Reflections

As I finally settle down from the stress of finals, I wanted to reflect on my last semester, specifically what I have gained from the class and how I am looking forward to using my knowledge in the future.

I am incredibly thankful Professor Webb took the time to teach this class. It was a genuinely strong learning environment. I appreciate the way the class was structured, personally I am more of a sit in lecture and take notes kind of girl. However this was more of an application class, taking what we had learned and applying it to situations, specially the second half of class. Sometimes I found this to be a bit difficult, but I would believe that is due to the fact that I have never had a class structured this way and this was also the first time learning this information. I have studied the Kuwait War and Saddam Hussein in other classes but the level of analysis is what made the class different for me. However, often times I felt mildly out of place in the class, being only one of the two sophomores in the class was quite intimidating. Being surrounded by Middle Eastern Studies majors and International Studies majors (with their concentrations in the Middle East) often led to a feeling in in-superiority. I certainly don't think anyone in the class thought less of me because of my age or grade year but their knowledge certainly outshined mine and I was left with a feeling I couldn't contribute. Sometimes, I will blame myself, I am often to scared to speak what I am thinking for fear of being wrong and embarrassing myself and as I am growing older this thought is certainly fading away however still prevalent in classes where the majority of people are older. Honestly though, I really did learn much from the course. I would argue that my writing has improved immensely.

While the class was writing intensive, I am so happy that we blogged instead of composing weekly papers or something awful like that. Blogging allowed me to be more free with my thoughts and really give my opinion and not just research or regurgitate information the professor had taught us. Blogging in this class has inspired me to keep blogging and I have opened a new blog so I can keep posting my thoughts for all of the internet to see and read, hopefully someone will be interested. I didn't understand the value of presentation until this course. The way we present information affects the way it is perceived and understood. I apologize for my lack of info graphics on this post, I am not quite sure how to post a picture being thankful unless I use a shameless selfie of me giving the thumbs up sign because I am happy with everything I have learned and accomplished from this semester (I feel as though that might be a tad embarrassing).

I didn't just personally grow from the course, my knowledge about how international relations has grown as well. I believe I have gained enough information to apply levels of analysis to different scenarios around the world. Not only that, but I have gained more insight on the history of the Middle East and how often issues of today stem from yesterdays solutions.

All in all, thank you Professor Webb and to all my classmates from the knowledge I have gained from you this semester and the enjoyment I got out of the class. I wish you a great next semester.

Sincerely,
Danette

I must keep blogging!

As we are getting to the end of the semester, I realized my blogging as lagged a bit. However the news in the Middle East has not. I think one of the most exciting and contentious bits of news (not that I am understating the mass murder of Syrian citizens and the bombings back and forth by Israel and Palestine are any less interesting) is the status of Palestine.

The UN General Assembly recently voted and gave Palestine Observer State status, however this doesn't do much physically it lends itself to legitimacy in name.  Giving Palestine this legitimacy is mildly concerning to me. A UN mandate is what officially created the state of Israel. While I am all for a two state resolution, I don't believe Palestine should have gained the legitimacy it now has until a two state solution has been established. I feel as though this means any group of organized individuals who want a state in an area that already been established as a state can gain Observer status from the UN. I think this could be applicable to the Kurds in Northern Iraq, or the Northern Council in Italy or even the people of Catalonia from Spain. These are all independent groups of people who want freedom from the country they currently preside in, however they don't gain Observer status form the UN.

I understand that Palestine was once a state, but as we have talked about in class borders are arbitrary, often drawn by colonial powers to strategic purposes. Who is to say that long ago the people of Catalonia or the Kurds of Iraq didn't once have their own state but due to borders are now confined and chained to an arbitrary state.

I also think it is interesting that the United States threaten to pull foreign aid from Palestine if they ever applied for a higher status in the UN. However when Palestine did apply Congress threatened to pull the aid and then the President requested they didn't. Also quite humorous was I thought some of the article titles regarding the elevated status of Palestine. Many writers referred to this as a blow to the U.S. and to Israel. I agree with it being a blow to Israel but to the U.S. not so much. The U.S. still has the veto power, so therefore Palestine will never reach higher than observer status (unless there is a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict).

My Ode to last semester

Last semester I took a class called Islam in the West. This class was the epitome of making you feel bad for loving the movie Aladdin. We discussed heavily the book Orientalism by Edward Said and as Alex can tell you it was a topic that we didn't let drop for the rest of the semester. I bring this up because of a recent article published by Al Jazeera called "Orientalism with a Surgical Twist". I personally have an issue with the idea of Orientalism and the idea that it still exists. I will agree that Orientalism did happen, but to give this notion a thought in modern day culture, I will argue that it is not prevalent. I would say that it is safe to assume as a small child the majority of us watched Disney movies and we all wished that we could find a prince like that some day. We admired Mulan's courage, Ariel's voice, Belle's beauty and of course that Jasmine got a tiger AND a magic carpet. Even though us young girls fantasize about these princesses we grow and realize how unrealistic that is. We understand that when you travel to the Middle East there aren't actually Sultan palaces and women don't walk around with a pet tiger and bare their midriff in some silky sheer get up.

                                               ^This isn't real life...I know, shocker.

This article suggests that the New York Times wrote a piece suggesting Beirut is the "new Paris" of the Middle East. I would beg to differ. Beirut is modernizing in the same sense that Dubai or Abu Dabi is. Comparing Beirut to Paris is a way of perpetuating this idea of Orientalism but Beirut is no more sexualized and bronzed than the beaches of Israel or Egypt. This article also talks about how this brand new, refurbished downtown over shadows the neglected and over crowed Palestinian refugee camps, but this is no different than any other city in the world. New York City has its homeless begging in the streets and cardboard box houses spring up each night and are gone before dawn.

This idea of Orienatalism once used to define the Middle East, but I believe it does no longer. The Middle East is making a name for itself through technological innovations in their building to their mass production of oil. The Middle East no longer has to adhere to these ideals that it was sexualized and contextualized through these French poets years ago. Through the convience  of travel these days also visually seeing what the Middle East looks like also helps negate the idea that Orientalism still exists.

This is the link to the article I read: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/201210311055370407.html

Photo Cred: http://www.fanpop.com/spots/princess-jasmine/images/7219364/title/princess-jasmine-photo

Individual

To discredit the impact of the individual in international relations is a severe misstep. When looking at the different levels on analysis there is an individual level for a reason. The individual is what makes up International Relations. Individuals set borders, individuals control resources, individuals make laws and polices and individuals are ones interacting with each other. From a hand shake to a signature, individuals are shaping international relations every day. It is through actions of an jihadist bomber or a Secretary of State, these such individuals make a decision that will affect international relations.

Past and Present there are individuals who are or have contributed to international relations, Hitler, Joseph Kony, Woodrow Wilson, Osama Bin Laden, Bashar al-Assad, and Iranian President Ahmadinejad are just a few examples. Sadly, it seems as though history remembers those who had a negative effect on International Relations (or those who had a fix a negative situation as in the case of Woodrow Wilson). But these negative people have had profound impact on international relations. They have set the stage for world wars, civil wars, genocide and some are still in progress of leaving their mark on international relations (a potential threat of nuclear war). However their decisions have engaged the rest of the world and affected everything from the economy to every day life. They have set new protocol, changed international norms and one could argue have helped set up international institutions such as the United Nations.

But as demonstrated by the picture below, international relations is like a puzzle, there are many pieces to this puzzle. These pieces consist of individuals, institutions, and states but they all fit together to make up the larger picture of international relations.

picture credit:
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1517&bih=714&tbm=isch&tbnid=f4P_PVfVGLTO3M:&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handshake&docid=A-XE_ieA918WxM&imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Handshake_(Workshop_Cologne_%252706).jpeg/170px-Handshake_(Workshop_Cologne_%252706).jpeg&w=170&h=170&ei=YxWSUPWDD47O0QHGuIHoDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=216&vpy=229&dur=206&hovh=135&hovw=135&tx=91&ty=61&sig=116686464983634084211&page=1&tbnh=135&tbnw=135&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,i:151

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1517&bih=714&tbm=isch&tbnid=yCGp-Q-48Zie-M:&imgrefurl=http://www.farmequip.org/committees/international_relations&docid=n4wh_Gj5_NQrXM&imgurl=http://www.farmequip.org/imgupload/international.jpg&w=283&h=424&ei=fxWSUMbpGdPV0gH8iYCoBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=366&vpy=150&dur=1&hovh=275&hovw=183&tx=86&ty=104&sig=116686464983634084211&page=1&tbnh=145&tbnw=96&start=0&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,i:89

Israeli Security

In the past few weeks there have been several clashes between Iran and Israel, which seem to only be increasing tensions in the region. Giving a background of these issues would be a good idea before I delve into talking about analysis and international repercussions. On Saturday October 6, 2012 a drone entered Israeli airspace and was downed by the Israeli military. It was claimed by the government that this drone was a drone from Iran who was targeting Israeli bases. Iran claims no ownership to this drone that was launched by the Lebanese Hezbollah movement because they are stating that they have more sophisticated technology than the drone that was shot down. There are two article links below that explain further on the topic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/28/iran-drone-israel_n_2034381.html#slide=1631287

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/iran-drone-photos-israel-bases_n_2038168.html

The second issue of contention between Israel and Iran in the past few weeks is a claim that Israel in an air strike blew up an Iranian arms factory in Sudan on October 23, 2012. This supposed claim comes at an interesting time because this factory has been known to support the Hamas through Iran and at the time Israeli forces were/are fighting with the Hamas in Gaza. Israel and the United States both regard Sudan as a terrorist-sponsoring state and Israel flat views Sudan as an enemy because of their direct coordination with Iran.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-tinsley/sudan-yarmouk-compound-_b_2029808.html
(I'm fully aware of how much I love Huffington Post and use them a a reference)
http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/sudan-blames-israel-for-strike-on-munitions-plant-promises-retaliation/


These events have several repercussions for Israel and in the grand scheme the international politics of this region. The second issue is easier to look at the consequences of the action. Israel has been coy to deny or accept involvement in this air strike. However Arab countries are still looking to find the terms in which to condemn Israel for their supposed involvement. Iran has promised retaliation towards Israel, this could have dire consequences for the world. Iran's government has openly voiced their disdain for the Israel state and has stated goals to destroy the country. This air strike by Israel could be the spring board Iran was looking for. With the added tension from striking down a drone that has ties to Iran relations between the two countries are reaching a pivotal point. I am curious to see how Iran will respond or whether it actually will because Iran knows that Israel is backed by the United States. Is mutually assured destruction enough to sway Iran's agenda away from destroying Israel. Personally I don't think Iran will make a move, I feel as though there is much talk however no action. I hope that whoever the next President might be, they will look into establishing relations with Iran, because I firmly believe that Diplomacy not force is going to be the best way to solve these problems.

picture from: http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1517&bih=714&tbm=isch&tbnid=JJYCIU0daeIDSM:&imgrefurl=http://distortedmedia.blogspot.com/2012/01/real-truth-about-iran-and-us-relations.html&docid=uOgZfxRYXnHqvM&imgurl=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH1nZY0Ny_Xwr4KjU1F4klC8geDHLuKtoqohwyemOeGBBgF8bOYcs_tDBIPPYynHbuvcFF2Oz9CvkNpAww9dW4DDeF2ITqKdzq_1dIcml9kIK_v-canS6WRF_Umb4xK6lDzJoEMXz7YQg/s1600/pic.jpg&w=482&h=300&ei=j1WQUPvpEoK_0AH7t4DYBA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=190&vpy=128&dur=1&hovh=176&hovw=285&tx=152&ty=84&sig=116686464983634084211&page=1&tbnh=138&tbnw=225&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,i:137

Blame Game

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/clinton-benghazi/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

In the article above from CNN, Senator Clinton is taking the blame for the Benghazi attacks and the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the other U.S. civilians. I find it interesting that on the eve of the next presidential debate Secretary of State Clinton is taking responsibility for the security of diplomats. I am wondering how much of a scapegoat this is for President Obama. I think it is interesting to see the actions of abroad play such a strong action in our local politics of the election. I am curious to see how Candidate Romney is going to use these attacks against President Obama and how President Obama is going to respond now that there has been public admittance for blame.

Water Battles

This article that I have posted isn't entirely connected to the Middle East, however it does pertain to the ideas we talked about about the beginning of resource week. Currently right now, there is a water war raging between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan as Tajikistan's president Emomali Rakhmon is in the process of building the world's largest dam over the Amu Darya Tributary. This article states how downstream Uzbekistan is complaining about the unfair advantage that Tajikistan will now have over the waterway. Islam Karimov, who rules Uzbekistan is quoted in the article "This project could cause not just serious confrontation but even wars." As we read from Dolatyar and Gray, who argue that water scarcity has never caused war, might just be proven wrong in the months to come. Theoretically  this dam is being built to provide the hydro-electrical power needed to stop the frequent power shortages of Tajikistan. However, several other dams have been built with the same intentions but have yet to proven fruitful in ending the power crisis. There have been several supposed actions taken by Uzbekistan to harm and "punish" Tajikistan for their dam building such as, mines along the border, halting of commercial traffic, and blowing up of a rail bridge. I can however tie this article into the Middle East because NATO forces are concerned over this matter especially because these two countries supply for the war in Afghanistan and its crucial that it stays that way for a NATO withdraw from Afghanistan. This withdraw is set for December of 2014 however this dispute could erupt into something significantly larger scale and cause set backs for more then just building production. I've attached the article if you are interested in reading.

http://www.economist.com/node/21563764

Got the picture on the top at http://peakwater.org/tag/rogun-dam/