Living extraordinary lives

During the past few days I watched (again) The Fabulous Destiny of Amélie Poulain and continued reading One Palestine, Complete, among other things. While doing this I again thought about how interesting and almost magical life was in the movie, or as descripted in the book (not talking about the violence). This led me back to my old thoughts about what interesting - or special - life essentially is. And while it should have been always readily apparent to me, it only now really hit home; life is [almost] never extraordinary; it's either normal or miserable. And I'm talking about judging your own life, here and now, and not someone else's.

Let me explain.

What makes life extraordinary, special or otherwise noteworthy? How someone lives, what he does or who he meets. This means riches, achievements or relations. The problem is, that in the first case we judge someone's living conditions compared to those of someone else; we are always ourselves the standard. Rich people see poor people living extraordinarily, if miserably. And poor people in turn see rich people living...well..extraordinarily happy.
The problem with the second is that while things sound glorious while told as a story or anecdote (for example, living abroad due to father's work), the experience of going through with it is actually quite tedious and mundane. The long flights, living in a country with high language barrier, no friends etc. The extraordinary parts get buried under the pile of daily problems.
And the third? Well, knowing great people does bring some light into your life, but I feel that it also lights the misery of your own life in comparison.

Now, after saying all this I admit that there are people who feel like they live extraordinarily; I expect most of them are people who's living conditions changed dramatically (and suddenly) after childhood, usually due to some singular feat (like winning in Olympics after years of practice) or because someone else did something big (distant relative died and left his considerable fortune to your disposal). But in normal life? There was a person in my classroom few years ago who had used two years to hitch hike around the world. I remember overhearing him talking about dancers in Brazil, about holy places in Jerusalem and the rush hours of Japan. I'm sure he felt he had done something nice and cool, but while telling you have been to all these places (and visualizing to others how you did it) seems grand, in practice I bet the grandiose is lost in his mind under the nights in flea-ridden hostels and days walking in rain.

The only people who in practice ever think that their life isn't normal are those who are chronically depressed and want to get better or find a way out.

And Amélie? She walks in Paris where nuns cross the streets in flocks, a man with glass bones and artistic tendencies lives under the same roof and everyone you meet is a strong personality, worth a book by themselves. And she never realizes it, or wonders about it; I'm sure she thought about it briefly when she moved to that area, but in practice; this was her life, right? And life is normal, no matter how extraordinary it actually is.

Friends and emotional attachments

How do we define people around us? Unknown, people we know by name, people we spend time with (but don't actually know), friends? Particularly the last two categories fascinate me. You get from category #1 to category #2 just by introducing and maybe sitting in the same class room. To number #3 by going for a beer together. But to #4?
Is there an universal definition? Some people say that once you let people into your home you are friends. Or that you can spend time together without actually doing anything. Are mutual interests expected? Trust? Love? Respect? Something else?

I'm asking this because while there are many people I happily declare my friends in all the above definitions of the word, there are some that I don't. Or, to put it less bluntly, don't think if it's proper to call them friends. I'll get back to this shortly. Bear with me.

I remember that at the age of 12 an adult asked me who my friends (ystävät) are. I responded by listing my few mates (kaverit). After that, the adult in question was careful to call them as such. The distinction was that "mate" is a #3 while "friend" is a #4. I notice that some people are more relaxed with these terms. I have often wondered do they do so just out of courtesy, or are they so quick to forge the emotional bonds that friends have between each other? Or imagine that such bonds exist? Or maybe they just have a definition that allows #3's to be called #4's.

I wonder.

To go on; is there a proper way to make a friend? I have never been very good at this. A person is an occasional distraction at school... and few years later you notice its four in the morning and you have spent forty-odd hours in the "distraction's" apartment watching television, telling poor jokes and talking about life. Obviously, at some part between these two scenes the relationship changed.

Back to the definition. I hear that people who use MySpace and MSN to forge social contacts make a distinction between "friend" and "friendster". By definition, the latter are not real friends, but #3's. It comes to me, can one forge real, lasting relationships through the Internet, without actually ever meeting the other face-to-face.
I remember reading last year in newspaper about a Finnish guy who had entered exchange of letters with American girl in the 1950s (when both of them were still in middle school) and only met the week the newspaper came out. They had written each other letters for over 50 years, diligently and without fail. And while the Finnish guy had been to America - indeed, only few score kilometres from the girl, he hadn't had the opportunity to see her. And she had travelled Europe but had likewise been unable to visit Finland.
Were they friends? I imagine they wrote on paper everything that happened in their lives. I imagine, that over the years they told each other secrets they didn't tell anyone else, not even their spouses. But they had never met. They didn't know how the other laughed, how the other smiled. Didn't know how the other liked to form sentences or what syllables they give weight when talking. Or how the other has curious way of bending head when checking the time.

Are such things important for friendship? Is it strange, pathetic or otherwise improper to call people you have talked daily for years friends? Even if you have never met, even if it's only through IRC or instant messenger?

Where do you draw the line? What's the definition?

Learning about Israel

Ponte Corvo sent me One Palestine, Complete, a book about Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate. Heavy book, it seems to equal in page count with one of the later Harry Potter-books.

As I don't have that much knowledge about Israel (beyond that which was teached on the ninth grade of compulsory school (age 15), in high school (age 17) and newspapers thereafter) this is bound to be interesting read. If nothing else, it will afford a new perspective not mentioned in Finnish history books and media obsessed with the current events.

As I was thinking of my education, I remembered that my mother asked me to take my old school books with me when I left after the last visit. I therefore had my 9th grade book easily at hand, and decided to see what it said about Israel. I was somewhat surprised by the clunkiness of the text, but I should probably understand that not all people of that age were really comfortable with books. I decided to translate the chapter to show Finnish view on Israeli history looks like.
I have tried to make the translation easy to myself by keeping many Finnish turns of phrase that might not be entirely at home with the English language - I'm in a bit of a hurry with this text, as I'm leaving home for the weekend and I want this out of the way first.

My history book was called Horisontti - Napoleonista nykypäivään (Horisont - from Napoleon to modern day) and was written by Lappalainen et al, published by Otava in 1995.

The political situation of Middle-East in the mid1980s. The map shows the political areas of influence and local crisis points. A constant threat was that the small clashes on the area might develop into wars between the superpowers. Full fledged war was on between Iraq and Iran. There had been islamic revolution in Iran, where ajatollah Khomeini had ceased power from shaah [?] Riza Pehlevin. Iran was left in discord, which Iraq leader Saddam Hussein tried to take advantage of. The countries had arguments over borders and waterways. Hussein failed, but the war lasted nearly the whole 1980s.

Chapter 73: Middle-East in world politics
Area and its problems
The area shown in the map is called Middle-East. The area's belonging to it range from Egypt to Iran and also include Kypros and Turkey. Middle-East is a political, not geographical term. It is one of the focal points of world politics, and local skirmishes tend to unfold into international matters. The background of the problems is a mixed bag of religious, economical and geographical factors. Middle-East is the cradle of three world religions - judaism, Christianity and Islam. Of the 200 million people on the area the majority are muslims, who have divided into Sunni and Shiia-factions. Of Christians, there are also many factions. The different religious groups have often tried to force their own views with violence. The steepest differences are between the Jews and and arab-muslims.
[About the different nations on the area. ]

The Palestine Question
At the beginning of our recounting of time, Palestine was Judea-named province of Rome, where the majority of people were Jewish. When the Jews rose into rebellion, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in the year 77. The name of Judea was switched into Palestine, and for Jews diaspora began, the scattering to different parts of the world.
After Romans Palestine has been under the control of Arabs, European crusaders and- after 16th century- Turks. When the Turkish realm started to weaken in the 19th century, a powerful Arab kinship was born, which was first targeted against Turkish control but also against European nations. They too started to be interested of the lands in control of the ebbing Empire. England and France took Egypt under their control when the Suez Channel was built. The First World War meant the final strike to Turkish control, and vast arab-areas were thrown under European control under mandates granted by League of Nations. Great Britain got Palestine, which it hand occupied during the war from Turkey.
During the World War Great Britain promised Jews national home in Palestine and assured that this move would not stamp the rights of Arabs. The promise was the beginning of Jews' exodus to Palestine. It was hastened in Europe - specially in Hitler's Germany - by persecution. On the year of 1918 84 000 of the people in Palestine were Jews - 11%, but by 1948 they were a third of population of two million. This led into clash of interests and violent incidents with Arabs and proceeded to situation where the Brits could no longer contain the situation. On the year 1947 Great Britain decided to subject the future of Palestine to UN to solve.

The birth of Israel and enlargement
The UN had two suggestions. The Arab states suggested proclaiming Palestine as independent nation, where both Arabs and Jews would live. The other suggestion maintained that the area should be divided into Arab and Jewish nations. The second suggestion got the favour of majority vote, and so the Brits left the country and Israel declared itself independent nation in May 1948. Immediately after Israel's neighbours attacked the young nation with the help of Iraqi and Saudi Arabian battalions from every side.
Israel won the war and expanded its area. This happened three times later, as the maps of the next page shows. In 1956 Egypt nationalized the Suez Channel, which led to Israel attacking with France and England against Egypt. In 1967 the president of Egypt Gamal Abdel Nasser closed Israel's access through Akaba Bay to Harbour of Eilat. This led to so-called Six Day war, during which Israel invaded the whole Siinai, strip of Gaza, West Bank and Golan's Heights as well as Arab East-Jerusalem. In 1973 Egypt tried again. Its forces crossed the Suez and dug into defensive lines. At the same time Syria attacked Golan. Israel got weaponry assistance from the United States and blocked the attack. UN tried to instill cease fire and sent to the area peacekeepers, which Middle-East already had had.
In addition to peace negotations UN insisted Israel to leave the occupied areas, but for no effect. On the other hand, peace offering from Egypt led to President of Egypt signing a peace treaty with Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin at Camp David in United States. Accoarding to the pact Israel forfeited in 1982 Siinai to Egypt and evacuated the settlements. Egypt in turn recognized the Israeli state and stopped making demands for the independence of Palestine. Arabs declared the Egypt president a traitor.

Refugees and terrorism
When Israel became independent in 1948, most of the Arabs on the area fled to neighbouring states, where they were relocated on camps designed as short-term solution. The amount of refugees was then 700 000-800 000. Similarly over half million Jews moved to Israel. When Israel in 1967 invaded West Bank, the amount of refugees rose to 1,5 million. Today there are over two million on Israeli occupied areas, and the same amount as refugees on Arab countries. All of them have dreamed of founding their own nation.
On the refugee camps people are uneasy, and on them many terrorism using Palestinian resistance organisations have gained support. The operation of these organisations was centred specially in Lebanon, when other border neighbours of Israel had extorted the guerilla fighters from their area in fear of revenge strikes. In 1982 Israel attacked Lebanon, invaded its capital Beirut and finally forces Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) to leave Lebanon.

Surprising pact
In 1987 started on Israeli occupied areas Palestinian uprising, intifada, to which Israel answered with force. The uprising seriously disturbed peace negotiations, which United States as middleman had been able to be initialized between Israel and and the Arabs. In the negotiations Arabs demanded Israel to leave the occupied areas, which Israel saw as important for its security. In September 1993 these negotiations surprisingly led into a pact which has been thought as historical: Israel and PLO recognized each other. At the same time Israeli cabinet agreed on pact which gave Gaza and the town of Jericho autonomy. This pact happened in 1994, when Israeli occupiers left Gaza and Jericho. The pact opened a door for the continued peace progress in the Middle East. In October 1994 Jordan as well did a peace treaty with Israel and in November of the same year Jordan and Syria tied peace between each other as well.

Jewish elder stepping to "promised land". Arabs feared Jews would gain majority in Palestine. They got the Brits to limit immigration as early as 1939. After Germany's surrender the limit was pushed down to 1 500 per month. This led to rampant illegal immigration, that Brits tried to stop even by shooting illegal crossers.