Further Exploration into the Middle East, and Islam

Today during class our professor was curious of our preconceptions on the war in the Middle East, and on other topics we discussed throughout the semester. Most of my classmates admitted that their preconceptions were based off of our media and whatever bits and pieces they've collected on the topics from conversation or from basic high school courses.
I think it is key to note however, that the American media is not the only media that is seriously altered and filtered in hopes of presenting a specific idea of conclusion. Similarly, most of the Arab media focuses on hatred towards the west and filters there news efforts to present a terrible image of Americans and our intentions. Though the film Obsession directed by Wayne Kopping focuses primarily on Militant Islam's war against the West, the film does address how Militant Islam does not in fact include the majority of Islam (only apprx. 10-15%), but the threats and violence from the extremists are becoming more and more dangerous towards the US and a global jihad has emerged. This film establishes a great understanding of miltant Islam and it's effects on the world as well as the Arabs and muslims themselves.


(There are ten parts to the film, it's easiest to click 'play all')
For an even better understanding on the Arab- Israeli conflict on a whole and throughout history, Wayne Kopping also directed a film entitled Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East. This documentary explores the failures of various agreements, the origins of much of the hate, and simply a basic overview of what's been going on between the two peoples.

Ataturk: A God or a Man?

During both of my history classes on Monday's: Modern Middle East/ North Africa, and Ottoman Empire, discussion of various leaders have been prominent since day one. As we find ourselves towards the end of the semester, the more powerful, more intense, more dominant leaders, those who have made everlasting impressions on our history and our ways of life, have become increasingly more obtrusive as well as more interesting. Particularly, and most recent in our discussions, the case of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk comes to mind. In present day Turkey, Ataturk is viewed by the traditional "Turks" as godlike, where as those in other regions, historians, scholars, et cetera many times contain their focus on Ataturk to his humane behavior and his psychology, basing much of their evidence from diaries and journals that have been stored in military archives in Turkey. As we witnessed within the documentary Father of the Turks, much of this leaders' life revolved around family issues (few, but they did exist,)heavy drinking, heavy smoking, promiscuity, and homosexuality with younger boys. Each of these realities in regards to their leader Ataturk, makes him easier to connect to, easier to understand, more human-like, and ultimately less significant in the eyes of the Turks. As a result, a major controversy arose over this documentary, uproar among the Turkish people took place, the film was banned from schools, and on the whole most Turks felt it undermined their greatest leader: a man who transformed the Sick Man of Europe into the country of Turkey.

America and the CIA Against Iran

Time and time again, America proved to be helpful, supporting, and encouraging towards Iran, even as the Pahlavi Shahs came to rule. I say "even as the Pahlavi Shahs came to rule," because the relationships between Reza Shah, his successor and his son Mohammad Reza Shah, (along with others) and a number of American presidents (as well as the CIA) were primarily known as untrustworthy. Through the CIA and mobs, the US had a number of leaders, that they felt were inadequate and threats to the rest of the world, placed into leadership as well as exiled; of those leaders, Reza Shah, Mohammed Mossadeqh and Ayatollah Khomeini were included. Through the leadership of Khomeini, Iran directed a revolution that would have crushed the most important ally to the US, if it weren’t for the involvement of the US in Iran. The United States felt the Iran ultimately undermined their hold on the Middle East, and was potentially a great threat to world peace. Though the United States went about their intentions for Iran suspiciously and semi-secretly, much of their involvement overall improved Iran as a state, and did well for the Great War.

The Misleadings of Leaders

Leading up to the Six Day War, Nasser's plans and intentions were unclear; what Nasser revealed to the United Nations and major powers of his plans were far different from the plans he revealed to his own people and alliances. History seems to conclude that Nasser was motivated by political power, and so he attempted to come off as a grave threat to Israel and have superior military strength in the presence of Egyptians and his allies, without appearing as such to the UN and to Israel. In fact, Nasser claimed that the Egyptian troops were only present in Sinai as a defensive mechanism; in other words, he thought these efforts would keep Israeli forces from attacking Syria, one of Egypt newly acquired alliances (an alliance Israel was not at all happy with.)
Taking a deeper look into history, what other leaders have mislead their people as well as the other major powers for their own personal gain? Even more so, how often do these attempts and misleadings go drastically wrong?
For Nasser, Israel and the United Nations as well as other key 'players' at this time in history were utterly confused as to what Egypts new leader was planning and felt they must take proper action but it was too late. As a result, a war that no one wanted occured, the Six Day War, or the "set-back," or the "relapse" wasn't wanted nor was needed but resulted with dramatic implications for the Middle East.
Looking at more modern examples, did the Bush Administration have ulterior motives to enter Iraq? Bush acted similarly to Nasser in the idea that he came to power with one plan on his mind, and told his people of another plan. The Bush team was created "ante-Bush years," this is to say that those chosen for his administration were "some of America's largest proponents of preemptive warfare and proponents of an invasion of Iraq in order to oust Saddam Hussein and impose US influence in the Persian Gulf." This plan was initially set, and when our country was attacked on 9/11 we (as a people) acted as any other country would, nationalism soared, and with our President only adding fuel to the fire (we were advised that weapons of mass destruction were present in Iraq) a war began.

The shortage of water is a more serious case than oil..

Our world is comprised seventy percent of water, only two percent of which is fresh water. Each day approximately fifty quarts of water are used per person. What most of us do not understand, or perhaps simply just do not acknowledge is that our water is drying up quickly. While Americans today surround themselves with our "crisis" of oil, and targeting most of our anger towards the jacked up prices on gasoline for our cars, et cetera, we hardly give ourselves the time of day to realize that the rest of the world faces similar "crisis's." Unfortunately for the rest of the world, their crisis is much more important than ours, and that is because the shortage of water is a shortage of one of our few needs, whereas the shortage of oil is a shortage of a want. This is to say that, without oil, we can still survive, but without water, we cannot. Currently, over 1.1 billions people lack the access to clean water, and over 2 billion people lack adequate sanitation. So on the whole, which case is more important? Is water a more serious case than the shortage of oil? Yes. Absolutely.
Egypt makes this point incredibly clear to the world in 1979 when President Anwar Sadat made the statement that Egypt will never go to war again, unless it is to protect its water resources, further establishing the importance of water in our world today. The Middle East depends on three major river systems for their water: the Nile River, the Jordan River, and the Banias River (in Lebanon.) The Nile River is by far the greatest source of water in the region while the Jordan River seems to be nothing more than a dry riverbed. As a result of the six day war, the Palestinians (who were initially the Jordanians) were created, and now water has become the major issue in the Palestinian- Israeli conflict. In fact, water is now seen as the overall main cause and concern within this conflict.
In the past decade "green" movements have become increasingly popular, but recycling and conserving electricity shouldn't be our first goals, the awareness of the water shortages need to become a main priority for all. Water conservation needs to start now and ought to be taken more seriously in present-day America for the sake of under developed countries and eventually, our country as well. Afterall, no one wants another six day war; we've seen and continue to witness the drastic implications for the Middle East that arose as a result of this 1967 war.

Reforms, and Outside-Class readings

Throughout the semester we've been consistently learning more and more about the reforms that were carried out by various rulers before the Ottoman Empire became the "sick man of Europe." Many historians and scholars discuss the controversy on whether or not the Ottoman Empire was attempting to change whatsoever as it began to decline. As we examine documents like The Gulhane Proclamation, and the various reforms incorporated during the Qajar Dynasty as well as while the Pahlavi Shahs ruled, it is plain to see that this empire was in fact attempting to change for the better. The Gulhane Proclamation presented ideas similar to those in our Bill of Rights, "Security of life, honor, and fortune," as well as this idea that benefiting the Ottoman people is the governments number one priority. The Qajar Dynasty began with military reforms: deciding which kinds of tools and weapons should instead be used. This dynasty also worked to increase and encourage the cultivation of cash crops, and the rulers were successful in building a state apparatus. But following this "triangle idea" that reform leads to imperialism which leads to nationalism which leads to reform, et cetera, soon enough revolutions and opposition from the people arose. It was with the Pahlavi Shahs that nationalism sprung again, and with the new rulers, new reforms also arose.
I could go on to further explain the reforms and the rulers and the revolts. But for this blog I would like to make it apparent that the readings we've been assigned as outside work have become considerably helpful in understanding all of this material. Though the fictional novels we've been reading are only fiction, I think it's important to include these types of sources in history classes like this; these novels suggest new perspectives we may not have otherwise obtained, even if some of the information isn't historical accurate, it is our responsibility as students to have paid enough attention and done the work expected of us so that we can decide what is true and what is not. Furthermore, these reading only reiterate all of what we learn in class, and the only way to truly learn our history is through repetition, and what easier way to have information repeated than through novels and textbooks that show us new perceptions of the same information.

Who ever said understanding history would be easy?

Though I understand why many of my classmates were not thrilled about reading Zayni Barakat, I personally found it a great read especially considering this fictional novel focused on the Ottoman Empire within the 16 and 17 centuries, which if not studied right can seem quite dull. I know that many of these reasons had to do with Zayni Barakat as a "fictional" novel; this concerned many readers because they were not familiar enough with the history to identify what was or was not true. I am also one of those students, who are not yet able to unravel true from untrue simply because I have thus far not been educated enough with this history. Even so, after noticing that even Dr. Metcalf who has been studying this information for quite some time, had trouble telling one Sultan's picture form another, I felt assured that not only studying, but time would assist me in understanding the Ottoman Empire and less scared of making mistakes. For me, Zayni Barakat was just one more study session that would lead me closer to understanding the people and the time period more fully, so I had fun with the novel.
I was first lured into the reading and realized that I wanted to finish the novel quickly just for the sake of knowing "what's gonna happen," during the chapter that discussed a young girl who was sold as a slave to a much older man that forced her in to sexual relations. That's just my personality though. When discussing slavery or feminism you'll find me irritated and "heated;" two topics that I do not address as miniscule whatsoever.
I also loved that the novel was on such a personal level with its characters. The author advanced the perspectives within the novel by allowing various characters narrate or stand alone as the sole focus of a chapter. Readers are then able to gain a true sense of who each character is, get inside their minds in way. Not only that, but readers are also able to view characters through others eyes, see the pros and cons of someone through various perceptions. Author al-Ghitani makes it moderately simple for readers to pick and choose what they believe while maintaining a decent fight in persuading his readers to believe certain aspects of the Ottoman Empire.
The way I see it, what is untrue within fictional novels will be quickly contradicted by other sources, if a false statement is not easily contradicted it is either a controversial issue or is of relative unimportance.
..and if that's the case, then stop worrying yourself.