Reflection #7

In this week's research, I found one article particularly interesting. Earlier this week, Bahrain government announced a new law that went into affect immediately. The law outlaws any sort of demonstrating or organization from protest groups. After the deaths of both protesters and police officers alike, the government claims that increasing violence is the reason for the crack-down. Since uprising began in 2011, Shia opposition to the Sunni held government has gotten increasingly violent. The country's dynamics make it impossible to ease any sort of tension within the country, yet violence is covered up in the media to enhance Bahrain's image in the west. The United States is such a strong ally of Bahrain, our Navy's fifth fleet is housed there, not to mention our oil interests in the Gulf. Because of this, the US pays to block negative media attention concerning the country. The new law makes it even more difficult to spread truthful media about the country. The Bahrain government has struggled to contain the protests, they imprison those who post on social media sites and even arrest doctors for treating wounded protesters. But this new law has only made the uprisings more violent. I find it very dis-concerning that the more I research this country, the less liberal and developed it seems. It shows that the surface information is indeed skewed.

Weekly Reflection October 31

Happy Halloween Everyone!

Professor Hardig’s post about orientalism was really eye opening for me and frustrating at the same time. I decided to take this class because I am interested in the Middle East and especially in human rights violations there. I’m trying so hard to get out of the orientalist mindset and better understand the MENA region, but with outside forces like the media, etc., it is still difficult for me. I find myself making generalizations in my reflections and structured responses, and even when I am doing research for my country briefs. But even though it still happens, I think I am getting better at recognizing when it happens and trying to stop it. Taking this class and being at AU in general has really helped because there are so many open-minded people here who are interested in the region also. It also really helps that one of my best friends here is from Saudi Arabia. As ridiculous as it sounds, being friends with her and talking to her about everyday things has helped to view people from the MENA as just other people. Though my friend is religious, she isn’t anything like the stereotypes I had in my head before I came here. I am hoping that I will become even more open-minded and informed during my time at AU – it has only been a few months (which is crazy because I feel like I’ve been here forever!). I hope that eventually I can break from the orientalist mindset AND help other people realize that that ideology is simply ridiculous and backward. 

Structured Response #7- Hanna

I saw a poster hanging up the other day that said, "What about the Muslim voter?" When we break down our voting trends in women, men, catholic, christian, jewish, latin-american, black, and white...we leave out Muslim voters. I had never thought of that before seeing that poster. I had never even considered the Muslim vote. This post reminded me again of this poster.

Now...
My only primary source for Civil Society Actors roles in government and in democratization is from our talk with Professor Hardig's friends in Lebanon. They seemed to have the same frustrations as CSA's in the US, though I think they are in two completely different categories of frustration. On the Lebanon side, they can't do anything and on the US side, they aren't doing as much as they'd like. Other than this observation there is not much more I know.

Our CSA's roles in the election are heavily youth based with campaigns like Rock the Vote that play to the majority of our youth being Democrats and yet a majority of those Democrats not voting in the elections. We could make this parallel to the youth driven social movements in the MENA. Throughout all of history, the youth have been a keystone in our social movements. From this we can make a rough prediction of what the future holds for both the US and the MENA. In the US, our youth have become lazy and apathetic when it comes to politics--they have allowed it to become a popularity game. Until our youth regains its passion for the future of this country then our country will continue to be in a stalemate of progress. When we switch over the the countries in the MENA, their youth is excited and passionate about progress--so I believe they will obtain it. In history, the youth have always achieved what they sought out for. With persistence-- all things will be possible in the MENA as long as it maintains it's youth base. In fact, our youth could learn a little something from them.

Reflection #7- Hanna

I just finished reading Professor Hardig's post on Orientalism. I'm very interested to discuss this in class. In conversations I have had with Hayley about comments we have exchanged with one another-- I know that we both feel that there are misjudgments and generalizations being made in our own arguments. We know we are wrong with what we say, but we try to be as honest as possible with how our mind is processing this information. I might say in a post that 'People vote based on religion'...I know this must not be true and I know that by saying this I am 'orientalizing'..and yet I still post it because I want to be as honest as possible to how I am understanding the information. There is a dirty feeling that comes with saying these things in blog posts and yet we say them anyways. It almost excites me to think of reading my reflections at the end of the semester and seeing how my thought process has changed.
As was said in the documentary we watched with Edward Said speaking; Orientalism is driven by media and Hollywood movies. Our generation is in the perfect position to change this. On one side, we are still bombarded and influenced by news stations and movies and on another side, (SOCIAL MEDIA, MY FAV TOPIC) we have blogs and twitters giving us the side and views of actual Real people from the MENA region. We can self educate to change the way we view the middle east.
 I think my family has given me a more real view of the world and my father has always constantly reminded me that I must disregard the media and learn about the people for myself. When we heard about the Benghazi attack, it could be easy to go with our pre-existing notion that the MENA people are *hostile*. I will admit that even I had underlying feelings that were telling me that this was a typical reaction from these people. My father made sure I was correctly informed that our media did not report that large groups of people protested the death of Ambassador Stevens in front of government buildings in a country where it is very dangerous to do so. Why is it that our media lets us believe that all of the people in that country are hostile towards the US? Why would they not want us to know that these people are as equally inclined to be angered by death as a western person.

If I was to break down what I really wish to gain from this class....it would be to break down my own stereotypes that I have given to the middle east. Despite my family giving me constant correction when I say something that is a stereotype or when I make a generalization...those feelings are still there and have been deeply rooted in all of us through our media and through Hollywood movies. If the only thing I get from this class is an understanding of the people in the MENA, than i will be happy.

Structured Response 5

Social movements have influenced the democratization process significantly in the United States throughout its history. To me, the entire history of the United States seems based off of the movements of the people towards a more democratic state in which all of the citizens’ rights are recognized. As discussed in Professor Hardig’s post, factors that have more specifically influenced the democratization process in the USA include the extension of voting rights to all citizens. Examples of this in American history include the women’s suffrage movement. To me, that is an example of a social movement by women towards earning their right to vote. Furthermore, the Civil Rights movement is another example of a social movement in America that led to the right for people of all skin colors to vote. These social movements have clearly influenced the democratization process in America because they have caused an extension of voting rights. Because of this, more people in America are able to play a role in the American government.

            The ability of the American people to utilize social movements to influence democratization in the United States of America reflects the ability of citizens of any country to truly effect change through social movements. In countries in the MENA region, for example, I think that the determination of the people to extend fair voting rights to everyone will certainly influence democratization in these countries. Potentially, social movements within countries in the MENA region have the ability to effect the same change on the democratization process, especially if they have the majority of citizens behind their movements towards more democratic states. The stronger their social movements become, the more able the countries in the MENA region will be to effect democratic change. I truly think that the USA is a great model of the way that social movements have the ability to impact a government, and it seems to me that the history of the United States reflects the ability of citizens of countries in the MENA region to effect change as well through social movements, regardless of what kind of government they are operating under. 

Reflection #6

I got the privilege to listen to and meet Dennis Ross, the former director of Near East and South Asian affairs in the National Security Council today. Walking into the room where the speech was being held (Addas Temple, where many Moderate Jews like me go for holidays), one of my friends pointed out the fact that there were also several notable congressmen in the small crowd of around 50 comprised of mostly ancient skeletal-like European Jewish folk; it shocked me that there weren't any other college students there to see Mr. Ross speak.
Anyway, Mr. Ross made some very interesting points regarding many different current and potential conflicts in the Middle East today. Most interesting to me was discussion of the Israeli settlements and the Peace Process. Mr. Ross pointed out that Israeli settlement leader Maale Shomron recently wrote an article in the New York Times (which can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/opinion/israels-settlers-are-here-to-stay.html?_r=0) that basically states the "Two State Solution" is effectively dead due to the fact that there are already 350,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and a forced eviction could spell disaster as armed resistance by the Israeli settlers against Israel may occur. There have been several other articles both within and outside the New York Times agreeing with this deeply depressing statement. However, Mr. Ross stated without any hesitation that the Two State Solution is not long gone. He believes that although both Israelis and Palestinians are continuously losing hope in a two state solution (polls show that positive sentiment toward a two state solution on both sides are down, according to Ross), a solution can be achieved. A "twelve-step plan" to the conflict was written up by him, found in this article: http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=278914
In order to first implement this, however, Ross announced that Israelis and Palestinians need to restore a certain trust in each other that they are both serious about a two state solution. The fact that multiple peace solutions were rejected by the Palestinian leadership (and then in turn, as Yasser Arafat did, send militants and suicide bombers into Israel to kill hundreds of innocent civilians), and the fact that Israelis keep building settlements beyond the 1967 borders steeply drives down confidence for the Two State solution in both Israel and Palestine. Ross's plan, however, could restore both governments' confidence in each other and could surely lead to some positive progress in the peace process.

Reflection 6 Anjali

This week's big reflection for me has been about the Presidential debates. After watching the foreign policy debate, I can't help but wonder how many of our politicians actually know about what foreign policy REALLY is. I remember watching Romney talking about our role in the Middle East, and thinking to myself, "really, Romney? You need to sit in on our Middle East class. You have no idea what you're talking about." And then again when he spoke about America's foreign policy and the idea that country's have their own sovereignty, and proceeded to announce that America's role in the world is to go into countries to help them figure things out. Slamming my head on the desk. Come on, politicians! I really think American politicians need to seriously read up about issues before going into a debate, ESPECIALLY a foreign policy debate. I also thought it was hilarious that the foreign policy debate turned into a domestic policy debate about...10 minutes in. I suppose that was expected though.
And my closing thought for today: you see Governor Romney, "there are these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines...."

Structured Response #6

In Dijani’s article, the goals and the effectiveness of the Intifada civil resistance group are discussed and evaluated. Though ultimately unsuccessful in solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the group did have clear goals: to make the Occupied Palestinian Territories ungovernable by Israel and to establish social structures within the region that would be the basis for a new Palestinian state.

Palestinians were both empowered and frustrated by their attempt at resistance. Though they were motivated to make changes, much of their time was spent on the defensive, working against Israel and trying to keep their forces united. Success was hard to come by, and for that reason small setbacks became increasingly difficult to face. As resentment grew, fighting within the resistance began to occur, which made fighting against Israel nearly impossible.

Dijani describes the Israeli’s as being “stunned and confused” by the Palestinian uprising. At first, they went on the defensive but later decided to use military might to suppress the resistance. Israeli’s differed in their personal responses to Intifada, some realizing that tried to occupy another nation would never end peacefully, and others deciding that a new Palestinian state could not emerge and it was crucial to suppress the revolt.

Though the Intifada did not succeed in creating a new Palestinian state, it did have an impact on the Israeli army, government, and public. Some members of the Palestinian army felt uncomfortable about their role in suppressing a movement that should have been solved politically, and some refused to participate in the oppression at all. In regards to Israeli society, many more peace groups developed in Israel during the time of the Intifada, and these groups supported ending the occupation. Though the Intifada affected parts of Israeli society, it was never strong enough to affect actually policies of the government and create real change. 

Reflection #6- Hanna

The topic of Foreign Policy in the presidential debates really bothered me. I don't think that either of these candidates are in a position to speak about foreign policy. This isn't to say that they are idiots, because I certainly am not in a position to speak about foreign policy either. It is just too much information for them to retain with everything else they have to know about too. In my Dad's job, he advises on Af-Pak special operations and Pacific special operations. Panetta will be on his way to a meeting and as he walks, people walk with him and speak very quickly about what is going on in the world and what they think the course of actions should be. This week the under Secretary of Defense has my Dad with him in Afghanistan because he doesn't know as much about the area and the people as my Dad knows. He will often rely on my Dad's opinion and other's opinions to come to a conclusion about a topic or solution. It isn't that He doesn't know anything, he just has a lot to know and can't know everything-- He also hasn't spent a majority of the past 11 years on the ground. I guess it is kind of like a...'Trickle Up Effect'?? The Civilian and Military positions in the office are all experts in the field they are in charge of...they give the information to Panetta (or an Under Secretary) and he kind of just gets a blurb of everything....so if the Secretary of Defense doesn't have time to know in depth about the concerns of the world around him, then why would the President or a Presidential candidate over this past year have a good understanding of where our Foreign Policy should be heading? We as voters need to be aware that although the role of the President is important, the course of actions that we take globally and militarily are more so in the hands of the Civilian and Military workers. We have all these politically appointed positions throughout government and the state department, but they spend all of their time trying to keep their job. This makes me feel a little weird about some of the people we go to school with because they are more than likely to end up in the political side of the state department than in an Intel. role.

The frustrations with the Presidential candidates acting like what they think of Foreign Policy isn't just something they have been briefed on all week, is just blowing hot air. Same for any frustrations felt about leadership positions in the State Department being politically appointed rather than being earned through being the hardest worker who cares the most about getting shit done. Hot air. It's annoying and a little cracked up but there really isn't much that we can do about it.

Structured Response #6

Traditionally a warrior people, the Pathans of the Northwest Frontier formed “the Servants of God” under Khan Abdul Ghaffir Khan or the “frontier Gandhi.” The group played a large role, especially in the early 1930s, in the Pakistani independence movement. However, this intifada had a direct result on developments throughout the Middle East, specifically Israel and Palestine. It brought the world’s attention to the region and forced Israel to address specifically the issue of its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip.

In the late 1980s and 1990s, the unsuccessful violent approach of Palestinians began to shift to forms of non-violent struggle. Liberation groups began to use tactics of the Intifada. Peaceful protests, boycotts, strikes, tax refusals occupations and blockades were all employed nonviolently. Even after decades of violence, the Palestinian Liberation Organization formally renounced the use of violence in 1988. Almost instantly, results were seen. Countries such as Jordan acknowledged the Palestinian state, giving up their authority of the West Bank, and exerting pressure on other countries to do the same.  A Declaration of Independence was drawn up, and it became much easier for the Palestinian people to mobilize in a more organized fashion. Palestine created a list of objectives. The country needed to mobilize its majority against the Israeli state, making it less appealing to both parties to continue the occupation as well as increasing international sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Calculated decisions and organized protest replaced senseless violence and produced far better and more widespread results.

The results were not all good, however. The intifada turns out to be a bit of a double edged sword. With each small success comes a small sense of hopelessness. It calls to mind the fact that years of struggle still lie ahead for the nation. Maintaining cohesion within their communities proves to be challenging, as it is not easy to remain nonviolent in such a frustrating struggle. It seemed that Palestine, rather than wagging its own nonviolent war, was simply responding to the acts of Israel, constantly on the defensive.  

Though the Israeli government has not adopted nonviolent methods, the people of Israel protest their government peacefully. Over a tenth of the country’s population demonstrated against their government’s occupation of Lebanon in 1982. Israeli intellectuals routinely risk arrest for secretly meeting with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Israeli soldiers join movements in which they refuse to serve in occupied areas. Although the government receives widespread criticism from within its country, the overarching support of the United States government allows the country to side step the full effects of its violations of human rights and international law. The fight is ongoing, however, and great strides continue to be made by nonviolent protesters within the nation. 

Reflection #6

Reflecting on last night's debate, not much was said about foreign politics for a debate that was supposed to center on it. The candidates, regardless of the questions asked or the moderator prompts, were determined to get out their planned talking points and respond to every attack, so it wasn't very surprising that things strayed far off topic. Honestly, the debates are just confusing me. Obama seems stressed from a long term and campaign, and I feel like his frustration is coming off as a bit weak. His tone is sarcastic and argumentative, although that's also due to the nature of the situation. Romney gave Obama some credit in this debate, but made the point that his programs need to be taken to the next step, by increasing America's influence and just generally get things done. I don't really agree with a foreign policy that strives mainly to increase America's already dominating sphere of influence. Although Romney stated he doesn't plan to be lured into anymore foreign wars, he wasn't exactly pacifistic and criticized Obama's defense cuts. I think the nation as a whole is just more concerned with domestic affairs at the moment. The public is tried of hearing about wars and killings in an area they don't understand or relate to. The candidates right now are focusing on winning the election, and focusing heavily on foreign affairs rather than plans to solve domestic crisis just aren't going to get them as many votes.

Reflection #6

I thought a good time for a reflection would be right after the foreign policy presidential debate tonight, even though both candidates got off the subject of foreign policy rather often. The first thing I noticed was that Romney mentioned the importance of civil society in the Middle East twice. I probably would not have thought twice about that phrase had I not been in this class, and it was exciting that I could really understand what the governor was talking about because we have done extensive reading and discussion on the topic.

Initial reactions from the news media and social media seem to indicate that many people think Romney didn’t diversify his positions very far from Obama. One analyst on CNN even said that it seemed like Romney was endorsing Obama during the debate, not running against him. I agree that it seemed like Romney took similar positions to Obama’s foreign policy. He agreed with the “crippling sanctions” Obama has imposed on Iran in regards to their nuclear program, and he agreed with Obama that Assad would be removed from Syria and but without military involvement from the U.S. However, Romney did differ from Obama in saying that the U.S. should identify trusted Syrian rebels and arm them. Both agreed that ousting Mubarak from Egypt was the right decision, but Romney stressed that the Obama administration should have seen the Arab Spring coming. The candidates also differed on what they saw as the greatest threat to American security. Obama stated that terrorist organizations were the greatest threat while Romney said it was Iran’s nuclear threat.

It was interesting to watch this debate given the new experiences I have had taking this class and learning so much more about the Middle East. I tended to agree with most of what President Obama said about our foreign policy, but both of the candidates had similar views on many of the issues I was interested in, so it’s hard to say who I sided closer with. Although both Obama and Romney had views I agreed with on the Middle East, I wish they had focused more on the grassroots type of reform that seems promises to me in the region. They were focused more on national security of the U.S. and politics within the Middle East, and not so much on social reform and human rights for the people there. Both candidates seemed to dismiss those issues as something that had been fought for during the Arab Spring and now solved. But the issues are far from solved; the Arab Spring was just a way that problems in the region were brought to worldwide attention. Hopefully whoever is elected will take a close look at the region and focus not only on national security and politics there, but also the wishes of the people. Both candidates talked about finding suitable replacements for dictators like Assad in Syria who must go, and civil society groups in the region have policies and members who might be helpful in creating legitimate governments in the region if the U.S. is willing to work with those types of organizations.  

Structured Response #5- Hanna

" In our current 'post-Arab Revolts' environment, why do you think Islamists in particular have yielded such successes at the ballot box?"

When looking to identify why Islamists are so successful at the ballot box, we can look back at the revolutions and also look over to other countries like Syria and Libya. In all of these environments, Fundamental Islam is on the rise. No, this does not mean that being a more strict Muslim means that you are more inclined to revolt. It just helps paint a picture of the importance of the religion throughout the region and a movement away from the secular regimes. In these communities their social lives are built around their churches. In the country of Algeria their social life is entirely within their own neighborhood because of a distrust of those they are not familiar with and the suspicions they have of their government and police force. If the social life of these other countries reflect Algeria in any way, than people meet around neighborhood mosques. Given the social structure of these states a revolution or social movement would not be possible without a national identity, such as Islam. These revolutions were made possible given the use of Islam as a mobilizing factor. In the same way that a bloody revolution often leads to a bloody regime, a revolution mobilized through Islam will now visually lead into regimes that will be lead by Islamists. An argument to this may be that Christian's too took part in these revolutions. Who could forget the pictures of the prayer chain in Tahrir Square? Christians make up a very small minority in any Islamic State. It is also seen as a religion that is most popular in the west. This does not mean that Christian people are seen as an enemy. They are just not in the scope of mind as a possible leader. In the same way that the Serbs needed a man with an anti-American thought, a Christian being voted into power would not have been appealing to the people. Revolution often brings about a Nationalist pride and coming from Islamic States- this pride and identity as a Nation is that of Islam. If the National Identity is Muslim and they are in a time of National pride and excitement, then they will vote for someone who best reflects their identity...and even more so, a magnified version of identity.