Wrap up blog

Sorry if I have mixed together some of the weeks, I am not sure if my last blog was supposed to be part of this one. Anyway, I found the class very helpful in understanding current issues in the Middle East, most of the novels were suitable works that addressed different issues. I really wish there could have been more class discussions and that they had been more in depth, but I guess that just depends on class size. My favorite novel was The Bastard Of Istanbul because it discussed the Armenian genocide while tying in the creation of the Turkish national identity, which I think helped us to understand the significance of Ataturk’s reforms. I enjoyed reading Smith’s book on the Arab Israeli crisis, but think it would have been better discussing it in sections in class because he covered so much history I am afraid I got lost in some of the details. The documentaries were helpful tools, but I have become increasingly suspicious of them as it seems every professor finds inaccuracies in them, I might lose my faith in the History Channel.
I think the organization of the course allowed us to understand the historical events that led to the current situation in the Middle East, now embarrassed that I didn’t learn more about the Ottoman Empire which was so important and expansive.

We reviewed the circumstances of the Iranian revolution’s particular success, the religious tradition filling the vacuum as other ideologies failed. Right after we watched the documentary on Khomeini the controversial Iranian president Ahmadinejad popped up in the news again. In a anti-racism conference the president attacked the state of Israel and the west saying that after World War II they "resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless, on the pretext of Jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question of Holocaust". Anti- Western feeling in Iran is still apparently prevalent and the president seems to keep making inflammatory remarks against Israel that simply make the situation worse, only supporting anti-Semitic stereotype of the Middle East.
We discussed the novel Gate of the Gold Sun which I personally detested reading, though it made some good points overall. I better understood the reason for the writing style after the tradition he was following was mentioned in class. The novel gave the perspective of young Palestinian men fighting for a country they had never lived in, dealing with the failure of their ‘revolution’ from outside. The author seems to embrace victimhood for Palestinians, a topic that seems to come up a lot, while writing a political piece about resistance (sorry to repeat my comment from class, but I though it was important/odd part of the book). It was definitely helpful in understanding Palestinian perspective, but I think perhaps one novel with some Israeli perspective would be helpful, even though we are bombarded by it in the media.

We discussed the involvement of other Arab nations over the Palestinian-Israeli issue, Nasser’s need to lead the Arabs in order to remain in a prominent position among the Arab nations.
The prominence of the U.S. in the in conflict is important to Israeli’s historical advantage, and that is why the Obama administration’s reaction to the new prime minister’s negative attitude to peace talks could possibly give a bit of hope to the situation. Though minister Netanyahu is not for a two state solution, saying a Palestinian state would be a threat to Israeli security, pressure from the United State could be an important factor for the future. Obama has made it clear that the current situation is not acceptable, and American support is important for Israel. This is discussed in this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7963503.stm. Foreign influence has proven to be an important part of the developments in this conflict, starting with the British at the beginning of the twentieth century and eventually transferring to the U.S., and now we seem to be changing our stance on the issue (from what I understand). I wish we could spend more time on this topic, though we have read so much about it, the conflict is so controversial and complicated it would be helpful as an American citizen for more information.
We watched and later finished the documentary on the rise of Khomeini and the Islamic revolution that put him in power, to the shock of the U.S. I was surprised to find that so many groups could support this figure, communists and religious clerics, mostly because he was against U.S. influence and the shah. It is difficult to discuss Khomeini objectively, since take over of the U.S. embassy and holding hostages has always been a hot topic in my family. Even now that I understand the angry response to American influence and the harboring of the hated shah it is hard to understand the violence towards ambassadors and diplomats.

We continued discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict this week, covering important events that led to the current situation, the leadership of Nasser in Arab nationalism. The documentary that showed Smith’s lecture was helpful, repeating what we have been talking about and what was in his book.
I looked at the DeirYassin.org site, remembering a massacre of the village of Deir Yassin by Jerusalem, part of the nakba. This site wants the Palestinians experience as victims to be acknowledged, a familiar topic in this class by now. The perspective is obviously slanted, but it is useful because it preserves memory of the people not the (Israeli) state history that typically dominates. The documentary uses space, the Deir Yassin cemetery that is no longer maintained, to show the oblivious feeling toward the village’s history and the deaths of civilians. The silenced group’s experience is important for the proper portrayal of history.
I have been paying attention to the BBC’s news website, and they have been discussing the denial of war crimes by the Israeli state in Gaza and the new prime minister’s conservative anti-negotiation attitude. After watching the documentary and reading Smith’s book it seems terrible that the violence continues, that Israelis fear attacks and Palestinians still live in camps not their homes. The building of Jewish settlements and the fear of Palestinians that the state will never truly dedicate itself to the two state solution, that will end the fragmentation of their communities, as addressed here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7919832.stm.
I personally did not enjoy reading Touba though it was an interesting attempt at showing societal change over 80 years in Iran and the situation of women.

The comparison of Ataturk and Reza Shah was helpful in understanding the difficulties facing emerging nations that were struggling to recover from the ‘failure’ of their societal structures. The creation of nation state and identity has been mentioned in other history class as a long process that is not necessarily successful since an all encompassing image may fail to meet the needs of traditionally marginalized groups. For Turkey the denial of the Armenian genocide was part of the new positive image. Ataturk and Reza Shah’s programs of modernization and secularization were based upon the idea that their countries had failed and that Western ‘civilization’ succeeded. The creation of nation state identity is not natural and in these two countries was part of the reforms of these individuals and then pushed by the state. The comparison helped to show the possible failure of such an attempt, as Ataturk’s program led to the fundamental ideals of modern Turkey but Reza Shah’s Iran experience political upheavals during the twentieth century.
I really enjoyed Smith’s book on the Arab Israeli conflict, even if I was the only one. I already mentioned in class that the strong leadership and resources of the Israelis greatly disadvantaged the Palestinians, eventually leading to their lack of free agency in the future of their own country. The systematic displacement of Palestinians through force and land sales coupled with the settlement of Jews resulted in the majority of the population losing their homes and rights. As for the issue that arose in class about the objectivity of historians I highly doubt that any writer is ever truly objective, but I believe he does present all issues involved while favoring the Palestinian experience with the support of important documents. The belief that text books or any historical source can be objective, seems, ridiculous because everyone has an agenda.

Beginnings of the Arab Israeli conflict (week 10)

I never learned about the history and formation of Zionism before, it was always presented to me as coming from a united group and so I was somewhat surprised to learn about the factionalized history of Zionists. The evolution of Zionism, the original objectives of Herzl are different from our understanding of Zionism today since he wanted practically any place where Jews could simply have security, not specifically based on heritage. The initial tolerant attitude of the Ottomans to Jewish immigrants (expect in Palestine) contrasts sharply with the Arabs’ later fear of the rise of Jewish influence. The sudden change in atmosphere in the 1920s and 1930s, as Arabs and the British begin to react to the high number of Jewish immigrants, marks the outward discomfort with their presence. The change in social and cultural understanding of the two groups is useful when watching the news on the conflict, as the issue came up in class that some people are given the impression by the media that this conflict is centuries old. The movement of Palestinians and Israelis was forced, as land in the Middle East was negotiated over by Europeans and Zionists pursued their objective of moving in Jewish settlers. The Palestinians first turned to the British for help, trying to get restrictions on immigration and land sales, but eventually turned to revolting. I thought it was interesting how foreign influence was important in the formation of Israel, since the support of the United States and Americans Jews was important to the success of Zionists while Palestinians did not equal support from another nation.

Divvying up the Ottoman Empire (week 9)

We discussed the shady secret treaties of the early twentieth century in which European countries followed imperialistic agenda in the Middle East, and Zionism in politics. A long list of treaties and promises were mentioned, but mostly involved Europeans maneuvering for more land and unfortunately leaving Arab leaders, such as Sherif Husayn, with vague promises that were never fulfilled. They used a language of prejudice and superiority, European nations promising to assist emerging Arab nations in the formation of their governments.
The documentary about the Armenian genocide helped me to further understand the issue, giving faces to the large number murdered and displaced. The circumstances of the deportation were brutal- people went on six day forced marches designed to exhaust and eventually kill them. The tactics used are chillingly familiar- are similar to what the Nazis would later use during the Holocaust, they even used box cars to transport some people.
I thought it was really interesting how politicians in the documentary were arguing over whether it was a genocide because there supposedly was no Ottoman intent to destroy the group and because Armenians were not ‘innocent’ victims, because they resisted. It is incredible that people can still argue over whether these civilians were deserving or undeserving of pity. The Turkish government’s official denial of the genocide is really interesting, though terrible, it is institutionalized and taught to children in school. They mentioned that the genocide was practically forgotten in Europe because it recognized ‘new’ Turkey, the formation of statehood involved rejecting Armenian experience and memory.