Israel: first-born of the U.N.?

There are many reasons why one might discuss Israel as a child of the U.N., and all are because of attempts by the U.N. to intervene in the Palestinian conflicts.

Based on information from the book, the reality is that Zionism was the real cause of Jewish immigration to then Palestine. Many Jews wanted their own nation again, and began settlements in the Palestinian area over a century ago. The rise of Hitler and later the Holocaust pushed the immigration from small to massive. By this point, large Jewish populations were becoming a concern of the Arab neighbors, and Britain was not willing to do more than issue papers to stop disputes in lands that were their responsibility.

This is where the U.N. steps in. The United States pressured Britain to open the gates and let more Jews into Palestine, and they refused in lieu of a partition idea. The U.N. set up a partition plan that somewhat satisfied the Arabs, but not the Zionists. as more violence mounted, neighboring Arab states sent troops in, and the Jews pushed back, eventually leading to the creation of Israel. As more battles arose throughout more recent history, the U.N. would step-in in minor ways and then do little to stop Israel.

All-in-all, the U.N. is only a part of the birth of Israel, and the implications of the creation of Israel started as a point of conflict for the whole region but now mostly is a point of conflict for the Israel-Lebanon-Syria portion specifically.

What Were Those Women Doing?

The question posed is, in essence, what is going on here, and what are those women up to? It's a bit longer than that, but this is the gist.

Given the context of this week's analysis and the readings, this image is probably from the 1919 Egyptian Revolution. The women in the picture are in the middle of some sort of gathering, and it appears that one is either preaching or reciting or participating in some way. This is how some may use the picture to say that women participated in the revolution. The leaders of this revolution, called Wafd, were a good bit more liberal than their contemporaries; these leaders were well-educated and open to a tolerant, harmonious way of governing.

The women may have been part of the spread of a petition concerning a consensus that the Wafd was recognized widely in Egypt as representatives. These representatives were meant to petition Woodrow Wilson for recognition of Egypt as independent.

18th and 19th Century Wars on the Middle East

The many wars on the the Middle East caused reforms, losses, independence, and nationalism. The reforms were often towards European ways of running a nation. In Egypt, Mahmet Ali learned ways from the French to build war factories and sent men to learn technical and military information. Ali also used the farmlands for cash crops as opposed to just subsistence. The Ottomans also saw reforms in their military, ruling powers, and government operations. Schools were created to teach medicine, and power was taken from the upper class and given back to the Sultan.

The reforms often came after losses, or sometimes caused the losses. The Ottoman reforms initially got the Sultan's family almost wiped out. The diplomatic connections that Ali had likely led to his withdrawal from Ottoman lands, losing him many lands and causing him to lose interest in reforms. In Persia, the reforms of monopolizing industries led to sell-outs to European investors.

Independence came in a handful of ways. After the French left Egypt, Ali removed the Ottoman governor and massacred the Mamluks. By the time of Ali's death, Egypt was its own nation. The wars also allowed Europe to pry Greece from the Ottoman Empire's hands. Christian rebellions tried to give them some sort of independence, but Russia moved in and put them back down.

Nationalism was an end result of the aforementioned events. Pan-Islam gained strength, although many other internal powers wanted more local power. Islam, therefore, had its own form of nationalism, but regional nationalism led to splits between Turks, Persians, and Arabs.

Europe and a Weakening Ottoman Empire

The decline of the Ottoman Empire is a matter of two causes, one of which eventually helped keep it protected. The first cause was the madness and poor judgment of some of the later Sultans. One Sultan drowned his 280 concubines, another insisted on leading his troops into battle against the Prince of Savoy which took from the Ottoman military prestige, and others were given to addiction to carnal desires and alcohol. The upside is that other Sultans came in and made reforms, as did Viziers, but the aforementioned issues did still aid in their decline.

The second cause, and also a solution to the Ottoman decline, were the powers in Europe. Austria was the constant nemesis to the Ottomans and wore them down frequently in battles over neighboring territories. Many nations like Spain and Britain found sailing routes around Africa, so they no longer needed to move through the Ottoman Empire, which also took from their economic resiliency. Russia was also pounding at their door with talk of pan-Slavic unity; Russia is why Europe decided to help the Ottomans.

Russia wanted Istanbul in a bad way, and their control would give their warships access to the Mediterranean, which would spell trouble for the rest of Europe. While Austria maintained their thorn-in-side status, Britain decided to work with the Ottomans to use steamships in the Fertile Crescent to make travels to India faster; this meant they needed the protection the Ottomans could provide. The French took it upon themselves to become protectors of the Middle East as they had the common rivalry against the Austrians; they were also almost as big on doing business with the Ottoman Empire as the British were.

The Ottoman Crisis

Of the many things that caused a crisis for the 18th century Ottomans, the first is the state the military was in. The Janissaries were not keeping their training up and had made drastic changes in their living arrangements, such as living outside of the barracks, marrying, or even finding outside jobs. What is worse is the Empire only held one army instead of splitting up their forces, and were also only commanded by either the Sultan or his Vizier; only having one army was a large weakness because it meant they could only handle one war front and were open to two opposing empires squeezing them from two sides.

Connected to this is the strength given to the Janissaries through using firearms. The horseback soldiers did not use guns, so the Janissaries resolved to rise up and demand new privileges. This led to breakdowns and the closing of Janissary training schools.

Other issues come from the Sultan's decision to make the succession of Viziers come solely from the devshirme, a tax system that took Christian boys instead of money and trained them for military and administrative service. This threw off the balance between them and the class of ulamas (scholars who knew and interpreted Shari'a) and landowners. Coupled with the military issues, a single ruling class arose and it was able to utilize nepotism.

Other economic issues such as Europe's re-routing of trade routes around Africa and the influx of silver from America were also issues to consider. New merchants and artisans expanding from Europe proved to be harsh competition for the Ottoman businesspeople. Overpopulation was also a drag on the economy, as were overly conservative ulamas that banned printing presses and were constantly on the watch for anything that could usurp their power. Of course, this merely added to the issues discussed earlier.

Movie Review

I would like to start out by saying that I do not feel comfortable putting all of my views about this 'documentary' online because there are people out there who might react in a bad way to my comments. I have a freedom of speech, but I have a responsibility to keep myself safe.

With that being said, I took notes that total 500 words throughout most of the movie, but I stopped not too far after a few of the 'experts' in the movie justified terrorism. I have been formally trained to recognize and disassemble propaganda, and this movie would be one of the best to show for training purposes. The first issue I take is how some of the experts consulted are heavily biased against Israel; Noam Chomsky is not only frequently criticized as anti-Israeli, but also often seen as so far left that I'd the the Weather Underground would have feared him.

I add to this that only one of the consulted experts shown were Arab or Palestinian; there were plenty of Muslims and Jews, but they were all white, non-threatening types -- in fact, the one "non-white" person shown was a Muslim who could only BARELY be out of his teens, if that, and had an American accent, thus making him very non-threatening as well.

The movie also often contradicts itself, such as saying the American journalists only report from Jerusalem, and then later show DAN RATHER reporting from occupied territories. In the case of the American Media neglecting to put the reports into context, the movie doesn't have ANY EXAMPLES to show, while it bombards viewers with other so-called examples of media bias.

I take no issue with the Palestinians and their wish to be sovereign; Israel has even started trying to let them have their own government. I take issue with their elementary use of propaganda instead. Propaganda is not evil, but it works best when it is subtle at first, and this movie is far from that. It does not make me look twice at the news media, because the examples it uses are shoddy, and I have seen plenty of prime examples of pro-Palestinian stories. For example, the story of Israeli retaliation for "a few" rockets fired (try nearly one hundred the last I checked) and how devastating and terrifying it was for the Palestinian innocents. There was no mention of how the Israelis were destroying buildings that enemy fire came from and also leveling known stockpiles. Instead, the Palestinians merely fired a few rockets out of anger over a blockade while the Israelis bombed school-children and "peace officers."

I do not want this post to be seen as bias, but there is little I can do about it. I try to give all sides credit, but only when it is due. PS: I will be sending my other notes in an e-mail to the Professor, in case she wishes to read them.

Islam's Rapid Expansion

Why was Islam able to expand so rapidly early on?

The mercantile system in the region is a good reason. The Middle East is the MIDDLE for a reason, which is that many merchants had to travel across it to sell wares to the Persians and Byzantines on each side of the Arabs. Beyond this, in order to make deals with the Muslims, many non-Muslims felt compelled to convert so as to make the transactions smoother.

But there is more to conversion than this. The early Caliphs were smart enough to realize that the unified tribes, who were once enemies, needed their battle hunger channeled into a new direction: the northern settled lands and the empires on either side of them. From what I have read so far, the Middle East is the true birthplace of guerrilla warfare, and many of the Muslim armies were good at it.

Also helpful to the Muslim cause were two instances of discontent with the Byzantines and Persians. The first comes from Arab mercenaries that fought for either side; the Byzantines became unable to pay, and the Persians felt they were too rich to need mercenaries, so the Arab tribes quit and eventually converted. Added to this are the Copts and Jacobites, who were essentially heretics to the Orthodox Christians -- these people were tired of their status and allowed the Muslims to come in and take control of their homelands.

Not to be neglected is the fall of the Sasanid Empire, as well. This collapse allowed the Muslims to come into formerly Persian-controlled regions and take control.

Outside of these reasons, there were some forced conversions and the Caliphs' governments were great at bringing unity, but these factors seem to have less to do with spreading Islam than the previously mentioned causes.

Jihad for the Early Muslims

The question asked is if Jihad was necessary for security for the early Islamic community; also asked is what Jihad was to them. Jihad was very important to the security of the early Muslim BECAUSE OF what it meant to them.

The early idea of Jihad was a fight against temptations and improper living, among other things, and these religious laws brought unity amongst tribes that were enemies at one time. Necessity is another story, though; perhaps Jihad was key to the earliest years of Islam, but after the relatively rapid unification of the Arabs, Jihad became more important to spreading the Muslim empire. In fact, many non-Arab converts made the change for trading purposes, and conquered Christian and Jewish communities of the early empire were not converted.

A Question of Reform

The question posed is how Islam's introduction to the Arabian Peninsula can be considered progressive; the answer is in what they brought to the Arab tribes. The first item was unity amongst tribes and cities as a new nation. Making the language more universal was also a great help, as was bringing universal law.

The long-and-short of how Islam helped the Peninsula is seen in the various forms of unity it brought. The follow-up question asks if Islam was a religion of reform, and to a degree it was, but in general it was really a religion that helped bring reforms. When it comes to worship and language, Islam was a religion of reform, as it brought new ideas and ways. On the other hand, women were still subjugated and non-Arabs, against Muhammad's teachings, were still considered unequal.

A Review of the Last Sermon from Muhammad

This sermon caught me by surprise, I must admit. I expected a two-hour reading filled with the typical religious chatter with perhaps some talk of how to convert "non-believers." This sermon was full of respect for all people, which is not common in the context of the time.

Given the readings for this module, the sermon is highly important: we are covering that point in time where Islam began, and the whole later life of Muhammad is spent starting the Muslim faith. The audience is clearly the followers that came to hear his sermon, and the subject of the sermon is also very clear; Muhammad wanted to outline some things for his followers to remember after he was to pass-on. He reminded them of everything from equality between Arabs and non-Arabs to how to properly treat wives.

One of the issues discussed by Muhammad is that of interest accrued with Muslim debtors. It is taught that believers should not take usury, and Muhammad not only talks about how all Muslims should waive their interests, but he also states that his uncle's interests are waived. This is a good way to give an example for future and current generations.

The astounding part about this sermon is the fact that is seems to be without bias. Muhammad's sermon discusses that wives are to be treated well for being good wives, and equality amongst races is preached as well. An issue of contention comes from the statement about Arabs and non-Arabs being equal; many could assume that Muhammad meant Muslims and non-Muslims, but this is not what he says, therefore his words are left for interpretation.