When in public, it is natural for a person to eavesdrop on nearby conversations. As a voice projects louder, a person innately listens in and analyzes the generic topic at hand such as politics, sports, good places to eat in the area, etc. In Naomi Shihab Nye’s “Savigny Platz”, a similar situation occurred when I came across two characters having lunch in Berlin, Germany. Rather than simply reading the text, I felt more as a passerby quickly listening to a few of the words and moving along. One of the characters is Israeli and comments to their counterpart, “The way I see it, Palestinians don’t even exist” (Nye 30-31). This line left me in a bit of a quandary. A shared hatred between Israelis and Palestinians is common knowledge but the reason to why this exists is something I could not come up with. Using this text, an interest in the cultural issue of Israel and Palestine was sparked. The poem, above all else, is against any stance of opposition, specifically the condemnation of Palestine. The response to negative language the Israeli displays is an indicator to the trend in the poem. By researching the origins of the state of Israel, social ramifications of this conflict, and the setting of Berlin, it becomes clear to how key areas of the poem prefer a peaceful approach to the situation rather than the tense emotions that the world has gotten accustomed to experiencing via this conflict. 

 To begin to understand why the Israeli is so dismissive of Palestine in the poem, knowing the context of the origins of both states is crucial. The conflict of Israel and Palestine can be traced back all the way to the late 1940’s. At this time, Palestine had just been abandoned by their British mandates. Simultaneously, the issue of what to do with the Jewish contingent in Europe who had evaded the cruel act of genocide during World War II was being discussed. The UN decided that these issues could be solved together and the UN Partition plan of 1947 for a single Jewish state along with an Arab state was put forth and adopted by the organization. Here is where the ironic nuance to the Israeli’s words in the poem first come to light. A historical analysis of events show that Palestinians were the first people of the land. Through a chain of events, the infiltration of the Jewish people began this conflict. How can this person then go on to say that Palestine can never exist in his view? The complexity of the poem begins to take shape here. By including this line, the poem is not advocating for a pro-Israel stance rather, illuminating how damaging this perspective is for the overall conflict between the two groups of people. It continues to throw fuel on the fire and stir up harsh emotions without fully understanding how the context of the situation can be attributed to your own side. 

The proposed partition plan met heavy resistance with Israel’s neighboring countries. Almost immediately after it was passed in the UN, with heavy support from the superpower USA, fighting broke out between Israel and surrounding countries. By the end of the fighting, Israel’s aggressive attacks had successfully won them the war. They had gained over a quarter more land from Palestine than what was originally proposed in the partition plan. After continuing its aggressive approach during negotiations of peace/armistice, Israel succeeded in many of its goal and established itself as the premier power in the area. All the while, Palestine suffered immensely with refugees being misplaced from their homes, schools and societies being ravaged by war, and a general reeling where many in the world did not support their position. This is further proof to the hypocritical rhetoric that the Israeli in the poem states. The notion that Israel were the true aggressors of this conflict does not seem to faze him, whether by deliberate or accidental ignorance. The author openly questions this logic with the line, “How the Israeli yesterday… could say to me” (Nye 29-30). The text does not agree with such a divisive train of thought rather, promotes a more amicable way of life. This is evident in how the author describes the various people throughout the poem. Various characters are described on trains and in the streets, showing a comprehensive approach to the view of society against such a divisive mentality that this conflict has established. 

In further analyzing the Israeli’s stance, the next question that prompted was to how this idea came to be embedded into his/her beliefs. Looking into the social affects that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict brings, there is a clear pattern that the militarization of this conflict has been fixed into the public and private lives of citizens through institutions of education and family. All Israeli citizens are required to serve in the military for a two or three-year period immediately after high school. Many narratives of citizens tell similar tales of how various lessons in school were taught in preparation for their military service. In this example, the setting of high school has become infiltrated by this conflict and students of each generation are socialized to this nationalistic thought against Palestinians. In this context, some reason can be given to Israeli for his thinking. It is not that he is naturally against Palestine instead, he has been nurtured socially to this harsh stance. In another example, the conflict has infiltrated the private homes of families. Other narratives show how the enlistments of sons and daughters entangle the family into this conflict. Can a family really go against this widely practiced form of politics? Or do they turn a blind eye to their beliefs in order for their family setting to remain somewhat peaceful? The latter option seems to be the choice of most families and in this case, the continued presence of the conflict remains firmly rooted in the institution of family. With these agents of socialization present in so many people’s lives due to this conflict, is it even possible to know anything other than what the Israeli says at lunch? The idea of hate against Palestine has been sewed into individuals, initiated this type of conduct. The poem attempts to combat this behavior when the author offers, “I wish you could have known my dad” (Nye 35). The father was a Palestinian refugee whom the author describes very virtuously throughout the poem. He was a man who suffered tremendously throughout his life as the conflict took him away from his home to face the hardships of life in a country he did not fully understand. Yet, he never allowed all the negativity stemming from this conflict to overtake his belief that humanity in nature is beautiful. He is very symbolic in that this conflict can be overcome and peace can exist interpersonally. 

The city of Berlin has housed many conflicts over the course of its history. Most notably, both World Wars and a period of separation in the city with the Berlin Wall. Many of these events brought havoc to the people and were always characterized by very oppressive and divisive rulings. Nonetheless, Berlin today is characterized as one of the premier melting pots of Europe. Immigrants from all over the world flock to this hub, flooding the city with immense culture from all walks of life. In essence, this city is very symbolic of how continued resiliency amidst bad times can ultimately lead to prevailed over. In the poem, the lunch between the two characters takes place in this inclusive city. The author makes mention to the irony of the Israeli’s words with, “in Berlin of all places” (Nye 30). Such a rhetoric that promotes alienation of others is completely at odds with what the city stands for. The poem argues that understanding the context of past lessons and where we are today is key to moving past the hatred.  

World War II saw the horrific genocide and targeting of Jewish people in Europe. Berlin was the host to the Nazi regime, who above all other, completely despised these people and hoped to terminate them from the world. Yet today, much the Jewish population in the country has rebounded and is flourishing. Generations of Jewish people have again rooted themselves here and have become productive members of society. They have become scholars and professionals, establishing their own institutions along the way. The author takes note of this in response to the Israeli man when she says, “this brilliant rebuilt city, where so many histories were scrapped” (Nye 36-37). It asserts that even though his own people have suffered tremendously through this separate conflict, they themselves have not floundered in such inhumanity. More than buildings and houses have been rebuilt in this city, lives and culture have too. The same principle can be applied to the divisiveness of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Bogging down in despise for one another is further damaging to everyone involved. It reaffirms a vicious cycle of violence and barbarism in which the people affected will have no chance of escaping. The poem setting in Berlin is another way it fights to deliver this point. 

An interesting aspect in the setting is that it reflects how transportable the Israel-Palestine conflict is. The actual geography of this dispute occurs hundreds of miles away from where the lunch is taking place. Yet, the same social tensions can be found to exist here. This exhibits how a negative ideology can spread to great lengths. To combat this, the poem uses an analogy again in the form of the father. The author speaks to how she feels the father’s presence in the city by saying, “you glitter so fiercely in a city where you never were” (Nye 1-2). This presence is characterized as a “hopeful daze” (4), revealing the depth to which his positivity is seen in everyday life. The man has never visited the city, yet his morals and values when applied to the society, still bring out the distinctive qualities of humanity. The poem serves up this lesson in order to combat the spread of the conflict. It is showing how a promising outlook can change a viewpoint of people for the better. This juxtaposition is made available through the placement of Berlin alongside the portability of the Israel-Palestine conflict. 

After going through background research on the various topics, much of the poem’s reason became clearer than before. The depth of the poem became evident and the Israel-Palestine conflict became much more relevant to me personally. Being from Indian descent, many people with whom I socialize voice their displeasure with Pakistanis based off of past conflicts between the two nations. This rhetoric aligns closely with the Israeli’s in the text. Personally, my grandfather was born in Pakistan but, through a similar partition of nations, he was relocated to present day India. In this way, the poem speaks to me in the same way I try to epitomize to others. Understanding context and not allowing a hateful mantra to overtake you regardless of situation is the key to remaining humane. Without that, our view for humanity becomes tainted and we can miss out on some truly great thinks people have to offer. Similarly, this poem echoes this message albeit in a different context of conflict. I feel it has enlightened me to the same situation again because also being an American is a part of my identity. Growing up, a pro-Israel stance was the only thing I knew politically. Analyzing the significance of this poem and the message it argues about the Israel-Palestine conflict has shown me that not only are there two sides to the story, it is truly a disservice to firmly entrench yourself firmly onto a particular side. Furthermore, it attempts to do away with sides altogether, campaigning for unity as human beings. 

In conclusion, “Savigny Platz” is a poem that does not fancy the divisive rhetoric that has erupted in the wake of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Instead, it offers a positive outlook on humanity as a counter, appealing that humanity above all else is marvelous in nature. Analyzing the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict brings context into why a hatred between these two groups have been shared historically. In the poem, this brings irony to an Israeli’s talk of not liking Palestinians as evidence shows how his group were the ones to not exist but through aggressive acts of violence, became a nation. Social ramifications of this conflict have shown how institutions of education and family have been fully infiltrated to socialize citizens against the opposing nation. People are engineered to participate in the conflict from a very young age, cementing a hatred for the other side. For this, the poem offers the author’s father, a man very well versed in the destruction that this conflict causes. Being a Palestinian refugee, he has seen the worst that humanity can stoop to in this violence yet, he retains a positive outlook on life that displays how the negativity of this conflict can be overcome. Subduing to low morals has no excuse. Setting the poem in Berlin has many implications in regards to being a symbolic figure of how resiliency against conflict can bear fruits of positivity. The history of Berlin has been characterized with various divisive campaigns that have ravaged various groups of people yet, the city is one of the most inclusive in the world. Having this idea that certain people just do not exist is completely against what the city symbolizes and the text capitalizes on this irony to further its argument. With deeper research into contextual elements of “Savigny Platz”, much deeper meaning is derived from the poem alongside with connections between the actions in the poem holding greater interpretations. Overall, there is a theme of nonviolence to appreciate the true qualities that mankind has to offer. 
