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.

A Snow Day With a Proclamation in Mind..

The Gulhane Proclamation begins looking through history, past to present, and relives a handful of the reasons and causes for the decline of the ottoman empire as well as the reasons for this, and other proclamations. Quickly the proclamation transitions to the present with a tone of seriousness and trust; the proclamation addresses its means while maintaining trustful ties with the peoples in which it refers to. “A good administration” with “full confidence” towards benefiting the peoples seems to be the main purpose for the author(s) of the document. After considering the document, it is quite apparent that it was produced post-French Revolution, with regards to the massive improvements the document hopes to provide as well as alluring to the people it is focused on. Oddly enough, the document also portrays a slight similarity to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution with regards to incorporating "security of life, honor, and fortune." This idea seems all to familiar considering most Americans have the words "life, liberty, and property" burned into our minds. Often peoples and historians mistake the Ottoman Empire for not attempting to change during this time period, but after reflecting over this document as well as many others, one can plainly see in which ways the authority within the Ottoman Empire were trying to enforce change for the better, and for the people.

Old, but Newly Interpreted Perceptions of Slavery

Slavery has been defined as “a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another,” or “a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person.” Before the Civil War, the United States addressed slavery that fully reflected that first definition, but slavery in the US went far beyond one human-being being treated as the property of another human-being. This slavery took away what I perceive as basic human rights, it practiced racism and sexism, and the undermining of “different” people and physical abuse and torture were it’s normal standards. As a result, Westerners now have an incredibly skewed vision of slavery and we are so taken aback whenever we discuss slavery of our perception; however, other forms of slavery also exist, forms that are not nearly as drastic or as undermining and I think this idea is crucial to touch on with regards to the Ottoman Empire especially.
Slavery was also a term coined with the Janissary Corps, and women of the Imperial Harems of the Ottoman Empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These women were referred to as slave concubines and lived in the Harem with a strict set of rules and obligations; this idea of slavery applies to the second definition more so than to the first. The harem was an institution, and as an institution it acted as a training camp for these women to receive proper education and etiquette, these women were treated exceptionally well and lived in a beautiful palace being trained for the elite. Unlike the slavery that Americans understand, slaves within the Ottoman Empire, whether they were slave concubines in the Harem or Slaves in the Janissary Corps, could achieve a high status within the Empire. In fact, they were often trained and taught so well in hopes of their status rising. The Ottoman Empire preferred slaves within the government and as administrators, this way they had little to no ties within the region that would affect their decisions and preferences concerning politics; ultimately, in doing so they hoped to limit corruption.

Janissary Corps: From Loyalty to Mutiny

"In theory these corps (the Janissaries) were the servants of the sultan but in reality he was the prisoner of their whims, and without their support he could not exercise his sovereignty," (Osman's Dream, 153.)
Throughout our lectures in class (both MME and Ottoman Empire) I continue to find the Janissaries such an interesting topic of discussion. From why they were created, to how they rose with, at first, loyalty, and how they declined with mutiny. What sparks my interest most is how they rose with a strong sense of loyalty to the sultan and as the time of the Janissaries began to decline (alongside the "decline" of the Ottoman Empire) it seems this decline is a result of their mutiny. Their mutiny is what immediately frightened the sultan and forced him to act spontaneously and with unfortunate and rash decisions. I hope we discuss this much further in our lectures because now what I understand of the Janissaries is that they emerged as this "new" army filled with men who "replace love of family.. with.. fanatical obedience, lust for spoils.. denying that their was any 'nobility of motive' behind their military successes," (The Janissaries, 3.) As the numbers of Janissaries throughout the Empire grew, they became local elites, began to develop local patriotism and then quickly making their own, subtle demands. For instance, the Janissaries were create to extend Ottoman control, but "they soon insisted on taking part in the profitable business of naval warfare," (The Janissaries, 45) from then on more insistences would only occur. Now I'm not sure if their insistence with the naval warfare is a valid example of when they first began to lose sight of their loyalty, but it seems fair to say that. (If you disagree let me know and why.. that would be helpful to me!!) In Osman's Dream, chapter 6 (page 152) describes actual instances of Janissary mutiny, in some cases these janissaries would bar the gates of the Topkapi Palace against the Sultan. So far I understand that the mutiny was some result concerning their pay..? For now I'm counting on the causes and results to be cleared up in the near future (lectures, or reading assignments, or comments! please) I definitely want to further look the reality of their loyalty, if it existed and when, and then why it diminished..

Truth Within History; Janissary Characteristics

I'll admit that for my first blog primarily relating to my Ottoman Empire class, I desperately needed some form of inspiration, a spark of some sort. I like to work with small sparks of excitement in history, i'm good with that. I began this journey for my spark by reading, and rereading, and rereading again The Janissaries, my class notes, and bits and pieces from a handful of other books. I didn't really succeed until I got a little creative. I decided to search some news sites for anything relating to "ottoman" "sultan" and "the janissaries." Granted the articles I came across were either incredibly old, or much of the articles were actually lost. Considering this is a history blog, I didn't see how old articles could be apt for exclusion, so I continued with my search and was at last intriqued; my spark was found!
From our class discussions I have found that with being a Janissary comes a sense of pride. With the knowledge that I have gained of the Janissaries, they had a high living standard and a respected social status. But the more I learn the more I come to realize that even with respected social status their morale was often not to be trusted. As Misha Glenny proposes in his book "The Balkans," "these janissaries eschewed loyalty...in favour of their local masters."
This raises a conflict for me; the idea of these Janissaries with such a respected position versus the idea of these Janissaries with untrusted loyalty. Also, with so many different sources exclaiming different characteristics of these "new soldiers" I am weary of what I should believe when researching on my own; I thought this went nicely along with our class discussion this week on trusted sources, truth within history, et cetera.
This idea for my blog first came about when I was rereading (or yet again attempting to read) David Nicolle's "The Janissaries." Though it's difficult for someone so new to this part of history to read, I enjoyed his style of writing nonetheless. He puts things nicely into perspective. He states his facts, as facts, and allows the reader to interpret how they choose.
Next, I moved on to wikipedia, to get a quicker, and much more basic understanding of what it was I was reading. I know wikipedia is as untrustworthy as some believe the Janissaries were :) (Ha!) But let's be honest, what college student doesn't refer to wikipedia? It's a great way to get a quick grip on something you might previously had no knowledge of. Wikipedia agreed that the Janissaries were not always to be trusted. Without taking this information too seriously, my next source was a document published in The New York Times August 23, 1896. Much of this document was difficult to read, and some parts were missing, yet the main ideas were all still there. "Even at the height of their power, never ceased to be soldiers." This document gave the idea the the Janissaries were no such thing as untrusted.
I continued to search other documents and came across much of the same things, for now I think i'll let our future class discussions clear up the reality of the characteristics of the Janissaries..

On "Ramadi With a Swagger"

I generally check out the worlds news within the NYTimes, mostly because the NYTimes is so easy to read, very basic English, and many of their articles have a blog-ish, if you will, sense to them; I like that. Silly to say, but true, what attracted me to this article was the term "swagger" in it's title. Who isn't intrigued by that word, especially after Celebrity Britney Spears made it wildly crazed in her newest come-back of a song, "Womanizer."
As I understand, through the conviently placed map shown in the article, Ramadi is a major city is Iraq, not far outside of Baghdad; this I'll admit I was unaware of. It's not that I haven't heard of Ramadi before, just haven't heard enough about the city or in context that would make me research the city. So, incase my readers were also unaware, now we all know. Firstly, when the writer exclaims "[he] lead us into the streets of a city once engulfed in a raging insurgency against the Americans," that got me thinking.. Isn't this city still raging towards us? I mean, the war isn't over, and even if it was, all wouldn't be forgotten. I've always understood that this is a war between governments more so than between peoples, but as far as I know when in war, you support your country. After 9/11, nationalism soared throughout the United States, but a war like the one we've gotten ourselves into was by no means what Americans were hoping for, hense this is a war between governments. And while the attacks on us were not done by the govenment of Iraq, it was neither done by the people. The attacks were by a terrorist organization, which leads me to believe the people of Iraq couldn't be all that happy with America. Accordingly, the terms on which the US, UK, and Spain invaded Iraq were wrongly justified. Actually, they were never justified. We never found those weapons of mass destruction we claimed Iraq had; and now we Americans are seen even more unintelligent than before. Awesome.
On a lighter note, when the author described General Youssef with a "moustache neatly trimmed in what [I] think of as the high Iraqi style," I couldn't help but utterly agree with him! That's exactly how I picture most Iraqis!
To continue with the main ideas of the article though, the author addresses many circumstances in which Iraq has made substantial progress. When war broke out in the streets of Ramadi, stores were forced to close, business was bad for many. Things since have changed. Three months ago 23 year old Abdul Fattah reopened his family owned store and business has been good since. Many people of Iraq feel comfortable enough to state their political positions and ideals freely and in this case in front of the police chief, without fear.
Alas, Bush did something right with choosing to create a surge in order to provide security for Baghdad and Al Anbar Province, or so I believe much of the credit for the newly safe-ish and calm Iraq, and region, can be given to the 2007 surge.

Quick Thinking..

Why is it that Americans so quickly associate Islam with violence, terrorism, etc., but the Catholic church is rarely associated with pedophilia? After all, pedophilia was just as huge of a scandal for the Catholic church as terrorism has been for Islam.

Militant Islam

"Why is Islam such a violent tradition? Does the Qur'an condone acts of terrorism?"

Questions like these are often raised throughout America with most assuming that Muslims are typically violent people and that the Qur'an does in fact condone acts of terrorism. The opposite is true though; the Qur'an fully supports peace and non-violence, and rejects terrorism. Also, "Sunni and Shii Muslims have generally forbidden 'sacrificial religious suicide' and acts of terrorism." While the attacks of 9/11 were done by al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda, Islam is not a violent religion. Americans and others often confuse Islam with Militant Islam and now primarily associate Muslims with terrorism because of the 9/11 attacks. Militant Islam, or Islamism is a twentieth century form of Islam that is so distorted from the religion of Islam, "so extreme, so radical, and so megalomaniacal, " that many Muslims refuse to associate it with their religion. Critics and religious extremists often takes bits and pieces of texts from the Qur'an and place them out of context to distort the meaning to something violent. Esposito gives numerous examples of exactly this in his "What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam," page 121. 

"Anyone who saves one life, it is as if he has saved the whole of mankind and anyone who has killed another person it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind." (Qur'an)

Related Articles:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/john_esposito/2007/07/why_is_islam_such_a.html

http://www.danielpipes.org/79/fighting-militant-islam-without-bias

Jan. 22, movie response

I am in no way pro one side or the other. I don't have enough knowledge of the conflict to keep a steady position for either side. However, considering our fist day of class we examined a pro-Palestine film, i'd like to discuss what I feel was biased or wrong and argue a handful of the films main points. Through out the conflict both sides have been in the wrong and I feel that because each side responds to violence and hatred with even more violence and hatred they are far past who's right and who's wrong. Each side finds that to be a martyr is to be a hero (a terrible mindset.) The film examined Israel's poor choices, violent decisions and the sympathy and aid that Israel has received from the US. But what about Palestine? I understand that Israelis have killed so many Palestinians, but everything that Israel has undergone you can bet Palestine has gone through as well. Palestinian children and young adults have been and continue to be taught hatred towards Israelis. Within Palestinian schools, Israel is not even acknowledged, and Israel's right to exist is definitely not acknowledged.

When the film discussed the money that the US has given to Israel and the lack of money and aid the US has given Palestine why did the film choose not to explain  how Palestine chose to use money the US had given them in the past? At one point Palestine created military-like camps for young children and adults in order to teach them how to kill and who to kill. These camps were created with US money and were said to be "summer camps," as if they were learning how to swim, or how to make friends, etc.  The US was misled and thought they were doing good for Palestinian children when in reality Palestine lied about the use of that money.

Though Arafat chose not to accept the Camp David- Taba peace negotiations, isn't it true that Barak was prepared to give Palestine everything they had initially asked for. What was Palestine prepared to give? The intermediary of both parties, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia begged Arafat to take the deal and yet he turned it down without even suggesting a counterproposal. Bandar explained to Arafat that "if we lose this opportunity it's going to be a crime," and still today most everyone places full blame on Arafat for the failure of the deal.