Archives

“Route 181” offers an unusual vision of the inhabitants of Palestine-Israel, a common vision of an Israeli and a Palestinian. In the summer of 2002, for two long months, Eyal Sivan and Michel Khleifi travelled together from the south to the north of their country of birth, traced their trajectory on a map and called it Route 181. This virtual line follows the borders outlined in Resolution 181, which was adopted by the United Nations on November 29th 1947 to partition Palestine into two states. As they travel along this route, they meet women and men, Israeli and Palestinian, young and old, civilians and soldiers, filming them in their everyday lives. Each of these characters has their own way of evoking the frontiers that separate them from their neighbors: concrete, barbed-wire, cynicism, humor, indifference, suspicion, aggression...Frontiers have been built on the hills and in the plains, on mountains and in valleys but above all inside the minds and souls of these two peoples and in the collective unconscious of both societies. “Route 181, Fragments of a Journey in Palestine-Israel” takes us on a disorientating journey across this tiny territory with vast ramifications.

This presentation examines the durability of new Indonesia democracy based on Pancasila ideology in facing efforts to form an Islamic state. In last effort after being unsuccessful to get support in national level, the supporters of pro-Islamic state use autonomy system in Indonesia to promote shari'a regulations in some districts and cities. In contrast to the New Order regime which restricted categories that could be discussed in public, the current regime responds to this demand by attempting to find place for such effort. The shari'a regulations are not annulled by the central government but are given opportunity to people to decide. The pro and anti-shari'a exponents have debated the issues by referring to Pancasila ideology. The pro-shari'a claims that the implementation of Islamic shari'a is part of proving that Pancasila is not a secular ideology but the anti-shari'a argues that any laws produced in Indonesia should apply to all and not for a certain religious group. After an intense debate in public, the pro-shari'a found the fact that their arguments derived from religious justifications cannot be acceptable for all Indonesians. The changes in form of debate and persuasion of pro-shari'a groups can be seen from their arguments that the shari'a regulations are actually not shari'a regulations but only regulations inspired by interpretation of shari'a living in society. The case discussed in this paper shows that the new Indonesia democracy is durable enough to accommodate demands in society but it also shows that the process to find rational and justified arguments for legal policies in Indonesia politics still continue and Pancasila is still accepted as a political platform although it has not become what Rawls mentioned as an 'overlapping consensus' among Indonesians.