After reading David Newman’s Creating the Fences of Territorial Separtation: The Discourses of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Resolution for another class, I felt the topic of conflict resolution through shared space would be a pertinent issue to discuss for this class.  Newman details how much of the conflict between Israel and Palestine has been resolved by creating a system of new “walls” that serve to separate groups in an attempt to keeping violence down between the groups.  Building off of this framework, I believe that a gradual integration of these conflicting groups, and others like them may be more beneficial than complete separation.  The area around Israel and Palestine full of historic religious sites important to both Islam and Judaism, and as such they provide a venue from which group differences can be resolved.

Symbolic territories provide people with a sense of identity that they share with members of their cultural groups. Having a space that you share with members of your own group helps to strengthen the bonds within the group, and I think that if you bring these bonds to include those members of society that you are unfamiliar with, it removes some of the “unknown” aspect, and fosters less animosity. The cultural space helps to provide different groups with a common ground upon which they can begin to associate with one another, and ultimately leads to a breakdown of the knowledge barriers that created the fear and antagonism in the first place.

By going to a shared site, once antagonistic groups will see the other in a space that runs contrary to the images that led to their opposition. Rather than seeing the other as a group that is “against” their ideals, and which poses a threat to the preferred livelihood, shared sites place people in an ordinary situation where these visions are challenged. Seeing another group engage in similar practices as one’s own helps to show that the “other” is not that different, and should not be feared. I feel that shared sites are a good thing, as they normalize activities between once antagonistic groups, and establish a knowledge of the other that eliminates the sense of difference that had caused volatility in the first place.

Following the viewing of both The Shadow Company and listening to the guest speaker Alan Bell, I was intrigued by the ethical and moral dilemmas created by presence of a seemingly extraterritorial business entity showing up within one state to enforce the rules of another.  While security companies possess the material means to enforce their policies wherever they go, the question arises as to whether or not they should be allowed to.  Because they are only responsible for the “nouns” that they protect, and nothing more, they possess rights that extend themselves beyond the right of even a citizen, and I believe that there should be some sort of international board that keeps them in line and prevents them from overextending themselves if they wish to be seen as more than just “mercenaries” or “hired guns”.

One of the more curious events in the film was the scene where the security company was travelling at high speeds over the highway and in the wrong lane, pointing guns at those who got too close and even mentioning how they would open fire if people failed to respond to their signals.  I can understand the need to be aware of and fearing of all possible threats, but it becomes a little bit ridiculous when citizens are shot at by a group of people whom they owe no allegiance or obedience to.  These companies are neither the state that the citizen lives in, nor are they the military holding up the state, so for what reason other than the fact that these companies have guns, should the citizen follow a company’s orders.  It is completely possible that innocent citizens are being murdered without reason by groups that are not held responsible for their deaths.

Since the states in which these companies operate are typically failed or quasi-states, there is no natural government to pursue criminal charges against these companies, and the military in charge of the state often hire them on the company’s own conditions, they are given free reign with regards to how they choose to conduct themselves.  I believe that there needs to be some sort of supranational body, similar to the world court, that holds private security companies accountable for their actions.  In this way, groups that are willing to be held to the set standards of a typical military force can be considered as abiding by international law, whereas groups not willing to follow these standards will be recognized as threatening groups which other states can put down.  Private companies that operate as if they are above the law are essentially rebel militants that one state has sanctioned as legal in spite of it’s actual actions.

Private security companies operate in a sphere all there own, and without any real regulation, there is nothing to divide a security company from a paramilitary force, nor is their anything to distinguish their employers from that of a self-imposed dictator.