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.