Structured Response 2 - Anjali

As discussed in class, civil society has quite a complex definition. Ultimately, though, the definition of civil society depends on who is doing the defining. Roger Owen, for example, points out that civil society has a definition that is "too slippery and too ambiguous to be of any help as a tool for the analysis of the political process" (Owen 2004, 201). The actors in a civil society are generally assumed to be non-state and non-political actors. Furthermore, civil societies all work on development projects. But if civil societies are non-political actors, what exactly does that development entail? For the most part, development has to do with the development of the state, politically. The line is extremely blurred when defining, for example, religious groups, political parties, and violent organizations. All of these groups have to do with politics and are the cause of change in state politics. This blurred line clearly suggests that civil societies do in fact play a large role in broadening the space for political participation.

In Palestine, civil societies have faced a number of challenges, especially after their peak in the 1980s. The main change in policy between the 1980s and the present is the source of funding of civil societies. When funding gradually switched from internal to external (Western) funding, the way that civil societies functioned in Palestine completely changed. This same switch seemed to cause civil societies to function more "professionally," focusing more on development and less on true mobilization of citizens. Because of this funding switch, it seems that many citizens and volunteers fell out of the civil society scene because less was being accomplished. Palestine is not the only country to see this change in funding. The West is becoming increasingly involved in civil societies in the Middle East/North Africa region, perhaps because the 'West' believes it can have an influence on the politics of the MENA region. However, Palestine demonstrates clearly that civil societies function much more efficiently with regard to truly directing change when it is funded internally and has the support of NGOs and other organizations within the country itself.

Structured Response #2

           Civil society is an ambiguous term as it encompasses many different organizations and there are many questions as to who should be included in the realm of civil society. Civil society is considered an important factor in the promotion of democracy and relies on the state to regulate and guarantee its autonomy. NGOs are part of civil society, but the line gets blurred with the introduction of different organizations such as religious associations, political parties, family foundations, and violent organizations. Civil societies are usually considered non-political, only working on “development” projects. However, most of the projects civil society organizations work on inevitably lead to some sort of political realm. Civil society organizations are non-political in the sense that they do not try to gain political power; their projects are focused on development, projects like service provision, poverty alleviation, advocacy, and monitoring. However, a project like monitoring elections requires some sort of emphasis on politics. Many civil society organizations, though not looking to gain power themselves, want to support democracy in their region, which could easily be considered a political action.

            In Palestine, civil society has been affected negatively by its change in leadership and funding since the 1970’s and most of the 1980’s when civil society organizations there were vibrant and strong. By 2002, activists in NGOs started to work as “professional development practitioners,” using development rather than mobilization to empower the Palestinian population. Sources of funding also shifted from contributions from regional Arab donors to mostly Western governments’ aid. After 2000 Palestinian civil society was weakened by the Israeli occupation, armed Palestinian groups, and the policies put into place by international donors. Israeli control over Palestinian daily life restricted free participation in civil society, while the influence of western donors greatly affected the types of projects Palestinian civil society organizations could embark on. The increased “professionalization” of civil society organizations affected the amount of grassroots support due to a decrease in volunteerism. The gap between professional and less professional organizations increased as collaboration with peace groups decreased.

            The Palestinian case demonstrates how too much influence and funding from the west, as well as internal conflict, can prove disastrous to the strength of a country or region’s civil society organizations. It is clear that Palestinian civil society was stronger when it was funded from more internal sources and worked closer with grassroots and less professional organizations, as opposed to now. The replacement of mobilization techniques with development also weakened civil society in the area, as fewer people were recruited and were not as involved in civil society. Overall, Palestinian civil society was more effective and successful when it was run and funded internally by NGO activists in the region. 

Reflection 2

On NPR's website, I was reading an article that related a bit to our reading for this week. It discussed the problems Libya faces in the coming years. It talks about how those liberators who were so important in the country's revolution, are now a problem for incoming leaders. It reminded me of the development of civil society in some ways. Just as Palestine faced problems after their civil society developed and specialized, the new leaders of Libya need to find ways to calm the intensely opinionated and mobilized groups that overtook the country less than a year ago. It seems to be a complicated balancing act that many MENA states are going to encounter. They have the formation of extremist groups that succeed in mobilizing and creating change, but once that change comes they need to focus on creating a more peaceful and typical civil society. If they cannot please the groups that brought about change, those groups will mobilize again and so on, never actually achieving a functional state. Libya's head of Congress, Mohammed el-Megarif, has been attempting to reintegrate militias by buying back their weapons and ordering their disbandment so that these groups do not begin to participate in organized crime. However, integrating these groups into the new military may mean that the military is not loyal to its leader, which could cause more problems down the line. It seems that for  MENA countries, revolution is just the beginning of a long and complicated process to peace and democracy.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/27/161827939/new-democracies-face-challenges-from-old-militias

Reflection #2- Jared

Although this is technically reflection #2, this is my very first post on this blog due to absences after getting surgery several weeks ago. I am pretty much caught up with the readings, but I have to admit it has been quite difficult to do so while being drugged up past the point of having the ability to concentrate. Anyhow, I have sincerely enjoyed the several lectures I have been able to attend; from Modern Middle Eastern History to how each Arab government is structured and theories on why a state Democratizes/stays as an autocracy. It is exhilarating knowing that I, a Freshman in college, am privileged enough to conduct this kind of research.  More so exciting is that I can now begin posting interesting information that I run across on my daily routine of reading news articles from industries like Al Jazeera and the Washington Post.

When reading the Post this morning, I found some information regarding the recent transactions between Hizbollah, a militant Shia Lebanese militia/political party widely regarded as a terrorist organization, and Syrian President Bashar Al Assad's military.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/hezbollah-increases-support-for-syrian-regime-us-and-lebanese-officials-say/2012/09/26/d1970396-0591-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html

Here is a small excerpt:

"'Hezbollah has been active in supporting the Syrian regime with their own militia,' said a Lebanese government official allied with a political bloc opposed to Hezbollah who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. 'They’ve been quite involved in a combat role, quite involved in fighting.'

Hezbollah has a well-armed and trained militia that is considered the strongest fighting force in Lebanon. But the group also oversees a powerful political party and runs a number of organizations that provide social services to Shiite Muslims, its main supporters, throughout the country."

Hizbollah needs the current Alawite (Shia sect) dominated Syrian government to stay static and for Assad to stay in power, else they lose an important ally in the Middle East. The Post pointed out that because it has been revealed that Hizbollah is aiding Bashar Al Assad militarily, tensions between the Sunnis and the Shiites in Lebanon have begun to rise, knowing that the local Sunnis are less than enthusiastic (for lack of a better phrase) about the current Syrian leadership. We can only hope that the unrest and division that is currently blighting Syria will not spread to other parts of the Mid East, namely Lebanon. 

Tying the last paragraph from the excerpt in with past lectures on how governments keep power in the Middle East, Hizbollah, although a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent people, does indeed provide numerous social services to their constituents like other Arab governments.  Although Hizbollah as rulers can be at time oppressive, they provide a certain security to Lebanese citizens through both their shear guerrilla military strength and benefits given to Lebanese citizens. 

I found this somewhat interesting. Having family in Israel, I have always viewed Hizbollah negatively (especially when witnessing the brutal war both sides endured in 2006). Although I still do have my reservations against the militant Islamic organization, the more I look at the way it is all structured the more I begin to realize that they have also done a little good for the country of Lebanon itself, however not necessarily for the global stage. 

If anyone has any thoughts on this feel free to respond. 

Reflection #2- Hanna

              I have just scanned through everyone's reflections and I feel pretty lazy-- Everyone is really aware of what is going on in the world right now. I am aware, I just can't keep up! I follow all of the people on twitter that I mentioned last week, but there is so much going on that they are tweeting non stop and so I don't even have time to read their tweets nor do I have time to read news sites and so on. I really don't have an excuse, but that is all I have to give. I'm going to pick an Al Jazeera article and just rant on that to make up for my week of living in my own little American University bubble. First, I wanted to mention something that I am struggling with in this class and other SIS classes. I am not really sure at what point I am supposed to develop an opinion, or at what point my understanding is well-rounded enough to form an opinion. Is there a specific number of news articles I should read on a subject before I say "THIS IS WHAT I THINK!"? As I have mentioned in class, I come from a military family--My Dad, my Poppy, my brother, my uncles, and all of my parents friends who are like family to me are all in the military. I was raised in an apolitical setting and so I never really learned how to have an opinion on things in the political sector. It may seem weird to people coming from a different background where people were discussing their opinions with one another at the dinner table. For me, I feel a little dirty and as if I have no right to have an opinion. Not in the sense of human right/ freedom of speech but in the sense of 'Who does she think she is having an opinion that subject, she doesn't understand whats going on'. I don't live in MENA and I feel wrong speaking as if I understand because there is no way that I understand. If I read a million articles, I have not been there and experienced those regimes or that culture so why would I have the right to an opinion on their affairs?
It's a learning process. I'm sure/ I'm hoping that by the end of the semester I will be able to tell everyone what I think on these areas. I'm just not there yet. I need to know more and I don't know when I will be able to say- 'Hey, I know enough to think this..'

If anyone has any advice on developing opinions..please comment and give me some advice or pull me aside after class or whenever you see me and just give me a heads up.

Bringing things back to world events:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/2012926115125431960.html
An Iranian Press TV correspondent was shot in Damascus.
The article provides this statement- "We hold Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who provide militants weapons to kill civilians, military personnel and journalists, responsible for the killing of Maya...Press TV will be pursuing the matter of the murder of Maya and will not let those who killed our correspondent feel like they can kill media people and get away with it." from Hamid Reza Emadi, Press TV news director.
The article went on to say that now 22 journalists have been killed in Syria.
I wanted to use this article to tie in my reflection from last week on social media.
According to the article, Nasser (TV correspondent) had been expressing, via Twitter and Facebook, that he was sympathetic with the Syrian government and did not view the rebels who backed the uprising in a positive light. He was not a violent man by any means however and would write with people of opposing views saying things like, "[I]t would be great to meet some day we both see Syria as priority we might disagree on the how but its normal."
Now that I have summarized the article...
Do those countries provide militants weapons?
Was the news director using this statement in some way outside of his concern for the death of his correspondent?
Why are war correspondents being targeted? past and present incidences
What role did the social media play is Nasser's death?
Does his sympathy for the Syrian government affect our sympathy towards his death?
Was Nasser a direct target? 
The rebels are fighting for freedom. Maybe I am wrong to assume that they want the same freedom as we have in America, but by the United States definition of freedom--Nasser's comments through the social media would have been disliked but respected on some level for their non-violence or non-judgement.
Assuming that the rebels sniped Nasser, which i would not doubt to be true,
What did they hope to gain from this death? is he a message of some sort? or do they simply not like him.

As I was saying, I can't form an opinion quite yet on what is happening in Syria, but I would like to get there. I am very confused as to why people target journalists. When I read an article like this, I have a streamline of open ended questions.

If anyone has any thoughts or ideas on the article, please seek me out because I would really like to get a dialogue going on the subject.

Reflection 2 - Anjali

The world is rapidly changing. Every day, I flip to the different news applications on my phone and see the new breaking news, the new catastrophe, or the new global crisis. It's because of this that I think having so many readings is important. Even though the readings themselves don't necessarily cover the specific current events that are covered by the news daily, they do give me a great background on the history of the Middle East and the overarching themes that tend to be the root of most conflict. I feel that they are a really good way to stay in touch with the Middle East outside of the classroom and news stations.
Speaking of the new breaking news, I just finished reading an article about the military headquarters blasts in Syria. It's almost overwhelming to watch violent act after violent act unfold on the news every day. This terrorist act is not an isolated event, or at least that is how the news makes it seem. I almost wonder what it would be like to live in the Middle East; whether the news' portrayal of life there is what life really is like. I highly doubt it.
Another piece of news that I read today has to do with Iran and it's education system. The article mentioned that Iran was banning women from majoring in 77 different majors. It's interesting to me that Iran seems to be taking a step back socially in terms of gender equality. The 36 universities that have banned women from taking classes are facing, rightly, a lot of protest from human rights groups. It's interesting and confusing to me as to why the universities implemented this sexist rule in the first place.
On a slightly different note, I feel like I'm learning a lot about the world around me in many of my classes, including this one, but I'm not learning a lot about the community that is directly surrounding me. To me, there are basic levels of analysis: community (AU), city (Washington DC), country (USA), and international. In class and on campus, it feels like I am sufficiently learning about my immediate community and the international world. However, I feel like I am missing out on the community surrounding me. It is odd to me that I am studying in a small community on such a global scale. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, but I'm definitely going to start making more of an effort in getting involved in life outside of the community. 

Weekly Reflection #2

I read an article this week that I found intriguing regarding the controversy and violence sparked by the anti-Islam video insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Iran’s culture minister, Mohammed Hosseini, has decided his country will boycott the 2013 Oscars as a result of the insulting film. He has also urged other Islamic countries to do the same. An Iranian director won the 2012 Oscar for best foreign film last year but this year, Iran will not make an entry. Last year’s win was exciting as it was the first of its kind for the country, but Iran will not have a chance to defend its title this year. The head of the cinema agency in Iran (which is controlled by the government) supports the boycott because the Academy Awards agency has yet to publicly denounce the anti-Islam film. The article, which I found here, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/iran-oscars-boycott-academy-awards_n_1909024.html, explains that the boycott may be about more than just the anti-Islam film. In the past, Iranian authorities have been suspicious of filmmakers, suspecting that they are highly influenced by western liberalism and tied to political dissent.

The article reminded me of one of the important points Tariq Ramadan made when I heard him speak earlier this month. Ramadan emphasized the importance of cultural expansion in the Arab world and the stirring of creativity in the Middle East to help aid the establishment of democracy. Ramadan saw the creation of an Arab culture and genre of film, literature, and art to be an important step in creating democracy in the region. It seems that the stifling of Arab culture may be another negative consequence of the controversial anti-Islam film that has caused so many problems already.

It is disappointing to me that Iran will not enter a film for the Oscars because last year’s victory in the foreign film category was an important step forward for Middle Eastern culture in general. I agree with Ramadan that the stimulation of Arab creativity and celebration of culture could aid in the development of democracy, but that will be difficult to achieve if governments are against the spread of such culture. 

Structured Response 2

Throughout the years civil society has been defined by many thinkers such as Locke, Montesqieu, Hegel, Marx. Over time the definition has evolved from defining civil society through the state to seeing civil society as an entirely separate force.These thinkers described civil society as the growth of society to the point where it becomes civilized. The institutions making up civil society facilitate regular and sustained participation of citizens. A market economy, social class, corporations, intellectuals, civil servants, NGOs, and aid groups are all actors of civil society.These institutions limit the power of the state. At some point though, a balance must be found between the central authority and societal networks.Today, civil society is made up by a number of voluntary groups of competing organizations, separate from the state, that maintain differing purposes, ideals and interests.  
As civil society develops, strong values and ideologies develop, creating equally strong incentives for change. This is how civil society begins to effect political participation. In the west, civil society developed into social movements, which focused on specific issues such as the working class and then more specified such as women's rights. The political parties, associations and social movements that come about as a result of the development of civil society connect the private and political sectors of a state. In developing countries, civil society helps the transition from dictatorship to democracy with groups focusing on human rights, leftist thinking, and individual freedoms. However, if few opportunities are given to the citizens of a country, the development of civil society is stalled because these organizations will also have too few opportunities. So, as the civil society of a country develops, so do the individual ideologies of a country. Those with similar ideals ban together and each sec fights for political control. This ideology fosters political participation within the state.
In Palestine, the development of civil society initially advanced social and national agendas. NGOs provided a basis for a system of providing services in occupied territories. Shaped by nationalist and developmental goals, organizations extended services to specific groups, empowering them to mobilize politically. These processes could aid many MENA countries attempting to develop a civil society and increase their civil liberties, however, these specified groups became increasingly fractioned and professionalized. This was not helped by increased Israeli control over daily life. Collaboration between groups slowed as the organizations became more detached from their grassroots base and more focused on development rather than mobilization. Other MENA countries face the same problems as Palestine. These countries need to specialize, but continue to cooperate with one another and mobilize, remembering that their progress could be hindered by other state intervention.

Reflection 1

Earlier this week I was avoiding school work and scrolling through Facebook, when I came across a quote shared by one of my high school classmates. The blurb read, “Never forget the truth about Islam. The only extremist Muslim is the one who truly is peaceful.” It was shared from a page titled, “Things Liberals Hate; A Page for Conservative Politics,” and was plastered over a picture of what appeared to be Middle Eastern men at the scene of an explosion. To say the least, this post made me angry. Not only is this statement ignorant, but it is also insulting to so many different people.

This statement suggests that one of the fastest growing religions in America produces only hateful, violent people. It de-humanizes Muslims; creates the image of uncivil heathens, thoughtless rage-machines. How must a Mulsim-American, leading an average American life, feel after reading this post? And what about Muslims living throughout the Middle East; clearly this group doesn’t take into account the thousands of innocent civilians caught in the midst of a war they do not support or par-take in. 

The group’s page title, “Things Liberals Hate; A Page for Conservative Politics,” strikes me as offensive as well. It reminds me of the conversation we had in class about “stirring the pot.” The title is clearly written to make people angry from the get-go. It takes a specific, and very opinionated, group and calls them out. 

But, can this group really be to blame? How often do we turn on the news to find coverage of a peaceful civilian town located somewhere in the Middle East? When do the testimonies of innocent war victims grab the attention of our nation over reports of violence and death? The more I thought about the ignorance of this post, the angrier I became, but what else can we expect, if our country continues to be uneducated on the subject? Needless to say I am no longer friends with this person on Facebook, but maybe I should be, just to let him know I think his opinions are archaic.