A Dinner Conversation: Israel and Armenia, Oppression and Genocides,
Reality and Denials
December 12th, 2012
by chycho
Below you will find two perspectives from a recent dinner conversation:
I. Candid and Confrontational
II. Compassionate and Personal
I. Candid and Confrontational
I recently attended a small family gathering, not my immediate family
but my partners, so by extension people that I care for. I am Armenian
and my partner is Jewish, and at the table were us and the elders,
including a holocaust survivor.
During dinner the conversation drifted between various topics and at
some point turned to politics, focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.
Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Those who have followed my blog know that I am quite outspoken
regarding my political views and rarely do I mince words, and this
night was not an exception. I believe that dialogue, discussion,
honesty, and candidness are needed to come to terms with what is
actually taking place in the heart of the Middle-East because what
transpires in that region, what the final outcome will be between
Israel and Palestine, will decide the fate of humanity.
I will skip over the pleasantries and go directly to the essence of
the conversation, which was; how would you describe the Israeli
Palestinian relationship? Are they adversaries? Family involved in a
feud? Oppressor versus the oppressed? Protectors versus the
aggressors? Or are they two States at war?
As I stated, I do not mince words, and in my opinion we are witnessing
a slow genocide unfolding in real time. Unfortunately, this
description of the bond that exists between these two peoples is not a
well-accepted point of view in my corner of the world, understandably
of course, because the word `Genocide’ implies so much.
`The crime of genocide is defined in article II, the provision that
sits at the heart of the Convention. Genocide is a crime of
intentional destruction of a national, ethnic, racial and religious
group, in whole or in part. Article II lists five punishable acts of
genocide (Resolution 260 III).
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
…
`Nevertheless, alongside the legal definition of genocide, rooted in
the 1948 Convention and confirmed in subsequent case law, there is a
more popular or colloquial conception. In practice, this lay
understanding of genocide is more akin to crimes against humanity, in
that it comprises a broad range of mass atrocities.’
The Armenian Genocide
Even though my perspective of what is transpiring between Israel and
Palestine was not well received, what was agreed upon was the absolute
distaste that the state of Israel continues to deny the Armenian
Genocide, the major opponents for which are the UK, US, Israel, and of
course Turkey. A genocide which even President Obama, when Senator,
recognized:
`Senator Biden and I, I think both acknowledge that, for those of you
who aren’t aware, there was a genocide that did take place against the
Armenian people. It is one of the situations where we have seen a
constant denial on part of the Turkish government and others that this
occurred. It has become a sore spot diplomatically.
`I have to check with my staff to find out what has gone on in our
office that has resulted in us not signing onto it yet and I will be
happy to get back to you on it.’
Indoctrination and Denial
The reasons that Israel continues to deny the Armenian genocide are
political as well as psychological:
`Two forces have led to the attitude of the state of Israel and its
leading institutions toward teaching and remembering other acts of
genocide than the Holocaust: a) the pressure of the Turkish government
regarding remembering and teaching the Armenian Genocide, and b) the
opposition of several high-powered Jewish-Israeli groups who are
afraid that dealing with other genocides could damage the concept of
the uniqueness of the Shoah.
`The terrible tragedies that befell the Jews at the hands of Nazi
Germany became, historically, an important element of Jewish and
Zionist education. The educational institutions of the secular Jewish
community in Israel, both before and after the establishment of the
State of Israel, undertook the mission of constructing `the new Jew’
as a moral, conceptual and political entity… After the end of World
War II, Zionist historiography used knowledge about the Holocaust as
part of building a Zionist moral education…
`Under these circumstances it is not surprising to discover how little
knowledge Israeli students have about other peoples’ genocides. A
survey which was conducted in 1996 about attitudes toward genocide
(the first study that was conducted in Israel on this subject). 800
B.A. students from seven universities and colleges in Israel were
asked about their knowledge, feelings and attitudes. Among other
questions, they were asked to assess their knowledge about the
Armenian Genocide. 42% answered that they did not have any knowledge,
44% that they had little knowledge, 13% that they had some knowledge,
and 1% that they are well informed about it. Their answers about their
degree of knowledge concerning the genocide of the Roma (Gypsies) were
almost the same (36% no knowledge, 49% very little knowledge, 14% some
knowledge, and 1% quite a bit of knowledge).’
The hypocrisy of the denial of the Armenian Genocide is of course not
lost for many Israeli academics, and there are those who are working
towards a reeducation program:
`Nonetheless, as noted, there are also encouraging private initiatives
of teachers and directors of schools, who have decided to deal with
other genocides in their schools. On the one hand, their influence is
limited, yet on the other hand they exert long-term influence.’
As for the final outcome of the dinner conversation, we all learned
something and its effects continue to unfold. Below you will find an
essay regarding what transpired written by my partner for a school
project. She is much wiser than I.
II. Compassionate and Personal
Oppression in a World of Different Perspectives
Relational Practice
Oppression in a World of Differing Perspectives
This paper is a deeply personal exploration into my history, into
understanding where I have come from and what constitutes my identity.
It is an exploration into my personal situatedness and current
constitutedness – two integral supporting relational practice within
nursing care. In this paper I will explore my identity in relation to
being born from a survivor of the holocaust and how this past history
relates to my current personal life. This paper includes a broad
exploration of the notion and experience of oppression with an overall
foundation of compassion ebbing through out my views. I will explore
how oppression and breaking the cycles of oppression are currently a
topic of self-enquiry in my personal life. Other vital aspects of
oppression including cultural safety and ethics will also be
incorporated, including how they will influence my future nursing
practice.
Making Meaning Out of Course Concepts
Oppression
Through the process of self-exploration and the active enquiry into
history, awareness of self-identity and human experience is supported.
In this active personal process, cycles of suffering may be liberated
into a positive experience of existence. Suffering and oppression are
intrinsically connected (Tinsley & France, 2004). Through a historic
exploration of oppression, both within cultures and within personal
experience, the ability to act as an empowered and empowering person
in community and society is possible (Bishop, 2002).
Individual and group suffering experience and oppression are part of
the microcosm and the macrocosm and thus can be found within the human
experience through out history. The phenomenon of suffering occurs
within the scope of oppressive actions towards others. In relation to
oppression, Cassell explains suffering as `the state of severe
distress associated with events that threaten the intactness of a
person’ (as cited in Tinsley & France, 2004, p. 9). Oppression may be
directly connected to a hierarchal institutional structuring (Tinsley
& France, 2004). Oppression and the sense of power over another may
occur within the structure of the hospital, between ethnic groups and
may also encompass a larger arena, such as between countries. Control
over another, whether it be a nurse asserting control over a patient,
the dynamics between a nursing manager and a newly graduated nurse, or
a political regime attempting to control neighbouring populations,
oppression continues to exist in today’s world (Tinsley & France,
2004).
In order to support a shift from oppression to empowerment, a
collective effort to seek and act for positive change is important. As
a means to understand oppression and learn from suffering, it is
possible to view humans as connected beings sharing a lived experience
(Bishop, 2002; Watson, 2007; Watson, 2003). Bishop (2002) includes a
list of characteristics integral for acting as an ally for ending
cycles of oppression including, but not limited to: understanding
personal heritage and history, accepting a universal connection to all
peoples and understanding current political affairs and social
structure. Bishop (2002) also notes how it is normal for persons who
are oppressed or have been oppressed to take on the role of the
oppressors. By acknowledging the personal experience of being
oppressed in this lifetime or ancestrally, it is feasible to shift
cycles of oppression and be an advocate for liberation (Bishop, 2002).
Exploring oppression within my personal life. With a focus on the
concepts presented in N360, in conjunction with the active violence in
the middle east, I have initiated an exploration into a part of myself
that challenges me on a fundamental level – the part of me who was
born from a man who survived the holocaust. In this enquiry, I have
found I have fears around looking at and sharing this part of myself.
I am afraid of anti-Semitism and being associated with the growing
negative attitudes towards Israel’s current political practices and my
familial relationship to it. I was first struck by the importance to
reflect on my history and related sense of identity during the
presentation with the Aboriginal leader, Roger John (September 24,
2012). He spoke about the importance of knowing and understanding
personal history and how this relates to our acceptance and
understanding of our personal identity.
Considering my family history as a timeline of events and experiences
that have influenced who I am today, I am able to broaden my
perspectives and release oppressive fears passed on to me. In
agreement with this, Bishop (2002) articulates ` . . . [t]he
oppressive history of the group you belong to is the burden you carry’
(p. 118). By facing my burdens – the fears I hold on to – I let go of
this repressive energy and gain personal power towards liberation over
oppression for myself and those I connect with relationally.
While researching the oppression of my family through the holocaust
experience, I found a published newsletter with reference to a story
my father had shared with me as a child. To my surprise, the text
about my father coincides with a recent piece of personal reflective
writing. Following is an excerpt from this writing:
When I was a child, I remember looking in the sad light blue’s of my
father’s eyes in one of those rare moments when he shared parts of his
story about being in a concentration camp, behind a tall wall, where
it was his job to carry the dead to large side graves. He told me
about how he secretly dug a small hole under that wall, just wide
enough for his skeletal body to pass under, where farmers on the other
side would give him potatoes to share with a small few. Looking into
those sad, beautiful blue eyes, he told me he still felt that
suffering, never able to forget and never able to get away from the
suffering that continues in the world. I take his story with me and it
disturbs me, frightens me and still, it gives me hope. It is through
the relationship I had with my father, I am able to believe in the
beauty that can come out of tragedy – that a seemingly hopeless
situation can turn into something unconditionally caring, healing and
utterly full of love. (November 20, 2012)
Through coming to understand the realities of past oppression and
suffering, there is a path towards liberating these stories and
experiences towards compassion for all people (Bishop, 2002; Watson,
2003). Watson (2003), the creator of the nursing theory of caring
further explains:
. . . it is our humanity that both wounds us and heals us, and those
whom we serve; and in the end, it is only love that matters. It is in
the entering of the sacred circle of life and death that we engage in
healing (p. 199).
Communicating about oppression with cultural safety. Understanding the
social economic and overall history of a culture is foundational for
practicing with cultural safety (Doane & Varcoe, 2005). Doane and
Varcoe (2005) offer ` . . . actions that recognize, respect, and
nurture the unique cultural identity of people/families, safely meet
their needs, expectations, and rights’ (p.311). Cultural safety
incorporates a respectful practice while working with diverse
cultures. Approaching the topic of oppression must be articulated with
cultural safety. Working though both sides of oppression – as
oppressor and as someone being oppressed – is an integral part of the
process towards creating political and social change (Bishop, 2002;
Brown et al., 2009). Cultural safety guides dialogue through difficult
conversations, but conversations as such continue to be challenging.
Recently I have found myself sharing dialogue with my family and
partner about oppression in the world today. Communicating about
oppression when differing perspectives co-exist involves a fine
balance in expression. At a recent family dinner, I had the
opportunity to share discourse regarding the conflicts in the Middle
East. Conflict arose between my aunt – a survivor of the holocaust and
a deep believer in the existence of Israel – and my partner who
believes Israel is treating the Palestinian people with oppression and
social injustice. The conversation at the table left me with the
question: How to engage in important dialogue and conversations with
cultural safety when opposing views are present? In order to practice
with cultural safety it is vital to have understanding about the
history and be sensitive to inherent meanings within the cultures
(Kleiman, 2006).
Ethical practice in relation to oppression. Watson (2007) identifies
nursing as a ` . . . human science of persons and human health-illness
experiences that are mediated by professional, personal, scientific,
esthetic, and ethical human care transactions’ (p. 54). Ethical
considerations and discussions are an integral aspect of nursing care
within diverse populations and cultures. Within this context, Watson
(2008) offers, ` . . . to look into the face of the other, not as a
different other, but as a reflection of each of us’ (p. 57). It is in
the recognition that all of humanity is sharing a lived and connected
experience, where caring despite difference may shape ethical
practice.
Ethical nursing practice may evolve out of a place of caring and
compassion for all peoples as connected aspects of self. In this way
we ` . . . honor the paradox of differences and similarities that
unite rather than separate our existence and experiences (Watson,
2008, p. 56). Chinn (2001) agrees with Watson’s notion of caring
ethics and adds the idea of `PEACE Power,’ (p. 12) where there is a
collective shared agreement and harmonious focus. Here, the sharing of
diverse perspectives are encouraged to further understanding and
creative solutions. The ability for successful discussions
incorporating different opinions may be supported with a sense of
knowing our connectedness to one another (Bishop, 2002; Chinn, 2001;
Eddington, 2010).
Sharing my nursing practice and living life with those I am in
relation with, whether as a patient, nurse, colleague, lover, friend
or family member, it is my intention to operate with a caring ethical
demeanour. Watson (2003) articulates my intention clearly, `[b]y
attending to, honouring, entering into, connecting with our deep
humanity, we find the ethic and artistry of being, loving, and caring.
We are not machines as we have been taught, but spirit made whole’
(p.199). Practicing nursing and living life with a sense of respect
for all perspectives and differences will be foundation for not only
practicing with a caring ethic, but also to approach the inherent
interconnections of oppression and social justice.
Conclusion
If it possible to find peace in the relationships that come into my
life, whether perspectives and world views are similar or different,
then there is a hope for peaceful relations between peoples, religions
and between countries. Great suffering and also great rejoicing are
part of my current and ancestral life experience. All peoples
histories and perspectives are important, deserving of respect and
opportunity to be heard and discussed. Culturally safe dialogue about
oppression, issues of social justice and ethics is challenging and
often a delicate matter. Dialogue between persons with difference
world views and perspectives is extremely important for a future that
may include peace. In this paper, I explored the idea of oppression
and related it to my personal family history of oppression during the
holocaust of World War II. I also discussed the connections between
oppression and how to communicate within the context of cultural
safety. Lastly, I considered how my resonance with Jean Watson’s
theory of human caring guides my nursing practice and life endeavours
with ethics grounded in compassion and a sense of connection to all
beings.
References
Bishop, A. (2002). Becoming an ally: Breaking the cycle of oppression
in people p. 109-124. Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publishing.
Browne, A., Varcoe, C., Smye, V., Reimer-Kirkham, S., Lynam, M., &
Wong, S. (2009). Cultural safety and the challenges of translating
critically oriented knowledge in practice. Nursing Philosophy, 10(3),
167-179. doi:10.1111/j.1466-769X.2009.00406.x
Chinn, P.L. (2001). Peace and power: Building communities for the
future (5th ed.), How we get together from here: power (pp. 11-16).
Jones and Bartlett Publishers: Mississauga.
Eddington, C. (2010). Compassion tempered justice. Journal of
Psycho-Social Studies, 4(1), 1-15.
Hartrick Doane, G. & Varcoe, C. (2005). Family nursing as relational
inquiry – Developing health promoting practice. Philadelphia, PA:
Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
Kleiman, S. (2006). Discovering cultural aspects of nurse patient
relationships. Journal of Cultural Diversity. 13(2), 83-86.
Tinsley, C., & France, N. (2004). The trajectory of the registered
nurse’s exodus from the profession: a phenomenological study of the
lived experience of oppression. International Journal For Human
Caring, 8(1), 8-12.
Watson, J. (2003). Love and caring: ethics of face and hand — an
invitation to return to the heart and soul of nursing and our deep
humanity. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 27(3), 197-202.
Watson, J. (2007). Nursing: human science and human care. A theory of
nursing. Sudbury, Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Watson, J. (2008). Social justice and human caring: a model of caring
science as a hopeful paradigm for moral justice for humanity. Creative
Nursing, 14(2), 54-61.
Source:
Tags: armenia, armenian genocide, denial, gaza, genocide, palestine. israel, war
http://chycho.blogspot.ca/2012/12/a-dinner-conversation-israel-and.html
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2012/12/12/a-dinner-conversation-israel-and-armenia