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.

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.

26] Impasse and New Intifada

TBA.

25] The Peace Process

Comment on the following articles:

a) Principles of a Peace Agreement-- Oslo, Norway.
b) Yitzhak Rabin, "The Price of Occupation,"
c) The Taba Negotiations

24] Transformation of Palestinian Politics

Comment on the following articles:

a) Yasser Arafat, "We recognize Israel'
b) Hannan Mikhail-Ashrawi, "The Meaning of the Intifada"
c) Charter of the Islamic resistance Movement of Palestine (Hamas)

23] Reaching for Peace: United Nations Security Council Resolutions

Chapter 23. Reaching for Peace
by Marco Mua

After the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars, the UN passed two resolutions in order to create peace. These resolutions remain unimplemented. Also, Israel and Palestine interpret the requirements of the resolutions very differently.

UN Resolution #242 was passed in 1967. It stated that Israel must withdraw from occupied territories. The problem with establishing peace is that UN resolutions are written in ambiguous language that can be interpreted very differently from various parties. The UN did not state which territories Israel is supposed to withdraw from. Israel interprets resolution 242 as meaning that Israel has to withdraw from some but not all territories.

Israel feels that they already met the requirements of the resolution by returning the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. Instead, the Palestinians interpret resolution 242 as requiring Israel to return the Golan Heights to Syria, and return all of the West Bank and Gaza strip to Palestinian control. I want to add that even if this UN resolution was written in less ambiguous language, it would still be irrelevant because the UN has little power to enforce their resolutions. The UN cannot even enforce their resolution pertaining to the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

The UN ruled that Eritrea had to give up the small and poor town of Badame to Ethiopia. Eritrea refused to give the town up, and the UN has not been able to enforce their ruling on the border dispute. If the UN cannot enforce resolutions between 2 poor African nations, then they certainly won’t have the power to resolve anything in the Middle East.

UN resolution #338 calls upon a cease-fire between Israel and Palestine. This is impossible. Palestine will continue to launch suicide bombing attacks against Israeli citizens. They will continue to do this as long as their land is occupied and their communities continue to get bulldozed by Israeli’s. Palestinians are sick of living in an open-air prison environment that resembles a refugee camp.

Many Palestinian homes are bulldozed by the Israeli military. That is what’s causing the anger. They are being humiliated by an outside force in their own land. Unless this changes, then the suicide attacks will continue. Of course, Israeli will continue to attack Palestinians since innocent Israeli’s are getting blown up on buses and in cafes. The closest these two sides came to peace was when Israeli Prime Minister Rabin recognized Palestinian self-government in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Unfortunately, Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated. Prime Minister Sharon succeeded Rabin and is a well-known hawk. Sharon has rapidly expanded Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land, which is causing even more violence and resentment. Recently, Sharon uprooted most settlements on the Gaza strip and returned the entire Gaza strip to the Palestinians. This is not as significant as it sounds. The Palestinians gain valuable coastal land from the Israelis. However, the Israeli still control the airspace, borders, and ports. Israeli fighter jets still fly over the coastal strip. I’m guessing Israeli’s economy will continue to benefit from the Gaza strip, while Palestine will remain poor.

In conclusion, I feel the Israel/Palestinian conflict has been prolonged due to American interests in the region. As I mentioned in class, America openly supported Iraq during the 1980-1989 Iran-Iraq war. America supported Iraq, while they were secretly supporting Iran at the same time. America wanted to prolong the war and ensure that both sides would be tremendously weakened as a result of the long fighting.

The US did not want to see a winner. They wanted to prolong the war for as long as possible. The weaker the Middle-East is, the more control the US will have over valuable Middle-Eastern oil reserves. It seems to have worked for the US. The Middle-East is still underdeveloped and weak today. Especially Iran and Iraq. That allows for the US to dominate and control Middle-East oil. With that being said, I strongly believe the US has the same goal in regards to Palestine. Israel is an American weapon that is used to further weaken the oil-rich Middle-East. Israel exists in order to weaken the Middle-East and to prevent further Middle-Eastern sovereignty.

22] Arab Assertions: Out of Despair Revive Nationalism

Comment on the following articles;

a) Nizar Qabbani, 'The Catastrophe of Arab Defeat"
b) Palestinian National council, 'The National Charter"

21] The Creation of the State of Israel

Comment on the following articles:

a) UN General Assembly, "The Partition Plan: Resolution #181'
b) UN General Assembly, "Palestinian Right of Return; Resolution #191"
c) The Israeli Knesset, the Law of Return

20] Palestine on the Eve of World War II

Comment on the following articles:

a) Ted Swedenburg, "The Palestinian Revolt, 1936-1939"
b) The Arab Response to the Proposed Partition of Palestine
c) The British Government's White Paper on Palestine
d) The Biltmore Program

19] The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate Period

Comment on the articles below:

a) The Balfour Declaration: A Jewish Home in Palestine
b) The General Syrian Congress, "Our Objection to Zionism and Western Imperialism"
c) James Ramsay MacDonald, "Letter to Chaim Weizmann"
d) Vladimir Jabotinsky, "Let us Settle Palestine and Transjordan'

18] Zionism

Comment on the two articles below:

a) Theodore Herzl, Zionism: The Vision of an Eventual Jewish State
b) Rashid Rida, "Pay Attention to Zionist Encroachment,"
c) "Tiberias, " Warning of Zionist Colonization

17] Sluglett and Farouk-Sluglett, "Divide and Rule in British-Controlled Iraq"

Post comments here.

17] Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Divide India; Create Pakistan

Post comments here.

15] Challenges to New Nations: Afghanistan, Turkey, and the Fertile Crescent

Please post article summary and your thoughts here.

14] Vahakn N. Dadrian, "The Fate of the Armenians in World War I"

Post comments on this article.

13] Conflicting Promises During World War I

Comment on the following articles:

1. Sharif Husayn ibn Ali, "Desire for Arab Independence"
2. Sir Henry McMahon, "Qualifying British Pledges"
3. "The Sykes-Picot Agreement on Dividing Up Arab Lands"

12] Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, "Plan for Islamic Union"

Comment on this early idea of/for an Islamic union/unity.

11] Social and economic Change in the Ottoman Empire

Comment on either one of these articles:

1. Suraiya Faroqhi, "Ottoman Peasants"
2. Hanna Battatu, Political Centralization in Iraq and Kurdistan
3. Donald Quataret, "Manufacturing Workshops"
4. Alexander Scholch, "European Trade with Palestine"

10] Decrees from the Ottoman Tanzimat

Decrees From the Ottoman Tanzimat
by Marco Mua

The Tanzimat was an Ottoman reform movement that occurred between 1839 and 1876. The Tanzimat reforms were known as a reordering. These reforms included civil, economic, educational, and politial decrees within the Ottoman empire. Ottoman reforms were brough on by Ottoman bureaucrats familiar with developments in the West. These reforms aimed at creating a centralized Ottoman administration. This was very shrewd so that the Ottoman empire could try and maintain control over it’s expanding empire. Of course, the Ottoman empire eventually collapsed under its own weight!

In order to centralize control, the Ottoman empire conducted tax assessments, employed tax collectors, secured land titles, and revamped the courts. Of course, tax collection is the key to maintaining and expanding the empire thru the collection of revenue.

In order to solidify and legitimize the empire, the Ottomans realize that they have to keep the majority of it’s citizens happy. If the citizens are happy, then they can further produce revenue for themselves, and of course the empire. This sounds like America! As a way of protecting the people, the Ottoman Empire issued the Ottoman Bill of Rights in 1856. This showed the willingness of the Ottoman state to embrace and protect it’s non-Muslim population as full citizens. There was strong protection of persons and property during this reform period. It was also legal for foreign ownership.

Three main parts of the reform movement are summarized in the Gulhane Proclamation of 1839:

1. Guaranty insuring to our subjects perfect security for life, honor, and fortune.
2. Regular system of assessing and levying taxes.
3. Levy of troops. Strong property rights. Public servants must receive a good salary.

In conclusion, I feel that the Ottoman reform movement was an excellent way to improve living standards within the empire. If you want to improve a nation or an empire and increase prosperity, the nation must start by protecting the rights of it’s citizens. Without strong protection of property rights, where is the incentive to work hard and build? The protection of property rights greatly increase prosperity and the overall national economy. That was a great aspect of the Ottoman reform movement.

Currently, the poorest nations in the world include those nations who have little to no property right protection. The Ottoman reform movement knew that the best way to solidify their empire was by protecting and enhancing the rights of the people. This was shrewd. This was most impressive since this empire was constantly being weakened by powerful British imperial ambitions.

In the face of the British threat, the Ottomans were able to build a modern transportation, communication, and education system. Eventually, the British and other western nations dominated industry and technology, while a Muslim nation such as Ottoman Turkey, was left behind in technology capabilities. In the future, I want to study how and why this occurred, and what the Muslim world is doing to branch this divide.

9] Suraiya Faroqhi, "Ottoman Women's Lives"

Comment on Suraya Faroqhi's view of women during the time of the Ottoman Empire

8] Debate on the Persian Conquest of Kandahar

Post comments on the debate between Shah Abas and Emperor Janahgir.

7] ibnu Khaldun, "Effective Rule"

Post comments here, on Ibnu Khaldun's idea of effective rule.

LECTURE #3: COMMENTARIES

We read the following articles:

• "The Quran and other Islamic Texts"
• "Shiite and Sunni views on Political Legitimacy"
• "Abu Ali al-Husayn ibn Sina (Avicenne): The Ideal Muslim Intellectual
• "Rabi al-Adawiyya al-Qaysiyya, A Woman's Voice in Sufi Poetry
• Abu al-Rayhum Muhammad ibn Al Biruni, A Muislim Scholar Examines Hinduism
• Disasters Strike the Muslim World

Please provide summaries as well as comentaries.

LECTURES 1 and 2; Commentaries

Comment on the first two lectures on The Middle East. Some of the enduring questions are:

• What perspectives might be useful in studying the Middle East?
• What issues must we highlight in our analyses?
• What is your perception of the forces and issues?
• How is the Middle East a major locus of origin of our complex world systems of conflict?

INTRODUCTION

Course Description

In this graduate class in political science, we will explore the concepts, perspectives, and possibilities of progressive change in this geographical region called “The Middle East”. By concepts I mean the phenomenological constructs such as “wars”, “revolutions”, “regional, inter-state, and intertribal conflicts”, “spread of Americanization”, and “interventions by other superpowers”, “ resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism” and “the impact of globalization and communications revolution” that have characterized the nature of the region.

We will explore the issue of state sovereignty vis-à-vis shifts in global and geo-politics. We will utilize the tools of global cultural analysis – issue of power, control of resources, ideology, knowledge/power, and discourse of modernity and postmodernity in looking at the complexity of the region. Our approach will be transdisciplinary and kaleidoscopic but not far from looking at the primacy of the human self as the "maker of history"

Along the way, we will learn the skills of analyzing the region, specifically appplying the tools of political-cultural analyis foundationed upon the study of totalitarianism. In our explorations, we will bring our biases and prejudices, and what we hold as "objective view" of the issues -- we will examine analyze these too and construct newer understanding of the themes of inquiry.

At the end of the course we will hopefully have achieved the following:

1)Introduced to the issues, forces, and institutions of the Middle East

2) Explored history the region from the perspective of the interplay between technology and culture.

3) Analyzed the source of change and conflicts that have characterized the region historically and that continue to shape the character of future changes.

4) Analyzed both from the point of view of country study as well as from the thematic and transnational perspectives the changes and continuities in the region.

5) Engaged in critical discussions of the issues, forces, and institutions that impact the region.

6) Discerned similar patterns of conflict in international relations.

7) Produced scholarly writings that address a major phenomenological construct set forth at the beginning of the course, using tools of cultural analysis learned.

We will read primary texts to arrive at a basic understanding of the region; texts such as speeches, declarations, resolutions, etc.

Supporting Online Sources

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/mideast/cuvlm/region.html (Area Studies Resource)
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/mideast/cuvlm/ (Resource Page from Columbia University)
http://meria.idc.ac.il/research-g/research_guides.html
http://meria.idc.ac.il/us-policy/policy.htm
http://meria.idc.ac.il/books/free-books.html
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/mideast/cuvlm/Graphics.html (Images)
http://www.zmag.org/meastwatch/photos.cfm (Photos from Z-NET)
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/empireindex.htm (On Empire)
http://first.sipri.org/ (database)
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/index.htm (Terrorism)
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/967715B8-276C-4708-AC08-7FD102E13BA7.htm (Arab Reform)
http://www.globalisationguide.org/sb01.html (On Globalization)


Supporting Online Audio-Video Sources

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage (Al Jazeera)
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/54C8AFC7-8C97-4C4F-B38D-D41E6169C42E.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/default.stm (BBC News)