Tuesday, November 15, 2005

FINAL PAPERS: Forces and Issues in the Middle East

Post edited papers here.

On Hannah Arendt's "On Totalitarianism"

Post comments here.

On Hardt and Negri's Empire

Post comments here.

36] The Historical Context: The West and Islam

The Historical Context: The West and Islam
by Marco Mua

Bernard Lewis and Edward Said are both intellectuals who have opposite views regarding the relationship between Islam and the West. Lewis strongly believes in Samuel Huntington’s assertion that the major source of global conflict in the future will be cultural. In actuality, Huntington’s popular writings were derived from Lewis’s work! Lewis felt that the Islam versus the West would be a major source of conflict. On the other hand, Said feels that Lewis’s views regarding Islam and the West are much too simplistic.

Lewis points out some interesting historical events. He says that there was violent conflict between the Protestant and Catholic sects of Christianity during the 16th and 17th century. The conflict was violent and intense. Christians believed in crushing or killing non-believers. Violent conflict could be avoided only by depriving religious institutions of their power. This led to secularization which removed religious power from government power. Both powers were separated.

Lewis mentions that Islam was very tolerant during historical times. Islam was tolerant to those who had alternative religious beliefs. Therefore, Lewis felt that there was no need for secularism in Islam. I disagree with that point. Turkey had a need for secularism, which derived from their historical experience. Lewis’s points are way too simplistic.

Lewis mentions that historically, the Islamic world emulated and admired the West. During modern times, admiration of the West has changed into an attitude of hostility and rejection. Lewis does a good job of explaining why this is the case. He mentions that western-style economic methods brought poverty in the Middle-East. Western-style political institutions have brought tyranny and oppression to the region. This resulted in a desire for Islamic rule and institutions.

I agree with Lewis in regards to why the Islamic world switched from admiring the West to rejecting the West. I would like to add that Western institutions and political structures that have been imposed on the Middle East are designed to serve the West! No wonder why Middle-Easterners reject western institutions and values.

These western values are imposed on the Middle-East in order to serve the West. In other words, economic and political structures are designed to give America and Great Britian control over oil and other Middle-Eastern resources. These structures are designed to benefit Western politicians and corporations! That is exactly why most Muslims turned to Islamic institutions. The trouble with this is that Islamic leaders are not well educated in finance or science. They are only educated in Koranic studies. Most religious leaders weather they are Jewish, Christian, or Muslim are poorly educated. That is why I believe their power should be curbed or put in check.

Said disagrees with Lewis on one key point. He disagrees with Lewis and Huntington about Islam and the West being the main source of future conflict. Said feels that generalizing people into such simplistic categories such as the West and Islam, is way too simplistic. He feels that the reality is much more complicated. Said believes that identity and culture are hugely complicated matters that cannot be generalized into the categories of the West versus Islam.

The major conflict in most cultures is in regards to how to define and interpret each culture. Huntington puts civilization and identity into simplified groups. This has allowed for imperial conquest and religious wars to take place. Politicians make these simplified generalizations in order to mobilize collective passions in order to support political ideals. A good example of this is George W Bush stating, “You are either with us or against us.”

Said did an excellent job of pointing out that Huntington and Lewis’s view of the
West versus Islam is way to simplistic. It is also very dangerous. Said believes that education and learning about why other cultures favor certain systems is a good way of preventing future conflict. That will make it harder for politicians to convince us in supporting war and violence. Said makes a stronger case the Lewis.

The West and Islamic world isn’t as different as politicians make it out to be. American Idol is obviously a Western creation. On the BBC I saw pictures of Libyan idol! Gaddafi personally approved this. It is too simplistic for Lewis to say the Middle-East completely rejects the West in modern times. Many Middle-Easterners watch American movies, listen to American music, wear European and American clothes, and eat fast food. I agree with Said’s assertion that the world is too interconnected to have such a blatant cultural divide as the West versus Islam.

Future sources of conflict will continue to be over natural resources such as oil, water, and cultivable land. The world is too interconnected for cultural conflicts. Whenever there is a cultural conflict, it is usually caused by politicians trying to advance their interests. It does not occur on it’s own. The imaginary Shia versus Sunni divide is an example of this. Said understands that the reality of the world is disorganized and complicated, while Lewis’s world view is overly simplistic and not grounded in reality.

35] The Policy Debate

Post comments here.

34] The Threat of Osama bin Laden and American Responses

Post comments here.

Terrorism, War, Global Responsibility

Post comments here.

33] Modern Islamic Radicalism

Post comments here.

32] Early Ideologues of Islamic Radicalism

Post comments here.

31] Egypt and Lebanon: Secularism and Confessionalism

Post comments here.

30] Wars at the end of the Twentieth Century and the Beginning of the Twenty-First

Post comments here

29] OPEC and the World Economy

Post comments here.

28] Intervention and Revolution in Iran

Post comments here.

27] U.S. Presidential Policies, 1947 - 2002

Post comments here.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

PROPOSALS: FINAL PAPER TOPICS



Please post your outline for your final paper. Others will comment.

CRTICAL REVIEW PAPER 2: Empire, a critical analysis





I hope you had a wonderful time reading the text.
Please post your review of Empire in this thread.

CRITICAL REVIEW I: FOUNDATIONAL PAPERS




In the comment box, please post your first critical review paper.

The Gaza Withdrawal: Comments by Pavel Shub

MIDDLE EAST ASSIGNMENT 5
by: PAVEL SHUB

Posting 1

Now that Israel has completed its withdrawal from Gaza and Western donors have began funneling funds into the Palestinian Authority, optimists believe themselves justified in seeing these developments as the beginning of a viable Palestinian state. Similarly, pessimists observe the expansion of existing Israeli settlements in the West bank and increased Israeli presence in East Jerusalem as yet another example of Israeli duplicity condoned by the “Imperialist West” bent on the seizure of the valuable petrochemical resources so prized by Arab nationalists. While pundits and demagogy debate which of these views is more correct than the other, the PA is concluding deals with the usual array of French, German, and Russian, arms dealers to supply it with armored vests, armored amphibious personnel carriers, infantry weapons of all calibers and sizes, and enough ammunition to engage even the best armed military. Purely offensive in nature, these weapons signal the imminent escalation of tensions within Gaza that will prompt ever greater responses from the IDF.

According to the PA all of this firepower is necessary to enable it to effectively combat Hamas and Hezbollah radicals who continue to attack Palestinian police and its supporters within the PA. While Mahmoud Abbas continues to call for a cessation of violence at home and more aid from abroad for the construction of viable infrastructure for the new Palestinian state, potential donors and would be neighbors are frightened by the rising provenance of Islamic extremists who use Marxism-Stalinism to justify their wanton rampages through Palestinian towns and the recently abandoned Israeli settlements.

Given that the current phase of the U.S.-led war on terror will not subside for at least two more years and that economic aspirations will continue to supplant ideological considerations among the citizens of the disparate Arab states, it is not implausible to consider the possibility of a bi-lateral PA engagement of Israel within the very near future. At the moment roughly two thirds of the Palestinian population are 25 or younger almost equally divided between men and women. While most of these youths lack the skills necessary to readily assume their place within a modern high tech economy, the presence of such an economy and the requisite educational institutions within Israel could aid in the requisite deradicalization of the Palestinian public. Should the Palestinians discard the destructive ideologies of the past and finally direct their energies toward the much wanting reconciliation of the differences among the disparate Palestinian factions, the goal of peace within the Middle East would be much closer to reality than it had ever been before.