petra, and the ancient capital of Amman, and met with a broad
range of individuals from a former Israeli soldier and a Christian-Palestinian
farmer to a devout Jewish settler and an owner of a Palestinian
beer brewery.
As the group members come together to explore ways in which they
can share their experiences with a broader community, Emory in
the World speaks with trip participants Provost Earl Lewis and
Dean Susan Henry-Crowe about some of their favorite moments from
the trip and their plans for the future.
While previous Journeys trip destinations
have included conflict-riddled regions such as South Africa, Bosnia,
and
Northern Ireland, this is the first Journeys trip to the Middle
East. How did the trip come to fruition this year?
Susan Henry-Crowe (SHC): Since the Journeys program began, I have
wanted to do a trip to the Middle East because it’s such
an interesting region in terms of the three major religions. I
went to the Middle East in 2003 to begin thinking about how we
might put together a trip. It was at the height of the second
intifada, so it was really clear that we weren’t going to
consider going at that time. Every year thereafter we pondered
the question: Could this be the year that we go to the Middle
East? With the range of events that took place over the last year,
coupled with an increase in interest, it finally seemed like an
opportune time to put the trip together.
Earl Lewis
(EL):
Last summer’s war between elements in Lebanon and Israel
sparked some concern that aspects of that war would potentially
play themselves out on this campus. In response, I convened a
group of faculty and staff to advise the University as to what
programming we may want to develop. In the midst of all that,
former President Jimmy Carter published his book Palestine:
Peace Not Apartheid, which reflected on the larger challenge
of peace in the Middle East. Before we knew it, this small planning
group started to play a much larger role in executing a whole
series of programs across campus.
In response to the conflict surrounding his book, President Carter
once said to me during a private conversation, “People don’t
have to believe me [about the situation in the Middle East] –
they could just go and look for themselves.” At times like
this, it’s nice to be the provost [laughs] because you can
take an invitation like that and perhaps do something with it.
Soon, the concept of sponsoring a trip to the Middle East went
from Susan’s idea to my asking her how we could make it
happen.
Previous trips were called Journeys
of Reconciliation. Why is this trip referred to as simply Journeys?
SHC: The language of reconciliation evolved from
a particular
moment of history during the Year of Reconciliation in 1997. The
term “reconciliation” has always been a little edgy
because it evokes the obvious question: Who is reconciling what
with whom? But it has had enough appeal that we have kept it.
But in this case, it was really clear that the trip to the Middle
East was not about reconciliation, but rather, it was about fact
finding and learning.
EL: And so, the trip became Journeys as a chance
to highlight the immersion experience of a group of 18 non-experts
who, in a way, were given the chance to become students again.
Everyone learned intensely but each person came to discover the
place differently.
One of the stated goals of the program
is to engage the Emory community
in a broader understanding of a region of the world that struggles
with deep conflict. In the case of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict,
the words one elects to use to describe issues can be particularly
divisive. What are some challenges that you could face in accomplishing
this goal?
EL: Like any sensitive issue, a number of people
have very strong views. Since returning and even before departing,
I have been struck, however, by the fact that the people who have
an interest in the future of this region have all wanted to contribute
in some way or another to the goals of the trip. There weren’t
people who said they wanted to divorce themselves from what we
were doing. Instead, a number of individuals helped put us in
touch with contacts in the region. Can I anticipate that more
polarized perspectives might materialize over the course of the
year? Yes – that’s the nature of a university!
SHC: It was very important to me that the discussion
not be limited to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because the
complications of this region stretch much farther than that. The
issue of that conflict is huge, certainly. But many other events
such as the war in Lebanon or the invasion of Iraq all interface
with each other. That’s why I thought it was important that
we also visit Jordan to see something other than the West Bank
and Israel. On the trip we met with individuals from a broad range
of backgrounds, including Israelis, Christian Palestinians, Muslim
Palestinians, Bedouins, and Jordanians. Of the official meetings
that we had, 30 percent of the individuals were Israeli, 30 percent
Palestinian Christian, 18 percent Muslim Palestinian, nine percent
Bedouin, and 12 percent Jordanian. Of course that doesn’t
include the diverse range of incredible people we met casually
on our journey.
EL: As we look for ways to share our experience,
I would not want to distort the curriculum in a way that makes
this particular issue more important than other areas in the world.
We could easily focus on Sudan or even Rwanda. It’s an important
balance to maintain because tragically, it’s not the only
place in the world that is struggling.
On these trips you arrive with humility and you come away with
an even larger sense of humility. It is unlikely that a group
of 18 from Emory will be able to change the course of the world.
What we can do is offer witness and our own experience. People
are worried if you say certain things that it will complicate
fundraising. I disagree. If people aren’t going to support
you, they will find any reason to not do so. But if folks really
want to support you, and believe in what you are doing, they will
accept that. Although they may not agree with all the decisions
that an institution makes, they will believe in the integrity
of that institution and that in the end their investment will
be worth something.
SHC: Of course we won’t change the history
of the world, but we can change the kind of discourse that happens.
It happened in our group of 18 and if it can happen in a group
that is as diverse as ours, then it can happen with 50 people,
and if it can happen with 50 people it can happen with 200.
What were some of your impressions
of the region?
EL: When Susan and I arrived at the airport in
Amman, Jordan, the Iraqis had just won the Asian Cup and there
were throngs of Iraqis on the street celebrating in their cars,
honking horns, and waving flags. Our driver, a Palestinian Jordanian,
spent 30 minutes explaining to us how you could tell the difference
between an Iraqi and a Jordanian [there are currently over 700,000
Iraqi refugees living in Jordan]. As he interrupted to point out
the different license plates, he told a story about how he tried
to acquire an apartment from an Iraqi family not long ago and
they refused because they were reserving the place for Iraqis.
At that moment, I realized that you don’t even have to scratch
the surface to see that the enormous effects of the conflicts
in the Middle East are playing out in Jordan as well.
SHC: I was very impressed with the determination
to promote peace and human dignity shared by many of the people
we met. For example, we met with a young Jewish woman who left
America 18 years ago for Israel to dedicate herself to
documenting and educating the Israeli public about human rights
violations in the region through the Jerusalem-based
organization B’Tselem.
How has your perception of the region
changed since your return?
EL: When I lived in Michigan where there is a
large Arab-American population, I had a young Palestinian woman
who worked with me whose family had first moved to Kentucky. She
told me stories about life in Kentucky, and how her family was
referred to there as “sand n_ _ _ _ _s.” She explained
that her family fell somewhere in between the white and black
community. Her story sticks with me. I realized that this notion
of distinguishing one from the other was the piece that I tried
to understand while on the trip. When I returned, I realized that
the dynamics that I was trying to understand from her story weren’t
the dynamics of Israeli/Palestinian relations, but the dynamics
of American racial notions in that region. In some areas, the
only way to distinguish one from the other is to tag them –
whether it be the stamping of numbers or the tagging of individuals
through identity cards or colored license plates – it’s
still a process of “othering” and the process of “othering”
is intensely observed in this region.
SHC: After listening to a number of our speakers,
I was struck by the profound implications of fundamentalism that
I witnessed on this trip. This was my fourth trip to the area,
and the dangers of fundamentalism were more evident now than I
had ever seen.
What is your most memorable moment
from the trip?
EL: One afternoon, I was on the bus talking to
our Palestinian driver, Muhammad. As we drove around Jerusalem
and the West Bank for days he had been observing us, but we didn’t
have the chance to really talk to him. During a spare hour, he
told me that he left during the second intifada for northern Virginia
in the United States where he lived for five years. He decided
to come back because he believed that he could scratch out a future
in the West Bank. Although he has a good job, he is still constantly
reminded that he is Palestinian. I asked him: Why do Palestinians
take part in the building of the wall? He looked at me and started
laughing and said, “You know, when [Yasser] Arafat was in
power, a dollar would come and 10 cents would go to the people
and 90 cents would go to the government of Arafat. Now, a dollar
comes in and 50 cents goes to the people, but 50 cents still goes
to the government. I have money to pay for food for my children
because I have my job, but the majority of people don’t,
so they end up deciding whom to work for. … If we don’t
do the labor, even if what results from that labor makes our lives
more difficult, the Israelis will easily import people from other
countries to fill our places.” There was a moment when I
realized, for all the lectures I have attended, it was Muhammad
who taught me something critical about the region. My only regret
is that I had to jump in a cab, and I didn’t get a chance
to say goodbye
to him. I would have never known that he had spent time in the
U.S. It was a brief moment of human connection that somehow sneaks
into a trip like this when it’s not planned.
SHC: One of the most memorable moments for me
was listening to Rania [Arnaout], a young, educated Palestinian
woman whose husband lives in the Al-Arroub refugee camp outside
of Hebron, tell her story of the moment she decided to wear a
headscarf. After experiencing struggle and hardship, she began
to devote herself to God. The least she could do in return, she
explained, was wear the scarf. Although she carries an Israeli
ID card, she is prohibited from living with her husband because
she must reside in Jerusalem in order to keep her card and her
husband is not allowed to travel outside of the West Bank. Now
she commutes from East Jerusalem to the refugee camp every weekend
with their children.
EL: That was an incredible moment. And, her husband
supported her decision to wear the scarf. I thought it was fascinating,
however, that he framed the discussion in terms of her hair, as
in, she has such beautiful hair, why would she ever want to cover
it up?
SHC: It was one of those great teaching moments
about the role of men and women, one of those moments where you
are sure the roles aren’t equal, but in reality, the relationship
happens to be very equal.
Alma Freeman is the communications specialist for the Office of
International Affairs..
))
))
